|   Soft tail worth it? | jayoutside
Mar 12, 2002 4:56 AM | | I am an XC rider lookng to improve my DH skills since I usually blast past people on the climbs and that get reeled in on the descents. Will a 1 to 1.5 in soft tail actually help in rear wheel tracking and stability (prevent the rear from bucking forward) or is it simply to dull the lager impacts....comfort issues? Thanks for the help. I will be racing in cross country & Xterra type events on this bike.I currently ride a nice Al HT with an 80 mm fork - nice but REAL stiff on the DH and the rear keeps trying to kick up on me at speed due to short chainstays. Thanks - |
| re: Soft tail worth it? | mythoughts
Mar 12, 2002 6:04 AM | | I rode a STP for 1 year and I could hardly feel the difference of the soft tail. In my mind its not worth it for the tiny travel. that is the only design i have ever tried so maybe bikes like the IBIS or Litespeed are better but i doubt it |
| re: Soft tail worth it? | ippological
Mar 12, 2002 6:26 AM | | I give it the thumbs up. I've been riding/racing my STP 300 for 2 years and I love it. It's light weight and will definately help you with the bucking problems! It's not a cush ride like a full suspension--not even close---but it definately takes the edge off and you'll notice a HUGE dif from your al ht.
If you want to FEEL your suspension---go full suspension. There are a number of really nice light weight racers available.
Personally I prefer the feel of a HT so the STP (or any softail design) is perfect for me.
Hope this helps! |
| Depends.... | The Squeaky Wheel
Mar 12, 2002 7:07 AM | | I moved from 10 years on a steel hardtail to a Litespeed sofftail 2 years ago. It definitely smooths out small/medium hits but does nothing for larger hits. Biggest advantages are probably improved traction when climbing and less fatigue during longer rides. It does allow for faster downhilling, but only provided that the hits aren't too big. I think it's a nice racing bike.
Caveat: I've since moved to a 4" FS rig because I don't race and wanted something even more forgiving. Wouldn't think of going back to a ST/HT platform.
Squeak
PS: I've got a new Litespeed ST which I'd like to sell. Let me know if you're interested. The price is right. jwldoc@yahoo.com |
| re: Soft tail worth it? | jimmy
Mar 12, 2002 7:52 AM | | I just built up a YBB and rode it sunday. Mostly smooth trail but 1 bumpy downhill. I practically caught up to my stronger buddies. My first impression is that it is faster downhill than my bontrager HT. I bet a lot faster--seems to float.
Going faster over big hits? I have never ridden a FS and could not seem to find a model that didn't have a major drawback (in my mind). So, I have never gone faster over the big hits and doubt I'd do it with a FS. I think a ST would be great for you. |
| comparisons...sort of | toad
Mar 12, 2002 9:40 AM | | Ok, I'll probably get flamed for this, but try to think of the different bikes (hardtail, softtail, fs) as off road race vehicles. You've got;
-Dirt track racers (hardtails) that are light, fast, and simple in design.
-Rally cars (soft-tails) that are light, fast, fairly simple design, and suspension designed to handle somewhat rougher terrain.
-Baja racers (FS) that are slightly bigger/heavier, complex designs, and a suspension designed to soak up very rough terrain.
All of these vehicles perform great in their respective catagories, but are out of their element when raced in another catagory (racing a baja racer around a flat dirt track for instance). The baja racer (FS) would be able to race on a flat dirt track just fine, but the smaller more agile track car (hardtail) would be much more efficient (power-to-weight ratio, almost no suspension required) for that environment and would be faster around the track. In contrast, the dirt track car (hardtail) would be struggling to keep momentum and control in the baja racer's (FS) environment.
Then there's the rally car (softtail). It could be used in either environment with some success. The rally car (soft-tail) would be an excellent dirt track racer. But the suspension in this environment is not really needed. On the otherhand, the rally car (soft-tail) would do pretty well in a Baja type off road race. But compared to the suspension capabilties of the baja racer (FS) the rally car (soft-tail) just couldn't keep up with the bump eating baja vehicle. Thus the rally car (soft-tail) is a capable performer in most environments but doesn't really stand out in any single one. It's a kind of "jack-of-all-trades".
I resently bought a Gary Fisher Sugar with 2.5" of rear travel. After five rides I decided to tear it down a transfer all the components back onto a hardtail frame. Why? Because the rear suspension was too limited to blast through the "big hit" bumpy stuff like my 4" travel FS rig. Also, the Sugar felt "almost" like a hardtail anyway and there was little sense in lugging around an extra 1-2 pounds of "suspension related" weight if it performed more like a hardtail than a FS.
If your looking for better control on rough dowhill sections I would would pass on the "soft-tail" and go for a full blown FS ride. The limited travel of soft-tails may give you some measure of added rear end control, but not nearly enough to justify the cost and weight increase. IMO soft-tails are good at taking the edge off of the small-medium sized hits but are useless for any "hardcore" impacts. |
| comparisons...sort of | Leroy
Mar 12, 2002 12:39 PM | | I just recently switched from a 3.5" travel FS to a 1 1/8" travel ST Ti bike that I put together myself (frame from Pricepoint for a steal). I had switched for a time back to a HT Kona, and while I enjoyed the speed I hated the bumps. Now I feel I have the best of both worlds, speed thats righ up with a HT, but just enough travel to take the edge of small roots and such. |
| |
