Mountain Biking - Importance of rear suspension?

NUB ALERT


Why is it important to have dual suspension? BMXers have 0 suspension and constantly jump and put their bikes through hell. Why should it be any different for a mountain bike?

Will the suspension actually increase the possibilities on a bike, or will it merely increase the comfort level?

Thanks

Benefits of rear suspension include increased traction and stabler handling over rough terrain.

Benefits of rear suspension include increased traction and stabler handling over rough terrain.

Exactly this.

BMXers don't try to bomb their bikes down the stuff that fully's ride, it's a different kind of hit.

Do you see BMXs doing downhill? Or larger drops? Most BMXers only do Dirt jumps.

Or larger drops? Most BMXers only do Dirt jumps.

False.

False.

Ok, well. The non-crazy BMXers.

Benefits of rear suspension include increased traction and stabler handling over rough terrain.

Ditto!

BMX usually has a landing ramp and can be landed very smoothly. Sometimes in mtb you will jump with no landing ramp. Moreso a drop.

also, on a mtb in a natural environment, say a mountainside, speeds can be reached that are unheard of in the bmx world. At that speed, smaller obstacle can cause big problems, if you don't have FS

I've seen bmx'ers do some crazy jumps at the college where I work without a landing ramp.

"Benefits of rear suspension include increased traction and stabler handling over rough terrain"

That makes sense. I bought a hard tail and just wanted to see what kind of limitations I had in comparison to people with dual suspension.

FS is wayyyyyyyy over rated. It's just a marketing ploy devised buy Trekalized.

Plus you can say things like, "I got 10 inches in the rear".

>>> Plus you can say things like, "I got 10 inches in the rear".

OhhhhhhhKay. . .good point Junk'. . .plus if you're a BF50+ type, you'll appreciate being spared ricocheting up and down all day. . .and feeling like you got those 10 inches. . .the hard way. 'Course you don't have to be 50+ to appreciate that.

It depends on what kind of riding you plan on doing and how much you want to spend.

Re. price: I would not buy a sub-$1000 FS bike. Though I'm sure there is probably an exception to this, mostly with that price point you get mediocre components and mediocre shocks. You can buy a really, really nice hardtail for that price. I was told by a local dealer that the FS starts to get pretty good at the $1500 price point. To get a FS with equivalent components to my Caldera, I would have had to go with the Kikapu Deluxe, which would have been about $750 more (and I paid dealer cost).

Re. kind of riding: when I bought my Caldera, it was a do-all bike. It was my first 'real' bike; I have two wheel sets, one for MTB tires, the other for slicks. A hardtail makes more sense if one is to do any road riding. Before I got my CrossCheck, I put aprox. 3500 road miles on my Caldera. It handles well off road. It is a cross-country bike, so I can't say how it would compare if I did more downhill style riding (think all-mountain). I have also not spent more than 3-4 hours riding in one day, so I'm not sure how the comfort level would compare to an FS bike after 6 or 7 hours. In hindsite I am very happy with my Caldera, and am confident I made the right purchase.

is "Trekalized." supposed to be a combo of Trek and Specialized? I thought it was Cannondale that first experimented with FS?

is "Trekalized." supposed to be a combo of Trek and Specialized? I thought it was Cannondale that first experimented with FS?

Cannacruz?.......whooooooosh.

Plus you can say things like, "I got 10 inches in the rear".

Holy crap! I remember that.:roflmao:

Holy crap! I remember that.:roflmao:

Glad someone did.

I'm a XC guy. I only have 4" in the front.

And the rear.

On my R1000, I have none in the rear... or the front... or, um, er, uh. Nevermind.

I'm fairly new to Mtbing, and can relate a little to what you might be going thru.

My experience is that FS is much better all around. I was looking at HT at first because
1. I think they look better

2. I like to "think" i'm a purest but in fact I am probably the complete opposite.

3. price.

however once i rode a couple FS with the " lock out" and tried doing with the lock out on and off I could see how much better the fully really was. Over some really ruff area's the HT would hop and hit and bounce and would loose control where the FS would just absorb the hit and be much easier to control. Also when stoping on loose terrain the FS seems to grab better or absorb better as the HT would just lock and keep moving forward. I think if you have much experience on a hard tail and have been riding one most of you life then yeah it's probably the right move but otherwise I think a FS bike is the right choice. I couldn't imagine the type of trouble i would get into on a hardtail. wow some downhill stretches would of probably killed me! I know these are just a couple things but a FS with lockout I think is the best. Lcokout really helps when climbing.. etc..

I've ridden both and for my money, I'll go with hard tail every time. Unless you get a big money fully with a lock out for the rear suspension, you will have to deal with pedal bob, that is, when climbing, the rear squish will rob you of your pedal power. Also, I find that riding a hard tail will make you a better rider in the sense that you will be forced to pick your lines more carefully and navigate it more conciously, whereas with a full-squish you just bomb on down the hill.

My two riding buddies, one rides a dual squish Stinky and the other rides an old Chute and he's also had dual squish bikes(Stab Primo, Stab Deluxe, Stinky Dee) and both of them concure with my thoughts on this topic.

Of course, as I age (currently 32) on a big day of heavy mtn biking my back and knees kinda like the idea of full squish. On the other hand, my wallet and my wife both balk at the idea of yet another big money bike purchase, especially when I'm aiming at some motorized two wheel fun in the not too distant future.

Sorry for the essay, I tend to ramble somtimes.

Two good points made here:

1. It depends on your style of riding. I'd only recommend a FS bike if you need an FS bike. I've been riding east coast trails for 15 years. I started on a fully rigid Roackhopper in '92 and loved it. Yes, there were times and there were trails where I really wished I had some kind of suspension, but in '92 it was hard to come by and very expensive. Then I moved to a front suspension bike and still ride that bike. I don't do many jumps and think that front suspension can handle rocks and roots just fine, for the trails I ride.

2. A hardtail WILL make you a better rider, if you're just getting into the sport. I does make you choose a different line and it does make you think a little more while you're riding.

My advice, learn on a hardtail, then move to a FS if you think you need it.

A hardtail WILL make you a better rider

Heard this argument before, hehe.

A hardtail will make you a better "line picker"...not necessarily a better rider.

Hardtail?? Heck, I go fully rigid. Zero inches in the front and zero inches in the rear (kinda doen't make sense but oh well . . . ).

Hardtail?? Heck, I go fully rigid. Zero inches in the front and zero inches in the rear (kinda doen't make sense but oh well . . . ).

only fully rigid? pfft.

I have solid rubber tires on my rigid bike. No air. Air is for wussy

I just ordered a hard tail not really having a clue as to what I should have gotten. I went hardtail because it seems that you can get more bike for your money and seemingly less maintenance issues. Are there certain types of terrain which dictate what type of bike, FS versus HT, one should use or is it simply a matter of personal preference? I live in the foothills of the Appalachian mtns. so we have all kinds of terrain here. Thanks!

IMHO... You are going to be standing on technical and downhill sections, using your arms and legs for your suspension, no mater what type of bike you have. The beauty of the rear suspension is in all the rest of the ride, where you can sit comfortably while pedalling over smaller junk.

IMHO... You are going to be standing on technical and downhill sections, using your arms and legs for your suspension, no mater what type of bike you have. The beauty of the rear suspension is in all the rest of the ride, where you can sit comfortably while pedalling over smaller junk.

That's pretty much how I'm seeing it now.

My MTB only has a suspension fork and seatpost, which goes with the idea of, if the terrain is difficult enough, I'll be standing anyway; but if I'm just cruising, the seatpost absorbs the annoying bumps. I get the (relative) pedaling efficiency of a hardtail (but without a lockout fork, unfortunately) and comfort when I need it.

I think that FS is more of a benefit if I want to pedal harder/more often on difficult terrain. I'd figure that my hardtail would be moving too much.

I have non-suspensionless in the front and non-rigidless in the rear. That, combined with my clip pedals, and v-breaks (I only use the rear), means I can ride anything.

Plus you can say things like, "I got 10 inches in the rear".

Ahhh, okay...you'd have to be a little strange to say things like that...

" It's also a better workout because you get to experience pedal bob. (http://petefagerlin.com/video/fs.wmv)"

hmm, never really thought about it that way...lol

I remember last week there was a thread I said was the funniest....I take it back, this is. The misinformation and lack of knowledge is really comical. Some of the answers given were actually correct

I remember last week there was a thread I said was the funniest....I take it back, this is. The misinformation and lack of knowledge is really comical.....

What? On this forum? Nooooooooooo......

What? On this forum? Nooooooooooo......

I suppose the same could be said for any forum.

I think the funniest part so far is when people assume suspensions primary function is for drops..hahaha...

only fully rigid? pfft.

I have solid rubber tires on my rigid bike. No air. Air is for wussy

You rock!!

^yes

only fully rigid? pfft.

I have solid rubber tires on my rigid bike. No air. Air is for wussy

psh, rubber? Lame.

all the real riders run right on the rim.