Originally Posted by
FrozenK
This is getting ridiculous. Race results show that it depends on terrain. Which is why every racer that can switches back and forth from HT to FS depending on terrain. By the way, that is what every person with a functioning brain has been saying all along: it depends on terrain.
To claim that it is all a marketing ploy borders on idiocy, given the prices of high-end racing hardtails -that are cheaper to design and produce than a full suspension bike.
If a Thudbuster makes you happy all the power to you. But a Thudbuster will not help with traction on a corner at 20mph and it also won't keep your rear wheel from bouncing on a rocky climb. It is also really poor advice for the OP. Same with saying that full suspension only helps on downhill and hardtails climb faster. It is simply not true and really poor advice.
I do agree. I have one trail locally that is ideal for a light, stiff hardtail...rigid even, and that is why I am actually considering picking one up. Well, that and it would be fun to have a different bike in the stable.
I put some thought into what would be the "fastest" bike for me locally since I plan on racing this year...and the truth is that upgrading my trail bike's wheels and suspension will probably do me better than going to a hardtail. There is just too much rooty, bumpy, rocky climbing and descending here to go to a hardtail race bike. (and this is probably why most of the local racers are on some form of FS.) I prefer trail bikes because I like to blast downhill as fast as I can, but my trail bike can also climb very well, especially since upgrading my fuel's rear shock to a Reactive (or however they spell it) shock. Now, I could have gone with an XC bike to save some weight, but they aren't as fun on the downhills to me and not as fast there either.