[ZQ8Dude]

I've been told that Even with lockouts that there is still an amount of flex in a full suspension bike when you climb.

So with that, is there a really noticable difference in climbing with a lockout F/S vs. climbing with a hardtail??

 

[gumbymark]

I've been told that Even with lockouts that there is still an amount of flex in a full suspension bike when you climb.

So with that, is there a really noticable difference in climbing with a lockout F/S vs. climbing with a hardtail??

Yes and No.

Most rear shocks do not come with "lock outs" anymore. They come with some sort of pedaling platform (Foxs' pro pedal, Specailized Brain et all). These will/should remove any pedal bob whilst still allowing the rear shock to absorb bumps.

An XC bike will ride very differently uphill compared to a 7" travel free ride bike.

That said your going to have to ride a DS bike to see how they ride uphill.

 

[rzozaya1969]

I've been told that Even with lockouts that there is still an amount of flex in a full suspension bike when you climb.

So with that, is there a really noticable difference in climbing with a lockout F/S vs. climbing with a hardtail??

Different bikes will ride different.

I think that on smooth, long fireroad climbs, a HT would probably be the better climbing, but do some steeper climbs where traction is not that good, or it has roots, rocks and you will find that a good full suspension bike will provide better traction and climb better.

There are a lot of things when comparing a FS vs HT, specially on climbs. While there are HT for virtually every kind of riding (XC, AM, FR, DH), most HT are for XC riding, while FS tend to have more variables in that. So, if you're comparing a light XC HT vs a DH FS, the HT will outclimb the DH bike (unless the DH rider is very strong), but comparing two bikes designed for the same purpose, one of them a HT and the other a FS, it will depend on which type of trails you want to do. I think that it's more of how tough the trail is than if it's climb or not.

 

[ZQ8Dude]

Different bikes will ride different.

I think that on smooth, long fireroad climbs, a HT would probably be the better climbing, but do some steeper climbs where traction is not that good, or it has roots, rocks and you will find that a good full suspension bike will provide better traction and climb better.

There are a lot of things when comparing a FS vs HT, specially on climbs. While there are HT for virtually every kind of riding (XC, AM, FR, DH), most HT are for XC riding, while FS tend to have more variables in that. So, if you're comparing a light XC HT vs a DH FS, the HT will outclimb the DH bike (unless the DH rider is very strong), but comparing two bikes designed for the same purpose, one of them a HT and the other a FS, it will depend on which type of trails you want to do. I think that it's more of how tough the trail is than if it's climb or not.

well to keep it simple lets just say XC HT vs. XC F/S

My concern with going F/S is that i ride out at rockville park in Ca and the first part of each ride involves a wide variety of hill climbs.

 

[traffic002]

On one of the group rides I attended with a bunch of FS riders I noticed a couple things on the climb. On a steep soggy climb I ran out of steam with my higher gearing wheras the AM bikes could still spin with their lower gearing. If there were any roots or rocks I had to push a bit harder to maintain more momentum. When the terrain leveled a bit on some gravel, I was able to hold my own against more fit riders.

If you stay seated I don't see that suspension bob really comes into play ...

 

[LyNx]

In this day and age, unless A. you're a racer or B. you have a very limited budget I just don't see why anyone would even consider a HT bike as a one and only bike. With suspension design these days, coupled with shock and fork technology, finding an FS bike in the 3-4" range that pedals well uphill is so easy. Once you can swing $1200-$1500 US you can get a decent FS bike with lockout/platform, that pedals very well.

 

[savagemann]

In general, i feel that suspension is better for climbing because it keeps positive traction with the ground at all times. On a HT it is easy to spin out on anything short of perfectly flat terrain
Now, I'm talking about current FS bikes of course.
i wouldn't really use a lockout even if I had it. Travel adjust for the front and some platform like pro pedal is great for climbing. Better than a HT, at least for me.

 

[Bird]

In this day and age, unless A. you're a racer or B. you have a very limited budget I just don't see why anyone would even consider a HT bike as a one and only bike. With suspension design these days, coupled with shock and fork technology, finding an FS bike in the 3-4" range that pedals well uphill is so easy. Once you can swing $1200-$1500 US you can get a decent FS bike with lockout/platform, that pedals very well.

Well said.
My riding partner refuses to give up his HT and does quite well on smooth climbs but when the trail turns rough he disappears behind me.

 

[Jayem]

strong people > weak people

 

[pisiket]

We humans are not very rational: My one and only bike is a SS HT and the frame alone costs more than what you quoted. :-O

Now I am dreaming about a 29" rigid.

Ali

 

[scottzg]

In this day and age, unless A. you're a racer or B. you have a very limited budget I just don't see why anyone would even consider a HT bike as a one and only bike.

I have several HTs (one of which is very nice) and no FS. Why? i like them,
because they're fun,
because more suspension doesn't mean i will ride more,
because they're more appropriate for the trails around here,
because i don't want to have to deal with extra moving parts,
because i've broken a frame every year since i started riding regularly 4 years ago,
because i only get dropped by FS riders in rock gardens, where i don't wanna go fast anyway.

I don't see why anyone would consider a FS as their one and only bike. Why would you want to lug around that mushy pedalling, fast wearing, cumbersome, expensive, slow, fussy, full suspension bike around when the terrain doesn't require it?

When you have really rough trails or big drops FS is awesome.

Technical climbing is easier when you're fit and skilled, fire roads suck ass regardless of how much suspension you have, it doesn't make much difference if you have fs. Lock outs make the FS bike feel less horrible when you're standing and climbing, or you're pushing too tall a gear for your fitness. In either case it's better to fix the problem by either tolerating it or shifting.

 

[LyNx]

Well as they say, opinions are like............ everyone has one. My FS doesn't feel mushy, combersome, slow, fussy, fast wearing(?). I adjusted your statement below to be more accurate and BTW how big are you breaking a frame a year and how come since you're a HT zinn master don't you have the finesse to not break bikes? How many bikes do you have again, more than 1 right? Just because the FS you might think you need for your weight is slow, doesn't mean everyones your weight/size and doesn't/hasn't riden a proper FS design.

I have several HTs (one of which is very nice) and no FS. Why? i like them,
because they're fun,
because more suspension doesn't mean i will ride more,
because they're more appropriate for the trails around here,
because i don't want to have to deal with extra moving parts,
because i've broken a frame every year since i started riding regularly 4 years ago,
because i only get dropped by FS riders in rock gardens, where i CAN'T go fast anyway.

I don't see why anyone would consider a FS as their one and only bike. Why would you want to lug around that mushy pedalling, fast wearing, cumbersome, expensive, slow, fussy, full suspension bike around when the terrain doesn't require it?

When you have really rough trails or big drops FS is awesome.

Technical climbing is easier when you're fit and skilled, fire roads suck ass regardless of how much suspension you have, it doesn't make much difference if you have fs. Lock outs make the FS bike feel less horrible when you're standing and climbing, or you're pushing too tall a gear for your fitness. In either case it's better to fix the problem by either tolerating it or shifting.

 

[noodletips]

I don't see why anyone would consider a FS as their one and only bike. Why would you want to lug around that mushy pedalling, fast wearing, cumbersome, expensive, slow, fussy, full suspension bike around when the terrain doesn't require it?

Agreed, I have a non-suspender bike for paved use. However, don't forget us old geezers who get mucho comfort from FS off-road, even in mild-moderate terrain. At age 57, I ride much more off-road since I got my '04 Epic..

jeff

 

[scottzg]

Well as they say, opinions are like............ everyone has one. My FS doesn't feel mushy, combersome, slow, fussy, fast wearing(?). I adjusted your statement below to be more accurate and BTW how big are you breaking a frame a year and how come since you're a HT zinn master don't you have the finesse to not break bikes? How many bikes do you have again, more than 1 right? Just because the FS you might think you need for your weight is slow, doesn't mean everyones your weight/size and doesn't/hasn't riden a proper FS design.

I'm glad your full suspension bike makes you happy, but that doesn't mean it's the best solution for everyone. I'm 230lbs, a clumsy hack rider, and live near trails that have been managed into oblivion-they're easy enough already; what works for you isn't the best thing for me, or really anyone else, necessarily.

 

[Jerk_Chicken]

Here's the last thread that went up asking such a question:

http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=478828&highlight=lockout+jerk_chicken

Note in that thread I linked to a previous thread where someone insisted lockouts were great and their completely flawed technique was better than the advantages suspension offers going up. There was a time like in 2000 when people got bikes with suspension, only to lock them out. Fast forward 8 years, we know now that suspension can help with climbing, not be a detriment, especially when you have good technique and you can handle the climb to begin with. In the link within the thread, there are more technique issues addressed.

It also addresses the forces place on a frame when the suspension is locked out.

Second thread:
http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=443923&highlight=lockout+jerk_chicken

 

[nuj]

hi there, in my opinion, there's no truely NO BOB on a full suspension bike. anything with a swing arm will bob no matter how small. a zero bob mountain bike could only mean its a hard tail

 

[xcguy]

hi there, in my opinion, there's no truely NO BOB on a full suspension bike. anything with a swing arm will bob no matter how small. a zero bob mountain bike could only mean its a hard tail

It's all about semantics. I went back and forth with a guy once about whether my bike was "bob free". I insisted it was, he insisted all bikes "bob". Turns out his definition of "bob" was any activation of the rear suspension. Any activation. Your shock's piston moving in and out of the shock body? Bob. The reality is, my bike's rear suspension is active but it doesn't bob. If you want to see "bob" check out somebody sitting hammering on a 1997 Trek Y Bike. That's bob. See my bike's suspension? Bob-free.

I thought hardtail riders asking whether they would "lose efficiency" climbing with full suspension was a dead issue, with FS so dialed in these days. Guess not.

 

[Keatan]

In this day and age, unless A. you're a racer or B. you have a very limited budget I just don't see why anyone would even consider a HT bike as a one and only bike. With suspension design these days, coupled with shock and fork technology, finding an FS bike in the 3-4" range that pedals well uphill is so easy. Once you can swing $1200-$1500 US you can get a decent FS bike with lockout/platform, that pedals very well.

Another reason besides price and weight is that some of us want more of a challenge. Yes it would be nice to not really think about my line and just point my bike down hill. Yes it would be nice to have a smooth comfortable ride everywhere and not be jarred at the end of a ride. But that's not what I'm in mountain biking for. Sure, when I get old and have a bad back and sore joints I will switch to a nice squishy FS and cruise around the trails. Or if I move out to the mountains I may decide to diversify my bikes. Until then I'm sticking to HT or rigid.

 

[Barkleyfan]

Another reason besides price and weight is that some of us want more of a challenge. Yes it would be nice to not really think about my line and just point my bike down hill. Yes it would be nice to have a smooth comfortable ride everywhere and not be jarred at the end of a ride. But that's not what I'm in mountain biking for. Sure, when I get old and have a bad back and sore joints I will switch to a nice squishy FS and cruise around the trails. Or if I move out to the mountains I may decide to diversify my bikes. Until then I'm sticking to HT or rigid.

+1

I'm getting old and out of shape, but I still dig my rigid.

 

[Jayem]

Another reason besides price and weight is that some of us want more of a challenge.

You want a challenge? Ride this to the top of the mountain. THAT my friend is a challenge. For added bonus, when you want more challenge on the downhill, just go faster. Almost anyone can climb these mountains on light hardtails and XC bikes.

Not that everyone should have these kinds of bikes, but saying that you want a hardtail because of the "challenge" is no more valid than someone saying they want an FS bike due to the challenge.