Mountain Biking - All the pros seem to race hard tails. Where are the dual boingers boys?

At the World Cup in Madrid that is. Every photo I saw on the Velo News website (6-8 shots) showed pros on hard tail MTBs, not a dual suspension rig in sight. Is that typical for pro racers these days? Does it vary with the terrain/course? One women racer there even had a Seven Ti hard tail. Pretty cool.

Given all the hype I hear about dual boinger MTBs that surprised me. At the end of the day a light, good climbing hard tail MTB might be faster in many situations I suppose. Dual suspension is great, but that's a few pounds you have to drag up every incline. I have been told that dual boingers climb better in many situations by keeping that rear wheel planted better. So go figure.

All the harder core MTB dudes I know are dual suspension fans. Pcad is a total MTB idiot and rides a hard tail.

-Course dependent
-Weight-watching


There are some pros that will almost always use full suspension, but I don't know a whole lot oabout the professional XC racing world. Like in road, pros don't always make the most logical equipment choices, I guess. They're paid for their legs and lungs, in many cases.

I saw Eatough out for a joy ride and he was riding a hard tail. One of the big things i think is that even XC'ers when they go downhills like to hit some stuff and really enjoy what they worked so hard to get up to. But for the pros biking is an every day event, they go past a drop and dont really mind riding right past it. I guess for me it could be best related to going skiing in Canada for three weeks on the same mountain, by the time the last week comes, you dont push it you just cruise down the mountain, you have done it all before. Since FS are usually for comfort when going over technical stuff, i suppose the pros would rather go for speed then hitting that kind of stuff over and over.

A lot of xc racing courses are really tame, technically, compared to the trails that many of us non-racers ride on out in the real world.

Since I don't have $20k to spend on various bikes, I need a decent do-it-all bike.. which for me is a lightweight fs bike.

A lot of xc racing courses are really tame, technically, compared to the trails that many of us non-racers ride on out in the real world.

Since I don't have $20k to spend on various bikes, I need a decent do-it-all bike.. which for me is a lightweight fs bike.

All you really need is a nice Ritchey seat post.

a hardtail with a carbon post and tubeless tires will do fine in most XC conditions. i've noticed that the more fit i am the easier it is to ride a hardtail. right now, i need a duallie!!!

For XC racing purposes, a HT is usually a lighter, faster choice - especially when you consider that most xc races are won on the uphill, not the down (they're LOST on the downhill - when the racer crashes!)

I'm not suprised that a hardtail is a faster choice on some of these race courses. What does suprise me is that we don't see more pros riding full suspension on these courses, even though it's the slower choice. After all, racing isn't about winning, it's about advertising and I'd assume sponsors would want to advertiser their more expensive, assumably higher profit FS lineup more than their hardtails.

All the "dual boingers boys" are in Maribor this week.

dual boinging is a marketing scheme/ fad that was perpetrated on us MTB folks by 'Big Bike' in an effort to further soften our pudding like mid sections. Being 7/8's roadie already, and exhibiting high levels of self loathing in regards to weight, the XC pros are the first who are waking up to this fact.

I'm not suprised that a hardtail is a faster choice on some of these race courses. What does suprise me is that we don't see more pros riding full suspension on these courses, even though it's the slower choice. After all, racing isn't about winning, it's about advertising and I'd assume sponsors would want to advertiser their more expensive, assumably higher profit FS lineup more than their hardtails.

Sponsors would still rather their riders do well... only the top few get their shots on velonews or cyclingnews or pez.

You will find a mixed bag here in north america, since some of our courses are faster on a FS (like mt. snow, mont st. anne, etc). But the courses in europe are exceptionally tame, especially on the ups and flats. They throw in some techy downhills every now and then, but not enough to warrant a FS. In racing, a hardtail is usually just as fast going down, so the only advantage of a FS is if there are flat or uphill sections that are very rough - the FS allows a racer to sit and keep momentum.
Europe as roadified their xc racing, which I think is lame. There were a few big races last year where guys won on cross bikes... that's just wrong.

Was watching some mtb world cup races online, and technically i could ride it, except maybe 1 section per course.

There were sections on road, fire road, gravel, dirt path, grass.

Kinda different than watching road racing in which i know there is no way in hell I could survive the same course (ie alp d'huez) as the pros.

There's a reason the pros hated coming to WV to race NORBA at Snowshoe... and it was the technical, rooty, rocky, bumpy stuff which comprises an average WV xc race trail.

Because as some others have alluded to, many of the upper level and world cup races are fast, fast courses, with much less hard technical riding involved then smaller series and many local races. And in comparison to the trails that many of us ride for fun rather than racing.

Caveat: there are some very techy XC courses out there, but they seem to be the exceptions.

So if the pro racers are the "cool kids" of the mountain bike world we should all seek to do what they do. Why not? We buy all the gear. We should also stick to the fire roads and the non-technical trails too. :)

There's a reason the pros hated coming to WV to race NORBA at Snowshoe... and it was the technical, rooty, rocky, bumpy stuff which comprises an average WV xc race trail.

That and we had to run half the damn thing every year because of the mud.

All you really need is a nice Ritchey seat post.

:roflmao::roflmao:

a hardtail with a carbon post and tubeless tires will do fine in most XC conditions.

I agree ... except for the carbon post part. Do a blind test with all other variables equal. You will not be able to determine if the post is carbon or any other material. Just try it before you dismiss the idea.

I do the same thing (blind test) with domestic beer. I laugh every time somebody says "I can't stand (insert bland domestic beer here), I only drink (insert bland domestic beer here). I then challenge them to a blind taste test. I've not lost yet. :D

... Brad

I"m no expert on the matter, but I too suspect the Euro XC race circuit trails are nothing compared to things we mortals ride on a regular basis.

dual boinging is a marketing scheme/ fad that was perpetrated on us MTB folks by 'Big Bike' in an effort to further soften our pudding like mid sections. Being 7/8's roadie already, and exhibiting high levels of self loathing in regards to weight, the XC pros are the first who are waking up to this fact.

Dang right. In fact I always hated the term All Mountain. The fastest bike for a complete ride including uphills and downhills is an XC bike so that should be called "All Mountain." And as discussed, the fastest of the fast bikes for complete uphill and downhill courses are almost always hardtails. Full suspension is just a way to make riding easier, but not necessarily faster. Oh, and it's a good way to convince someone to spend 3k+ on a bicycle with 37 bushings or bearings that need regular service at the LBS.

I think these new full suspension setups are ridiculously expensive, weighty, hideous looking setup and maintenence nightmares that ought to ride the bike for you for all the time and money you sacrifice. Yet in acutality, on all but some rare oddball trails they don't even make your ride any faster at all.

Dang right. In fact I always hated the term All Mountain. The fastest bike for a complete ride including uphills and downhills is an XC bike so that should be called "All Mountain." And as discussed, the fastest of the fast bikes for complete uphill and downhill courses are almost always hardtails. Full suspension is just a way to make riding easier, but not necessarily faster. Oh, and it's a good way to convince someone to spend 3k+ on a bicycle with 37 bushings or bearings that need regular service at the LBS.

I think these new full suspension setups are ridiculously expensive, weighty, hideous looking setup and maintenence nightmares that ought to ride the bike for you for all the time and money you sacrifice. Yet in acutality, on all but some rare oddball trails they don't even make your ride any faster at all.I sincerely hope that nobody listens to or takes you seriously in person either.

I sincerely hope that nobody listens to or takes you seriously in person either.

I sure didn't. The pro's will race the duallies when the track dictates it. And they'll be faster on the duallies than the hardtails on those tracks.

I did my first race event in the WI WORS series last weekend. Most every Comp and Elite rider was on a hardtail. You really didn't need a full suspension bike on this course. I have a Cannondale Rush Team Replica bike that I race, but I just purchased a 2000 Kona Ku hardtail to play around with. I'm taking the hardtail next time to the trail I frequent the most and I'll be shocked if I set a new PB on the Kona. Maybe I'll take both bikes and time myself doing some hill repeats and see which bike is faster.

I did my first race event in the WI WORS series last weekend. Most every Comp and Elite rider was on a hardtail. You really didn't need a full suspension bike on this course. I have a Cannondale Rush Team Replica bike that I race, but I just purchased a 2000 Kona Ku hardtail to play around with. I'm taking the hardtail next time to the trail I frequent the most and I'll be shocked if I set a new PB on the Kona. Maybe I'll take both bikes and time myself doing some hill repeats and see which bike is faster.

I raced my XLT last year during the SSG here in KS. I took 1st place in my semi-pro class. (I was the only one in my class:lol:)

I DID get beat by 1minute by a long legged hick in the class 10yrs older than me, hahahahha.

All the "dual boingers boys" are in Maribor this week.

This is true, and on fire with Atherton just taking himself the hotseat.

Dang right. In fact I always hated the term All Mountain. The fastest bike for a complete ride including uphills and downhills is an XC bike so that should be called "All Mountain." And as discussed, the fastest of the fast bikes for complete uphill and downhill courses are almost always hardtails. Full suspension is just a way to make riding easier, but not necessarily faster. Oh, and it's a good way to convince someone to spend 3k+ on a bicycle with 37 bushings or bearings that need regular service at the LBS.

I think these new full suspension setups are ridiculously expensive, weighty, hideous looking setup and maintenence nightmares that ought to ride the bike for you for all the time and money you sacrifice. Yet in acutality, on all but some rare oddball trails they don't even make your ride any faster at all.

:roflmao:

evidently you're not a fan of FS, eh?

I thought the difference between XC and AM riding was the amount of abuse the bike and rider take. AM = more intense, vs the "light" XC stuff.

I'm going to disagree with M S, pro's make extremely rational decisions - they have to. The problem is that the information that those decisions are based upon is not always obvious. For racing, a HT generally does make more sense. If you're already out of the saddle hammering the suspension is much less important than if you're 25 pounds overweight and rolling over roots with your butt planted. Same thing as with gearing, a lot of pro MTB racers run fewer gears than the rest of us. Different courses, fitness level and riding style.

This is the thing that's hurt road cycling and kills road bike sales, the needs of the racers are very different from the rest of us. Yet, manufacturers find it easy to advertise "just like the pro's ride" to people who don't realize that is the last thing in the world they need. So people buy an inappropriate bike and neglect it.

Emulating racers isn't the best approach for a guy of moderate fitness who rides with the club for fun and likes scaring himself on the terrain. So far MTB riders have been smart enough to not fall into that trap and ride what suits their course and needs, not someone else's. If the pro's were just riding what the sponsor wanted to sell, you'd see more boingers out there.

+1. My goal on rides is certainly not to go as fast as possible, but rather to enjoy myself.

I have also recently read that pedaling efficiency is better on a FS since the line of the rider's momentum stays more parallel to the trail as the suspension sucks up bumps/rocks/etc. Only in situations of quick, uneven force would this cease to be true: i.e. standing and mashing on the pedals (which XC racers do often) but there is of course technology to offset this such as Fox Shox's propedal. Most XC racers ride HTs because it is what they are used to, and often against the advice of their higher ups (or so I read).

But whatevuh. Ride whatever the heck you want. And then go burn one and chill the heck out.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech/2008/probikes/?id=eatough_trek_vw08

Eatough at Moab

http://www.trekbikes.com/images/2007/10/15/161014_1577558873_00bf7fc071.medium.jpg

I guess the question I have is, how bad does it have to be before a FS becomes a really good idea.

I raced the Cascade creampuff 100 in 2003 on a Litespeed HT - the down hill kicked my but, but I finished in just over 12 hours. This year I'll be racing the same race on a 2008 Enduro Carbon 6" travel - I expect to be faster - hoping for sub 11 - if it was a 50 mile race I'd definitely go with the HT - but for 100 I'd rather push a bit more weight, lose a little efficiency (what I lose on the climb, Ill gain 2X on the downhill), and gain a lot less fatigue.

evidently you're not a fan of FS, eh?


Just curious why more pros don't use it. FS seems like overkill for me, but in all fairness how would I know? I never rode it. The weight and complexity don't appeal to me, and I enjoy a light hard tail. But maybe I'd like it much better.

Just curious why more pros don't use it. FS seems like overkill for me, but in all fairness how would I know? I never rode it. The weight and complexity don't appeal to me, and I enjoy a light hard tail. But maybe I'd like it much better.

I think he was replying to biknbrian.

What should a race equipped HT weigh vs a race equipped FS bike? 3-5 lbs tops?? What's the loss in pedal efficiency between the two? I have an RP3 Fox rear shock so I can lockout the rear travel if need be. If I need to pedal out of the saddle, my efficiency is lost more through the lack of rear traction than the fact that I'm riding a FS bike. How do you figure fatigue from a HT into the equation? If a front suspension bike is better than a completely rigid bike, then why wouldn't a FS bike be even better?

Christoph Sauser used to ride an alloy Cannondale Rush, and I think races an Epic now. Tinker Juarez switches off between a Scalpel and a HT in 24 hour events.

Pcad, you need to demo a good full suspension. Es mas delicioso! I think an Epic would suit your style very well. Ride up and its basically a hardtail. Ride down and its magically comfortable. Fricken science and **** man.

Of course, I suck at descending, so I need all the help I can get.

What should a race equipped HT weigh vs a race equipped FS bike? 3-5 lbs tops?? What's the loss in pedal efficiency between the two? I have an RP3 Fox rear shock so I can lockout the rear travel if need be. If I need to pedal out of the saddle, my efficiency is lost more through the lack of rear traction than the fact that I'm riding a FS bike. How do you figure fatigue from a HT into the equation? If a front suspension bike is better than a completely rigid bike, then why wouldn't a FS bike be even better?
If 4" of travel is better than 2," why wouldn't 8" be even better?

So yeah, kind of silly logic.

Other than that I have no comment, except to say that I could definitely see the advantage of a full squish on a lot of technical climbs and downhills.


Part of it may also be familiarity. Ride characteristics of hardtails are pretty much a known quantity. Just speculation on my part.

Also, who's that pro who's riding the newer Litespeed full suspension? I'm betraying my complete lack of knowledge about the professional XC world, but I hear he never uses a hardtail.

If your body is the engine, why not let it be the suspension. Maybe riding a FS makes the trail easier, but a motor would sure as heck make a ride easier. There is more to mountain biking than just pedaling and steering and letting the bike do the rest. If I can't make a hard tail do it then I just have to get better.

If your body is the engine, why not let it be the suspension.......... If I can't make a hard tail do it then I just have to get better.

When you get older and your knees and lower back start causing you problems, then you'll begin to appreciate a FS bike:)

I know I'm faster going downhill on my FS than I was on my HT. Same trails, mostly the same parts just a new frame. Yeah, yeah and a NOS fox shockie. Going up? little slower on the boring grind bits but better traction on the technical stuff, am I pleased I did it? Hell Yeah!

When you get older and your knees and lower back start causing you problems, then you'll begin to appreciate a FS bike:)

Amen to that one brother. Yeah, at 15-early 30s, we can get by on the HT and I did. I raced and won my last race on my HT. With 3 miles to go, my lower back felt beat up. The next day, I was mobile but felt like I had been hit by a truck. My doctor, who also rides, gave me the "you're not a kid anymore" speech.

The HT has been on the work stand ever since while I've been enjoying 5" of Stumpjumper goodness. The last time I rode it, the 16 year old kid took his Giant HT and I had the stumpy. He kept up with me in the fast sections fine. When it turned technical, I blew his doors off. He also raced and won his with HT the last race while the Epic sat and sulked.

Typically, I ride my HT in the winter months and I'm fine. It's race speed and the technical trails that make things very interesting for my back.

Of 10 racers from our last race, 7 podiumed.

7 of them were on HT. The three that didn't? They were on FS.

In the fall, we all will race together again. The trail will be more technical and we will all be on FS but one.

On 12 hour endurance races, FS.

So yes, it is course related.

I am absolutely amazed that there is this much debate on the subject any more in this enlightened age. It has pretty much been conclusively proven in timed tests that the same rider on the same course will turn in faster lap times on a full suspension than a hardtail - - even when he 'feels' like he is being faster on the hardtail.

As for your question, Spongedad, of 'how bad does it have to get?' for FS to give the advantage: unless it is completely buff, featureless, relatively flat single- or doubletrack, the FS is going to be faster.

The reason there are pros still on hardtails was alluded to earlier: most NORBA National-level courses are not very demanding. Add to that the fact that many of these racers are ex-road bikers and/or still train a lot on the road - - AND have their own set of prejudices, years-ingrained training rituals and superstitions - - and you have a lot that are still on hardtails because "It works for me."

To break it down:
Decending: especially in technical terrain, hands-down advantage to FS.
Climbing: not having to pick lines around obstacles, to have the suspension takes care of small-bump absorption, keeping the tire in better contact with the ground - - thus being able to take more aggressive, direct lines without the worry of pedalling energy being deflected or diffused by terrain features - - advantage again to FS.

I just went to fs after over 15 years on a hardtail. I can say without a doubt that I am faster overall on my local trails, which involve a lot of climbing.. and obviously a lot of downhill. I would never go back to ht.

If 4" of travel is better than 2," why wouldn't 8" be even better?
Also, who's that pro who's riding the newer Litespeed full suspension? I'm betraying my complete lack of knowledge about the professional XC world, but I hear he never uses a hardtail.

Geoff Kabush from Team Maxxis maybe?
http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech/2007/probikes/?id=geoff_kabush_litespeed_sewanne

But yeah, many top level pros opt for full suspension. I forgot about Adam Craig...Anthem advanced.

Geoff Kabush from Team Maxxis maybe?
http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech/2007/probikes/?id=geoff_kabush_litespeed_sewanne

Yup, that's the guy. Thanks.

If your body is the engine, why not let it be the suspension. Maybe riding a FS makes the trail easier, but a motor would sure as heck make a ride easier. There is more to mountain biking than just pedaling and steering and letting the bike do the rest. If I can't make a hard tail do it then I just have to get better.


Wow thats deep....

I'd agree that I'd probably love a FS. But I know me, then I'd want one that weighs 23 lbs, that means a $7K MTB, I can't ever justify that. I saw that Fly Ti for $1900, and I figured 'hey, a new schwag pro level hard tail for less than a set of Zipps, why not?'. I'm a Road Nazi who goes in the woods for laughs. Loving that Fly Ti boys.

I am absolutely amazed that there is this much debate on the subject any more in this enlightened age. It has pretty much been conclusively proven in timed tests that the same rider on the same course will turn in faster lap times on a full suspension than a hardtail - - even when he 'feels' like he is being faster on the hardtail.

As for your question, Spongedad, of 'how bad does it have to get?' for FS to give the advantage: unless it is completely buff, featureless, relatively flat single- or doubletrack, the FS is going to be faster.

The reason there are pros still on hardtails was alluded to earlier: most NORBA National-level courses are not very demanding. Add to that the fact that many of these racers are ex-road bikers and/or still train a lot on the road - - AND have their own set of prejudices, years-ingrained training rituals and superstitions - - and you have a lot that are still on hardtails because "It works for me."

To break it down:
Decending: especially in technical terrain, hands-down advantage to FS.
Climbing: not having to pick lines around obstacles, to have the suspension takes care of small-bump absorption, keeping the tire in better contact with the ground - - thus being able to take more aggressive, direct lines without the worry of pedalling energy being deflected or diffused by terrain features - - advantage again to FS.

First of all, where's this research? Second, what course? That makes a huge difference. If this was common knowledge, Pros would make the switch.
The original question was about pros racing in europe. On 9 out of 10 UCI world cup courses in Europe, a FS will never, ever be faster because the courses are tame. It's physics - even the most efficient FS (even one that is locked out) doesn't hold a candle to a stiff hardtail in terms of power transfer, and on the majority of European UCI courses that is all that matters. Those courses are smooth on the flats, smooth going up, and techy going down where a skilled rider will lose minimal time on a HT. Trust me, I've ridden quite a few of them.

...... Trust me, I've ridden quite a few of them.

I can't trust you. How do I know you won't lead me astray?

First of all, where's this research? Second, what course? That makes a huge difference. If this was common knowledge, Pros would make the switch.
The original question was about pros racing in europe. On 9 out of 10 UCI world cup courses in Europe, . . .It's been at least three years ago now that MBA did a pretty comprehensive test using riders ranging from Sport to pro on an established SoCal course. And, because it being SoCal, you know we are not talking anything super-technical now are we? Lap times were recorded and FS times consistently clocked lower than hardtail across classes.

As far as not making the switch when faced with hard evidence, just look at yourself - - facts have never deterred you from believing what you want to believe. And the hard-core elite XC racerboy crowd is second only in anal retentiveness and parochialism to elite roadracers. As I said before, they feel faster on a hardtail, so it's the old "it works for me, why change?" syndrome.

As for WC courses in Europe being buff, I recall watching a race on OLN a couple or three years ago and there were PRO MEN dismounting and running down a gnarly little technical descent/switchback. I nearly laughed my ass off. Just think how much faster and more efficient they would have been had they been on even a 3-4" travel machine and stayed on the bike and cleaned the section. Many riders would have picked up five or six places right there.

It's been at least three years ago now that MBA did a pretty comprehensive test using riders ranging from Sport to pro on an established SoCal course. And, because it being SoCal, you know we are not talking anything super-technical now are we? Lap times were recorded and FS times consistently clocked lower than hardtail across classes.

As far as not making the switch when faced with hard evidence, just look at yourself - - facts have never deterred you from believing what you want to believe. And the hard-core elite XC racerboy crowd is second only in anal retentiveness and parochialism to elite roadracers. As I said before, they feel faster on a hardtail, so it's the old "it works for me, why change?" syndrome.

As for WC courses in Europe being buff, I recall watching a race on OLN a couple or three years ago and there were PRO MEN dismounting and running down a gnarly little technical descent/switchback. I nearly laughed my ass off. Just think how much faster and more efficient they would have been had they been on even a 3-4" travel machine and stayed on the bike and cleaned the section. Many riders would have picked up five or six places right there.

Does anyone seriously believe the WC MTB pros wouldn't be riding FS if they were faster than hard tails on the courses they race on? That sounds like the odd arguments saying clinchers are faster than tubulars even though 90% of UCI pros are on sew ups.