I'm looking to get a mountain bike probably for some light downhill and some more rocky trails.

So I'm questioning do you really need a full suspension bike or can just a front suspension will suit all needs?

Voice your personal opinions please.

Thanks in advance!

good info here:
https://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...stion-MTB-FAQ.

Thanks I've read that.

I'm asking mostly for people's opinions here.

I ride HT and regularly take 3' drops, sometimes more, and ride some extremely rocky terrain. I just like HT, and you can't get the same quality FS for the money. Test, test, test to find out what YOU prefer.

i don't know what is classified as "light downhill."

it also depends on what you mean by rocky trails. porcupine rim would not be a good place for a hardtail.

so...let me answer your question with a question.....do you want to buy a full suspension bike?

if you want to justify buying a full suspension bicycle because you want full suspension but aren't sure you should get one, then yes, you need one to ride rocky trails, go buy it. if you don't want to buy a full suspension bike, then no, you don't need one, there are plenty of people riding rocky trails on hardtails.

Most important question is, what's your budget?

Sometimes on longer rides, I'd like to "sit n spin" a bit more, I just can't find a rear shock that acts just the way I want it to all of the time.

non existent

I have money, but no budget for a bike

It's hard enough for me to fork out $14 for a freewheel for my SS because the old one is all torn to pieces from how many miles that's been on it.

I would most probably look online for a used bike and spend about $600 on in the end. I've been just seeing bikes come up that I would go for, but then question what I actually need on a bike. I can get a lot more bike going hardtail vs soft or full

I used to have full suspension gt. the ride downhill was plenty smooth but I didnt like it for climbing. first off it was crazy heavy but even worse was the "bob" as pedaled. I sold it and bought a hardtail w/front suspension only. much nicer, much lighter. I rode that gt back in 94-97 and havent riden any "modern" full suspension rigs, maybe they corrected for the bounce by now.

Sounds like money is a factor. Assuming a $1000 budget, I'd go with the hardtail over a full suspension. You'll get a capable bike with better components. If you have a bigger budget then a FS.

Full suspension designs have improved by leaps and bounds since that old GT RTS bike.

Yeah I'm just questioning that is it worth going full vs the hardtail life.

I'm riding full rigid at the moment, rockier then anything. I know that if I buy a suspension bike, I probably will replace the fork/rear spring for a better one

I know I will get flamed for this and I don't care but I will not ride anything but a full squishy period. All the guys who claims that they are the best riders out there because they ride full steel framed ss bikes can go ahead and be the best of the best. I'm perfectly happy with just being mediocre riding my comfy full squishy.

I say go hard-tail. If you can already ride that terrain on your rigid, you'll be fine with a suspension fork. Just having that makes a huge difference. You'll also get more quality for your money. A decent hard-tail with a nice fork will make a Very capable bike. Heck, the difference between my mid-90s rigid and the same bike after adding a decent ~2000 era suspension fork was night and day. I can blast down rocky terrain and smaller drops now.

I've gotta agree with you. At age 63 with lots of surgery & injuries under my belt (mostly unrelated to cycling), I just want to be super comfortable and get out on a bike again. This week I purchased a Raleigh Venture 4.0, and I'm really enjoying it. I'm no longer after speed or long distance - I just want to get some exercise & have fun.