wondering about the exact benefits and flaws in having a full susp , i have a full susp but am pondering over the idea of having a rigid frame..

Easier going up the hills. Fully rigid or front suspension? Always found the rigid frames Ive had nicer to ride, but always use a USE suspesion seatpost just to make things a bit more comfortable.

front and rear suspension , it's a pretty nice ride, but doesn't seem so great over long distance

I'd say it depends where and how you ride.

If you do trail centres like Cwmcarn(very rough ) regularly full suspension would be more suitable due to a smoother ride and less fatigue.

Other easier stuff like xc etc you may find a hardtail more responsive and lighter.

im going to build a hardtail next, doubt my wrists could cope with a full ridged

i will install a suss seatpost though

once i test ride it i'll tell you if its my fitness that is the problem or the full suspension :@

generally speaking

Full Suspension Pro's

More control

More traction

More comfort

Less fatigue

Full Suspension Con's

More things to go wrong

More expensive to service

Heavier than an equivalent specced hardtail/rigid bike

More expensive to buy than an equivalent spec hardtail/rigid bike

I have no idea which is easier uphill or down but I find my ridgid frame "feels" better to ride.
I can see the benefit of full sus but still reach for the ridgid more often.
I guess you'll have to try one.

A FS will always be heavier than equivalent hardtail but if you have low or mid range hardtail, you can get FS that are lighter.

my lightest FS comes in at under 11 kg (data is at home so I reckon it is close to 10.5 kg) compared to a pretty decent hardtail - Gary Fisher Xcaliber, disc brake converted and XMO forks (poor man's SIDs) that is 12.33 kg.

There is about 10 years difference in between the two bikes plus carbon (FS) vs Aluminium alloy (HT) frame.

In its day the Xcaliber was one or two bikes off the top (MT Tam then procaliber being the pinnacle) so is not a POS by any means and is a damn sight lighter than the Cube I bought last year (a mistake - anyone interested in a hardtail Cube??)

anyways, the FS flies down hill and across rough terrain as you can sit on it whereas with a hardtail you are forced to stand off the saddle which uses energy (I still stand on the FS but less often).

the FS has lockout both front and rear, ok so rear is partial lockout, and this help when climbing due to energy not being wasted in boinging the springs in the forks and rear shock - that is the main drawback IMO of suspension.

..... but back to OP - there is nothing inherently wrong with a rigid frame, BITD all bikes were rigid including forks and riders were going over stuff you would not believe so it can be done but it does take it out of you physically.

some hardtail frames are designed to be compliant at the chain stays to absorb some shocks.

i've been getting the impression you lose some momentum or something with susp frames. into the shock . rather than pushing you forward on the bike , people i have ridden with on rigid, seem to be less tired than me over long distance. maybe i'm just unfit , the front shocks has full lock out , but the rear fox shock only has a *stiff * mode , not full lock out

]

My foxy ass has full lock out. Perhaps it is down to the terrain you are on, you need something more 'challenging' to get your full susser advantage?

If you are not using those type of trails, perhaps switching to a nice hardtail would make sense?

A full suspension bike can be just as efficient at using your energy as a hardtail or rigid.. You just need to learn to ride it a little differently that's all.

Unless it's an early Kona 4-Bar linkage thing... Bob bob bob bob bob bob..


The best full susser I had when it came to pedalling efficiency was a Giant NRS... That was awesome and I wish I'd never ever sold it. Absolutely zero pedal bob so it behaved exactly like a hardtail until you hit a bump.

if your a real bloke you would have a hard tail for the lot which konas had the 4 bar linkage barney

I don't think that 4 bar linkage is the correct term for them (it was just the first term which popped into my head when I was writing the post!)..

I'm referring to this style:



Bob bob bob bob bob

Edit - Just googled "Kona Four Bar Linkage", and it is the correct term as lots of Kona frames used them..

hmmm, not so sure about that. changing direction uses up energy as objects want to go in stright lines, eitehr due to gravity or inertia.

with an FS bike, the front and rear suspension will take up a lot of the ground's irregularities so that you and all the unsprung components of the bike (which is most of the total mass) carry on unimpeded by vertical direction changes.

a useful experiment to see which is most efficient would be to take 3 bikes, rigid, front sus and full sus and roll down the same hillock from standing start and time them.... maybe....

... and according to wikipedia:
Besides providing obvious comfort to the rider, suspensions improve both safety and efficiency by helping to keep one or both wheels in contact with the ground and allowing the rider's body mass to move over the ground in a flatter trajectory.