kq2dc7

I thought that today I would be able to make up my mind between the two today at the trek demo rides.

Trek Stache 9. Something and a Fuel ex. Both were carbon and had similar setups. I came away wanting both. Since I'll have to choose I think I'll stick with the hardtail.

Steve B.

What’s the terrain ?, rocky, technical ?, sketchy uphills ?! maybe calls for a FS.

I stopped using my 26” FS as I didn’t need FS for mostly flat and rolling hills, roots and few rocks, twisty ST. Instead went to a Specialized Chisel as it accelerates better, climbs well, is lighter and only need a front suspension. I’m also 63, been riding mt. bikes for 30 years but the terrain doesn’t kill me.

Every case is different and is specific to the need.

grubetown

Any reason not to get full suspension?

Steve B.

They cost more, they weigh more.

If you have the money and can get a FS that’s under 30 lbs, go for it.

Or if the weight doesn’t bother you.

If you do a lot of long rides, multi hour things, in technical terrain, lots of downhills, sketchy surface climbs, than a FS is a better choice.

kq2dc7

I will be turning 57 in a few weeks. I don't really see me riding extreme technical or big jumps. I like riding moderate trails with some rocks and roots. I'm not sure I would need a FS and I really liked 29+ stache.

LesterOfPuppets

I have a 27 lb FS and a 24 lb HT. The FS is faster most of the time. HT is only faster in the really smooth stuff, and really long gravel road climbs.

Kapusta

I am 52, and my back greatly appreciates FS whenever it is rocky or rooty.

I love riding HT and rigid, and have often had one as a second bike to switch things up and make things interesting, but I can only do so much of that.

But it is really up to you. Nobody can guess which you will prefer.

Regarding weight, as long as it performs well and is spec’ed decently, don’t sweat the number on the scale too much. I have done plenty of epic length rides on a 32 lb FS bike.

WFdave

I'm 58 and just got back into MTB last year. After riding a friends full suspension I was sold on FS, When not on tough trails I find the ride a lot more comfortable. Sure it's a bit heavier but the trade off was the right one for me.

If it was just about performance I might go with a hard tail and get the best fork, frame and components I could afford.

I ended up with a Scott Spark 960 on a closeout for $1200. For the performance I couldn't be happier and love the fork and shock lock out. Have since fitted a dropper post. The carbon version was very tempting but couldn't justify the additional cost for the riding I do.

PaulRivers

I bought a full suspension but wished I had stuck with a hard tail. My full suspension clearly ate some of my power pedalling. It's one more thing to have to fill/adjust every time you ride. It's more expensive.

My personal experience.

Leebo

Full sus does not take away pedaling power. Lets you go faster over the tech, bumps and chunky downhill. Good reason for N+1.

PaulRivers

Full suspension definitely eats some pedalling power, it's just a question of how much.
They specifically design more advanced rear suspension systems to try to reduce how much power is lost.
There is an argument about how you can lose power with a hardtail when the rear of the bike comes off the ground where the full suspension bike keeps the rear tire connected to the trail.

But there is no doubt that rear suspension eats some of your power on flattish terrain.

Leebo

^^^ Not quite following you and this myth. Often quoted. Science and facts? Where does the little bit of sus movement translate to something to do with pedaling? Rear sus keeps the rear wheel planted for better traction. Especially in the rocks and chunk.

Kapusta

The In the strictest sense, suspension movement can eat some power.... this is part of the reason you do not see it being used on road or even gravel bikes much, and when you do, it is minimal.

However, the equation changes once there are bumps involved.... you know, like mountain biking. Flat, up, down, whatever.

The traction issue (which keeps power going to the ground) has already been mentioned.

The other issue is that with a suspended wheel, the whole bike does not need to be lifted over a bump, just the wheel (and part of the suspension).

The underlying reasons that suspension makes you faster over non-smooth ground is fundamentally the same as why lower pressure tires do.

sputniky

If you have to fill/adjust something on your bike every time you ride you're not doing it right.

PaulRivers

If you believe air shocks and tires don't need to have air added to them, I do not believe you've done any biking in your life.

sputniky

I got my first bike with an air shock in 1997.

I didn't have to fill/adjust it every time nor have I had to fill/adjust any of the subsequent dozen or so air shocks or forks every time I ride.

Same for tires. My tires hold air very well and they don't need to be filled/adjusted every time I ride.

"It's one more thing to have to fill/adjust every time you ride."

Again, if you have to fill/adjust something on your bike every time you ride you're not doing it right.

Kapusta

Sounds like you had at the very least a faulty shock, and possibly a bad full suspension design.

Steve B.

Just curious if FS bikes of the last 5-10 years are better at reducing chain induced rear suspension activation, than my ‘04 Specialized Stumpjumper FS ?. Are the newer FS bikes so good that there’s no activation from pedaling ?.

My ‘04 was noticeable that it is not as fast an accelerating bike as the 2 HT’s I own, one a new Spec. Chisel.

Thus is the reason I would recommend an HT under certain conditions, besides the fact the HT’s are generally lighter at a similar price point, that lower weight being noticeable.

PaulRivers

Right...

I bought a full suspension mountain thinking full suspension was inherently "better" around 10 years ago for $1,500. Was a bit shocked at how much power I was clearly losing when riding on flat ground with the shock on vs shock locked out. In a ride with other people I was biking as hard as I could and couldn't keep up with them without them slowing down for me.I remembered I could lock the shock out, and suddenly I had no problem keeping up with them without even trying very hard. It was that big of a difference.

You bring up up good points in your post, but -

I don't spend much time on racing so I googled it:
https://www.active.com/running/artic...ull-suspension
"...One thing is for certain: More than a decade after full-suspension bikes started popping up in World Cup cross-country competition—think Henrik Djernis and his BMW-Proflex team of the mid '90 - they're (full suspension) still the exception at the highest levels of cross-country racing."

They may have improved rear suspension but it sounds like hard tail is still usually a hair faster even on super expensive bikes with pro riders, for the most part.

For casual riding just pick whichever would make riding more enjoyable for you. But for me I wish I had gone with a hard tail, it would be less hassle when I go riding as I find needing to top off the air shock every time a bit annoying (needs an extra shock pump), and I prefer the more connected-to-the-ground feeling of a hard tail. Also hard tails are much cheaper to buy.

sputniky

LOL!

Air shocks do not need to be topped off every time you ride. It sounds like you are just really confused. When you attach your pump to "check" the pressure before every ride the hose fills with air from your shock and can read 10-20 psi low. Which means you have to pump it up. This is user error on your part.

Again, if you have to fill/adjust something on your bike every time you ride you're not doing it right.

Signed,

The last time I topped off my shock was after I did maintenance on it about six months ago.

p.s. also funny is the fact that in rough terrain, FS provides a more connected-to-the-ground feeling. That's what they're designed to do after all...

WFdave

I check my shock and fork air pressure once a month.

I agree the older FS bikes would bob up and down when pedaling hard and some designs were worse than others. What I like these days is the ability to lock out a shock when climbing giving me the best of both worlds. To be honest I thought having the ability to lock out a shock was a gimmick at first but for me I use it all the time.

Leebo

They run hardtails at those wimpy XC race courses, more like smooth 'cross race courses. I check my air shocks maybe once a month. Basic suspension from 10 years ago? Like a phone or computer from then, an antique. So many settings and adjustments these days, preload, small bump, amount of travel, low and high speed compression etc. The point is to run what ever bike suits you. the trail and your needs. I have a hardtail fat bike, 2 rigid 29ers, a full sus 29er and a hardtail 26er and a cross bike. All see trail time. And bikepacking too.

subgrade

For one, that linked article is ten years old (going by the races it mentions), and suspension design has come a long way since then. If you watch any of the XC world cup races today, you'll see that FS bikes are in large majority. That probably has to do also with the courses becoming increasingly technical. Even the Absa Cape Epic, which is a week long marathon event and has much less technical features than XCO normally does, had only FS bikes in all the top spots.

Anyway, even that 10 year old article finds that FS bikes are faster than HT despite what the perception tells us.

Kapusta

Rear suspension design has changed a lot since 2004. Even bikes that use the same basic design (Horst Link) as that bike bob MUCH less today. But even in 2004, that design was not one of the more efficient ones. It had other advantages (remained very active when pedaling over bumps) but it relied heavily on shock damping to control bobbing.

Do bikes today have NO suspension activation? No, there is still some, but it is much, much less. One of the things that has helped is that as drivetrains have moved from 3x to 2x to 1x, the chainlines are far more consistent at the crank end, and this makes it easier to tune the suspension path with fewer compromises.

Kapusta

That article is either out of date or just plain wrong about what pros use. Anyone who knows anything about xc racing knows that short travel FS bikes are very common in pro level xc racing. Take a look at these bike check-ins from 2017 and 2018:

https://www.pinkbike.com/news/5-cros...tter-2018.html
https://www.redbull.com/gb-en/racing-xc-mountain-bikes
https://bikerumor.com/2017/05/25/pro...oke-prototype/

Of course, this will be course dependent. Some courses are rougher than others. back in the 2000's I remember pro XC racing getting a bad rap for many of the courses being too smooth and non-technical. This really came to a head when people started riding competitively in some XC races on CX bikes. My understanding is that the pro circuits have gotten more technical to more accurately reflect what mountain bikers typically encounter on real world singletrack. Every local XC race I have entered or volunteered for has been WAY more technical than what I used to see the pros often racing on.

As far as your own experience: There is a lot that is off, there.

For one, any decent modern air shock (since the early 2000s) from the major manufacturers (e.g., Fox, Rock Shox) do NOT need to be filled every ride. Unless you have a bad seal, they really don't lose air at all. I've been running air forks and shocks since 1997. A few of the forks from the 90s (Mag 21, Z2 Superfly) did lose air, but nothing put out since 2000 has. Once I have my pressures set, I check them maybe every 5-10 rides, and I cannot remember EVER losing pressure. Even over a long winter my shocks are right where I left them, or pretty darn close. As someone else mentioned, when you hook up the air shock pump, the pressure drops as the air fills the pump. That may have been what you were seeing. Otherwise, you just has a very faulty (or unmaintained) shock.

As far as going from not being able to keep up to hanging with ease? Unless you are talking about riding on pavement or really smooth trail AND a really crappy suspension design and/or blown shock damper, Something ain't right, there. You did not mention what bike and shock you had.

Yes, full suspension does require more maintenance. Shocks need servicing every so often (I lube the air cans about once every year) and pivots do wear out and need bearings replaced.... some faster than others. Some go many, many years, some notoriously bad designs go out in a season.