Mountain Biking - Confused about mountain bikes

Hello,

I'm looking for a new bike and I haven't been shopping for about 15 years. I've been riding a 15 year old mountain bike but that was in the days before suspension (actually I think it was just coming out and people still weren't sure if it was just a gimmick). A lot has changed since then and I find the number of choices a little overwhelming.

I've looked at some of the choices available and see things like: XC, All Mountain, Downhill, 29 Inch, Free Ride and others. Can someone explain what the difference is between these types of bikes and what kind of riding they are meant for so I know what I should be looking for?

Also, if you can afford a full suspension bike is there any reason to get a hardtail or a rigid bike?

I'm looking for something for commuting and trail riding. Not real tricky trails, just bumpy or sandy or muddy and a few steep hills but nothing real technical.

Thanks.

Hi Chris,

Let me clear up a few of the terms you're not clear about:

rigid bike - No suspension at all (ie - what you have right now)
hardtail - Front suspension
full suspension - Suspension on the front, AND the rear of the bike

XC - Cross Country. General trails. This is a type of a bike that you should be looking for.
All Mountain - Similar to cross country bikes except they are slightly more burlier, usually are full suspension.
Downhill and Freeride - These bikes handle the stuff that's too insane to look at!

------

In your case, I think a hardtail will be best for you. However, I am not sure of your budget, or preferences.

Generally, full suspension bikes are heavier, more expensive, and are less efficient than comparable hardtails (I'm comparing dollar to dollar value here). However, they are more comfortable, and to some, more fun ;)

XC is basically what you've described. XC bikes are typically lighter weight than everything else, and aren't designed to take big hits. They go faster than anything else, and are probably your best choice. If you're going to be commuting and not doing very technical trail riding, I'd go with a hardtail. You probably don't need the full suspension for what you're doing, and you really don't want to commute on an FS rig, mainly because an FS bike will sap your energy due to the forces you put on the rear shock from pedaling, and also because they tend to be heavier than most hardtails. You can get a lot more bike with a hardtail than you can with an FS bike as well.

I'll briefly describe the different kinds of MTBs for you:

XC: Already told you...Made to go fast, but will exact a bigger physical toll on their riders if you're riding heavy duty terrain than anything else. Usually either a hardtail or a short travel FS bike (Short travel being about 3 inches.)

All Mountain: A cross between an XC/Freeride/DH bike. Designed to go anywhere and do anything, hence the term "All Mountain". Almost always FS rigs.

Downhill: Designed to go down a mountain as fast as possible. Can weigh over twice as much as an XC bike, not designed to be pedaled up hills. Designed to take massive hits. Usually quite expensive and worthless for everything but DHing. Almost always FS.

29 Inch: A niche market type of MTB, uses 27" road rims. You can go faster on roads and extremely smooth (we're talking dirt roads) trails. Wheels are generally no good for any kind of mountain biking, and finding wheel and fork parts for these monsters is usually difficult. Your front fork travel will usually suffer because of the 27 inch front wheel. In my opinion, a terrible idea for mountain bikes. Usually a hardtail, but sometimes you'll come across FS 29ers.

Freeride: Freeride bikes are designed to be jumped, hucked, and beaten up. Closely related to the DH variety, they're usually lighter weight and sometimes hardtails. Probably the most popular wing of MTB with the new generation just getting into it, however, not good for commuting or trail riding. Some people call it "Big kids BMX".

Hehe, man, in the time it took to write that essay, DMulyava answered all of his questions ;)

[QUOTE=chris hansen]
Also, if you can afford a full suspension bike is there any reason to get a hardtail or a rigid bike?

QUOTE]

Hardtails tend to weigh less and move a lot faster

Yeah, what they said...

For full suspension vs ht you need to know a lot about

a) what you have to spend
b) what you want to ride potentially
c) your own comfort (knees, back etc...)

Both offer different things to different riders. From what you describe I would say a HT, however, if you went on a 6 hour ride a good xc dually or a trail bike sure would feel nice on the rear end.

As for speed of both. They both offer different things in different terrains and can be equally fast depending on rider and terrain. Since you don't plan to race take comfort more into play as speed is relative :)

Hardtails tend to weigh less and move a lot faster

That depends upon the trail.

That depends upon the trail.

I was trying to let that statement go as he did say 'tend' ;)

Thanks guys!

It sounds like I'm looking for a XC mountain bike and it might not be worth spending the extra money on dual suspension. Maybe a 29 inch will be a good idea since I plan to do a lot of commuting and I have to do a bit of road riding to get to the trails around here? My wife has been able to keep up with me on her bianchi hybrid but since I weigh 50 pounds more than her I think I'd prefer fatter tires.

Thanks.

I agree, a XC bike is probably the right type of bike for what you've described.

Regarding a HT or FS, it all depends on your budget and riding style. We get a lot of these type questions from new bike buyers and for most people the answer is always a HT. However, if your budget is over $1,000 and closer to $1,500, then you will find FS bikes that are comparable in weight efficiency and durability. However, under $1,000 they tend to be heavy and made of inferior (or questionable) quality.

Now, if you can find a FS bike on closeout for under a grand then obviously that's an exception.

Good Luck!

L8R

I've found that if you have any back problems at all then a FS ride is easy on the spine and a BLAST going downhill! As for commuting, swap of your knobby tires for a set of slicks and commute away!

29 Inch: A niche market type of MTB, uses 27" road rims. You can go faster on roads and extremely smooth (we're talking dirt roads) trails. Wheels are generally no good for any kind of mountain biking, and finding wheel and fork parts for these monsters is usually difficult. Your front fork travel will usually suffer because of the 27 inch front wheel. In my opinion, a terrible idea for mountain bikes. Usually a hardtail, but sometimes you'll come across FS 29ers.

I'd agree with most of your answer, but I have to comment about the 29"er. You have bought all the misconceptions the bike mags put out about this type of bike. For starters, it uses a 700c rim, not a 27"rim. There are many choices out there for rims, from the venerable Mavic T500 which guys into heavily loaded touring have used with no trouble for years to companies like Alex, who make the disc specific wheels I use on my bike. Believe me, they do take a beating, and I have not had to have them trued yet. You can also go faster even on rough trails, I do. Forks are no problem, mine has 80mm of travel, which is the same travel a lot of XC bikes come with. Most of the seals and other internals which are likely to need replacement are the same parts used for 26" forks. Your opinion is that it's a terrible idea, but have you actually ridden one on a trail? I'm not saying they are for everyone, the advantages I could list have reciprocal disadvantages, just like 26"ers, but the 29"er movement is getting bigger everyday; More frames, more tires, more forks. It's definitely a good idea.

PS: The 29"er thing is getting to be really popular in Crested Butte, and their trails are far from "extremely smooth". I'm surprised you haven't heard more about it out there...

EDIT: Most of these bikes are for people who are already bike geeks, but Fisher makes a couple worth looking at if it intrigues you.

My two cents: Rigid all the way.

My two cents: Rigid all the way.

With a response like that I am surprised you didn't put in SS.

Nah, Rohloff it. ;)

But let's be honest - commuting and light trails? What do you need any suspension for? Maybe a thudbuster or some sorta seatpost suspension if you want, or a sprung saddle depending on the height. Suspension of any kind is heavier than say a rigid fork... if or when it gets rough, stand up a bit...

Nah, Rohloff it. ;)

But let's be honest - commuting and light trails? What do you need any suspension for? Maybe a thudbuster or some sorta seatpost suspension if you want, or a sprung saddle depending on the height. Suspension of any kind is heavier than say a rigid fork... if or when it gets rough, stand up a bit...

I don't disagree..well the roholff maybe. That would be worth more than the bike unless the bike were Ti.