7stitches

I just purchased a new mtb (Gary Fisher HKEK 05) and was wondering if any of you have a suspension seatpost on a hardtail. My question is.... is it worth the money? I have been looking at the Cane Creek Thudbuster, but do not want to spend the money if it won't make a difference in comfort. I really wanted to buy a full suspension rig, but with the money I had to spend, it would have been extremely low end. So, I opted to get a mid-range hardtail instead. What are some good seatposts (suspension) that you guys would recommend (if any)?

PeterG1185

i bought my older bro a thudbuster for his HT to try and revive it a little, but it didnt do much. You really have to be sitting on it for it to make a difference, so in the end i dont think it was worth the purchase

kritter

I was told by my LBS not to waste my money. I dont know if it was from my large size or due to the fact that its just hype. They told me it would be unstable under me and constantly feel like the seat was going to fall off..obvioulsy I didnt buy it, but I did buy an awesome seat that I love.

7stitches

That's what I thought too, I just wanted to check with you guys first. I already have a seat picked out, and will probably just get a Thompson seatpost. Thanks

Maelstrom 

if you are a sitter then you can adapt and I bet it would be fine. If you ride techy stuff which pulls you off your seat, it is basically rendered useless.

Sebach

I have a Thudbuster LT on my hardtail and to be honest, sometimes it helps a lot and sometimes it just sits there waiting to be useful. When I'm riding in the city at high tire pressure and I hit a pothole or rut unexpectedly, I'm glad I have the thudbuster but other than that, it adds little in the city. When I'm riding off road with lower tire pressure, I get a decent amount of "suspension" from the tires themselves but having the Thudbuster, I find that I can spend even more time sitting and cranking through stuff I'd normally stand through for comfort. Of course, you still have to get up at times for hopping, technique or body suspension... just not as often if you have a Thudbuster. I think the Thudbuster is most effective on long XC rides where you don't want to be standing for hours. I've spent full dawn-to-dusk days on trails and I cannot imagine myself standing through much of that like I would have if I didn't have some other source of squish other than what comes from my wheels alone. I think it has made me lazy, lol. My 2 cents.

alcahueteria

I had a thudbuster given to me and now it's in the spare parts bin. I didn't like it when I climed, I got a little bob and it just felt like the geometry of the bike went to hell. It wouldn't handle as well, it was weird. I didn't like it.

Speedub.Nate

I use a short travel Thudbuster now, but used the previous version long travel for a year or so. Make no bones about it -- it works if you're sitting on it. You gotta spin pretty smooth, and you don't want to use it for a substitute for standing where appropriate or for cushioning drops (that'll break it for sure). For damping high frequency trail chatter, and softening occasional roots and small terrain, it works very nicely. Read up on some of the reviews at MTBR.com for a zillion other opinions.

Raiyn

Read these
https://www.bikeforums.net/mountain-biking/94185-suspension-seat-post.html
https://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...2&page=2&pp=30

7stitches

Thanks for all the input. I love these forums

Montana Rider

I had a thudbuster for 4 years on my old hardtail...

While it can't compare with the sweetness of my new Santa Cruz superlight, I thought it was better than nothing, and worth the $100 or so I paid for it.

In the 4 years that I used it, I changed elastomers once -- that's it for maintenance...

But, of course, it only helps when you're actually seated...

DiRt DeViL

Suspension posts in general are useless, the saddle height changes and there's play on the seat as well.

A confy saddle is all you need or maybe a FS frame, who knows.

Juniper

I'd definately try the different seat route first. I really like the WTB Race Stealth (? - I think that's right) on my HT. And learning when to stand and when to sit, which I'm still perfecting after 20+ yrs of mtb ; )

7stitches

I have already decided on the WTB Lazer V Stealth for a seat. Being a female, I think the wider tail end will suit me just fine. I HATE all the women's specific designs I read some reviews on this one and will definitely be ordering one soon. Come on payday where are you! Thanks for your input

willtsmith_nwi

Much more comfortable. Of course, if you put the wrong seat on a thudbuster, it will still be as uncomfortable as before.

The Thudbuster takes some of the "oomph" out big hits. It allows you to stay seated on some stuff that would force you to stand on without it.

The most efficient pedalling is "sit and spin" mode. This keeps the rear wheel loaded and maximizes traction. The thudbuster effectively emulates a short travel full suspension when seated as it will keep your weight on the rear wheel while taking up some vertical change in the terrain.

Standing shift yours weight forward and creates uneven traction. Standing requires more effort and uses more energy.

So anything that can keep you seated will improve your ride. $100 is not a lot to pay for that.

But of course, as Raiyn is apt to point out, a $3000 Specialized S-Works with a brain shock and Horst Link suspension is WAY better

frankiee

I just came back from a 2 day 200Km ride called a Wedgie.
10 hours the first day and 12 hours the second day thru unforgiving terrain.
What a blast.I'm just sitting here trying to recover
We pushed our bikes sometimes and carried them up ravines sometimes.
These were specific trails that were technical and demanding.
I opted to leave my cheap full suspension at home and use my wifes Haro. I am glad I did
The leader of the group had a Brodie Awl. nice bike. Full suspension.
The 2 other guides (They work for him in the bike shop) had suspension seats on hard tails.
They swear on the seats.
The fact that I had no rear suspension made my bike lighter and no bob but I felt it in the constant jaring of roots, rocks and the mile after mile of riding.
I don't know the names of the seats they had but they were good ones.
They squeeked but they carried oil for them and after the first day they did not care because it saved their butts.
Untill I can afford a Brodie Awl, I think I am going to invest in a suspension seat.
To learn what is right for me I must try new things

Coiler_Guy

They're fun to bounce on, but I think they're a waste of money. It depends if you want one for comp or comfort.

Raiyn

Of course it's better. Hell any of the newer single pivot designs with a platform shock is better than a Thudbuster (though not as good as an FSR).

For what seems like the billionth time:
Thudbusters are a COMFORT item not a PERFORMANCE item. It is not a cheap way to get an FS bike, however it will take the edge of of some jolts which is all it was ever meant to do.

It's not a panacea it's a band aid.

Sebach

People seem to think that Thudbusters are something special- that they're some sort of substitute for a full suspension rig. It's still just a suspension seatpost. But having said that, I'd still say it's better than the other pogosticks.

Speedub.Nate

No, a band-aid is akin to a "brain" on an Epic. Raiyn, you continue to delve in to the whole "suspension vs. hardtail" debate, which is not the question being asked.

COMFORT and PERFORMANCE are not mutually exclusive, not even when it comes to a suspension post.

For the third time (in recent memory on bikeforums, anyway): A suspension post will improve rear wheel traction in certain situations where the rider remains seated -- very similar, but to a lesser extent, to how a standing rider will improve traction over a seated rider.

Additionally, it will improve rider comfort, especially over a long ride, and a comfortable rider rides more efficiently and longer. I'm sure most reasonable folks will agree this partially fit the description as a PERFORMANCE advantage.

Again, nobody is claiming a suspension post is an alternative to a full suspension rig. Is a Thudbuster worth the $100 and extra weight? Those are personal judgements that have to be decided by the individual. But in my case, yes, it's worth it.

Again, 7stitches, check out the mtbr reviews for comments, both pro and con, from people who have actually spent some time on suspension posts and who still see value and purpose in a hardtail bike. The MBA-impressionable "full suspension or bust" mentality around here can get to be a joke.

My wife's on-trail skills, and her attitude toward riding in general, turned dramatically upon installation of a Thud. I was impressed enough that I then gave one a shot on my hardtail (yes, I have a nice FS bike, too), have raced on one and have been using one for over two years now. The anit-Thudbuster mentality displayed on this forum in particular is laughable.

Raiyn

No it doesn't. A FS's ability to keep the rear wheel planted is a function of pivot points and sag. Trust me your rear end is bouncing off the ground as much as anyone else's on a HT. You just don't notice it due to the pogo stick in your post.

Climbing is dependent on the rear wheel and as the rear wheel is locked in place in a RIGID frame it's still bouncing off things and losing traction because there is nothing that will allow it to follow the terrain.

Also standing has a negative effect on traction as you unweight your rear end

Speedub.Nate

Raiyn, I know we've been over this before.

A rear wheel of a hardtail does have a pivot point -- around the front wheel's axle.

The facts:

A *seated* rider on a hardtail (bulk of the weight resting on the saddle) will be displaced by rear wheel movement over terrain. If the rear wheel is displaced, the rider is displaced, and the bike and rider spend a lot of time separated from the ground.

A *standing* rider on a hardtail absorbs rear wheel movement through the knees, so while the bike follows the terrain, the rider does not, and traction is better maintained.

A *seated* rider on a suspension post is no longer directly connected to the rear wheel's movement. Wheel moves up, seatpost gives, rider is shock absorbed and stays stationary. Same theory as a standing rider or even rear full suspension, just on a much different scale and not as efficient.

And there, although I just make a comparison to full suspension, I'm not calling them the same thing. A well-designed full suspension frame has much less unsprung mass and simply more efficient at what it does.

But the fact remains: on the right kind of terrain, a suspension seatpost does lend added terrain-following ability for a seated rider. Something less than a standing rider can achieve, but at least the rider has the opportunity to choose when to pedal standing and when to pedal seated.

Raiyn

We have and apparently we're going to go over it againYou're comparing apples and crankshafts The rear wheel of a hardtail isn't free to follow the terrain without taking the rest of the bike with itTrueFalse: Traction is actually LOST due to the fact that the rear is unweighted You may have more balanced control, but your driving traction is reducedWrong. The wheel moves up and the rest of the frame moves as well. The rear wheel leaves the ground as the momentum of the frame takes over as there is no pivot that separates it from the frame. The seat post has no effect on traction as it is part of the frame that is rotating off the ground. The only effect it has is to isolate the impact from the rider.

Suspension is defined as the system of springs and other devices that insulates the chassis (read frame) of a vehicle from shocks transmitted through the wheels.

To put this into car terms:
Your car has a rigidly mounted rear axle welded directly to the frame and because you have a well sprung seat you claim that you have more traction than a car with a suspension system that allows it to follow the terrain.

I don't see Corvettes with the rear end welded to the frame so the arguement that a solid rear end with a springy seat helps traction is FALSE.

Speedub.Nate

You're being too absolute in your definitions here (I'm sorry but Dictionary.com is not the definitive source of suspension terminology). You can be flexible in what you call the "chassis". In the case of the hardtail (suspension seatpost or not), the frame is non-suspended and the rider is the "chassis".

We can agree that when the rear wheel hits (for instance) a root, we have two reactive force vectors to contend with: the primary reacts UP, against the weight of the rider, and the secondary reacts opposite the direction of travel.

If a seated (non-suspended) rider crosses that root, the reaction force in the UP direction must be great to counter the rider's mass (got to push his butt over that root).

If a seatpost suspended rider crosses that same root, the reaction force in the UP direction will be lesser -- it only has to counter the frame's mass; it does not need to displace the rider.

The difference is that in the first example, once the mass of the frame + rider are displaced upward, they will continue in that direction (gravity is the only force working against it to bring the pair back to terra firma).

In the second example, because the rider's mass was undisturbed, the seatpost spring reacts against the rider and forces the frame (and rear tire) down against the ground.

PeterG1185

speedub are you by any chance heavily involved in science? you sound like you know your basic principles of physics whereas Raiyn is trying to argue with his own basic knowledge of bikes