That's also true with FS. My Fuel has much more "snap" and responsiveness than say a Liquid.CDMC said:I'll also throw out that there is a great deal of difference in the ride qualities of different hardtails.
I was an anti-FS, hardtail-only rider until I started riding a short travel FS bike.sky84 said:just curious, which one do you guys prefer?
All things being equal I'd say the FS. ie., if it cost the same and weighed the same.sky84 said:just curious, which one do you guys prefer?
I have two bikes, both high end, one hardtail and one FS, and I never touch my hardtail anymore! I climb a nice little mountain (2.5 miles up fireroad) and come down the western face (.5 miles of tough technical singletrack) about 4 times a week. I did it back to back/up and down, on both of my bikes. FS killed the hardtail in every aspect. Climbs faster, turns better (holds on longer at the limit), and it descends awesome!!!fred³ said:Actually a fs bike is more efficient climbing due to the rear wheel maintaining contact with the ground more than a hardtail.
If lack of rear suspension was such a good thing then you'd be riding a rigid bike and have twice the goodness.
Good call for a rookie!!! I used to tell my newby friends to ride rigid bikes for a few months before they got into hardtails (this was in the early 90's) because it forced them to learn how to ride. Only when you know how to read the conditions and pick a good line should you consider FS. They are more comfortable for beginners, but they bypass some critical parts in the learning curve.sky84 said:i have a hardtail now becuz i'm just a rookie. i do some xc, climbs, little jumping (as in like a foot at the most) however sometime down the road i would like to upgrade into FS model