Chad Culbertson wrote:
I'm not an avid bike rider, but for pretty mild stuff the way I understand it, you want a hard tail. Unless you're planning on doing some pretty hardcore stuff, the full suspension bikes usually require more energy since the suspension absorbs some of the pedal effort.
I actually wanted to find a mountain bike with no suspension, but apparently thats nearly impossible these days. I grew up racing BMX and of course BMX bikes don't have suspension, I also wore out my old Giant mountain bike that had no suspension at all. I'm a bit older now and having some front forks makes a pretty big difference though.
My current bike doesn't allow locking of the front forks out, but my brother bought a Giant recently that's a 29", hard tail and front forks you can lock out. Being able to lock out the suspension makes a big difference in my opinion on the gravel/pavement. The price ranges you guys are talking about though I would expect them to have good suspension that has lock outs.
Chad, there are a good many hard core single speeders that also ride completely rigid bikes. That crowd generally builds it themselves to get exactly what they want, though. But Niner makes rigid carbon forks, and there are several other companies that do as well. Thing you need to make sure you do is get a fork that's the right length to compensate for whatever suspension travel your frame was designed for so that your geometry stays in the right spot.
Because, as you state, most bikes are built with at least front suspension. So let's say you use a frame that's designed for an "80-120mm" suspension fork. Forks are generally sold in 20mm increments, so that frame supports an 80, 100, or 120mm fork. But think about that for a second...with an 80mm fork, the front end is going to drop a bit and the front suspension gets a little more "upright." But if you put a 120mm fork on it, it's going to raise the front end up and the rake is going to go forward a bit. Which makes sense...downhill guys not only have longer suspension travel, they also have frame geometries that rake the front end out more. XC bikes tend to have shorter travel and less rake so that they handle better on tight, twisty, flatter trail.
So if you take a frame designed for an 80-120mm suspension fork and convert it to rigid, you wouldn't want to use a BMX style fork that didn't have any extra room between the crown and tire, because you'd effectively be dropping the front end as if you had a suspension fork on there that was fully compressed all the time. You need something with some extra distance built in there. And those do exist, fortunately. It's just that very few *complete* bikes are sold as fully rigid.
Most folks get a good HT and then buy a rigid fork and it's relatively easy to swap back and forth depending on where you're riding on a given weekend or whatever. With a bike stand and the proper tools you could swap your fork in about ten minutes if you buy an extra crown race for whatever headset you have (that's the part of a headset that's pressed on to your steerer tube on a fork that's somewhat annoying to swap around as it doesn't come off easily...but they're not expensive at all, either). But honestly I doubt many people swap much...they end up going rigid and stay there or they go rigid and hate it and never go back.
As for full suspension bikes, it all depends on how you ride and what kind of trail. If you're wanting something to cruise relatively flat trail and want to get in a LOT of miles but don't want to have to work too hard to do it, then a HT 29er is probably the best bet. However, if you think you care to go find trail with more "features" to "play" on (ie. get air and such), then some kind of full suspension bike is probably for you. Or if you find that even if you're not going for big mileage but do really like to go *fast* on singletrack, again, full suspension might be for you.
I've done some crazy shit on a hard tail. Everything from 100+ mile races to bombing the downhill at Rocky Knob in Boone (it's not the longest DH run, but it's got some big air opportunities!). But that doesn't mean it's the *best* tool for the job, just that I made it work for one reason or another. I *much* prefer my 6" of travel full suspension bike there. Or my 5" "trail" bike, even.
Basically, you can make *one* bike work on dang near anything. The question is what kind of stuff you're going to ride *most* of the time. And what kind of core strength you have. And what your back can tolerate. As I age, I find my willingness to ride my HT at some of the local trails depends on who I'm riding with and what speed we're going to be going. Some paces just mean I'm going to get beat to hell and not enjoy it as much. So I'd go FS then. Do you lose some energy to your suspension? Yes, but suspension and shock designs are getting good enough to minimize that a LOT. There are lots of XC racers now using FS bikes in races that used to be dominated by HT's.
So the answer on that question is "it depends."
But yeah, for Rodney I still say a 29er HT is probably the right starting point.
--Donnie
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
