|   Going from HT to FS in Races | harry1
Dec 22, 2003 5:04 AM | | I'm curious to hear from anyone who has gone from racing with a Hardtail to Full Suspension. Did the extra few pounds slow down your time? Or did you feel "fresher" and faster towards the end of the race, when the beating of a hardtail takes its toll. I understand it depends on the course, whether its more technical or climbing, but I'd love to hear advice because I'm contemplating going the full suspension route. |
| My 2 cents... | Dwayne Barry
Dec 22, 2003 5:14 AM | | I was riding an old, cheap Gary Fisher Big Sur, and got a Santa Cruz superlight. It was night and day. For one the Superlight felt stiffer and snappier and so no I didn't notice any negative effects of the extra pounds. And yes by the end of races I didn't feel nearly so beat-up as I did with HT, expecially my arms. I doubt I'll ever go back, but I would like to ride a good quality HT one of these day to make more of a fair comparison. |
| raced both last season... | *rt*
Dec 22, 2003 6:58 AM | | i raced both my HT (trek 8000) and my FS (Dean Ace3) last season and did not find that my FS slowed me down at all. my FS weighs about 2.5 lbs more than my HT (21.5 for the HT & maybe 23.5-24 lbs for the FS) and what i may have lost due to the xtra weight i more than made up for in increased speed on descents. i find that my HT is quicker, snappier, & more responsive than my FS but the FS is more stable, more comfortable, and climbs well.
i'm hoping to drop some weight on the FS this season (lighter wheelset & lighter disk brakes) which should bring it down pretty close to 22 lbs which will be nice on the climbs.
overall, i'd say that going to a race-type FS is only going to help in races.
rt |
| re: Going from HT to FS in Races | Enzoid
Dec 22, 2003 9:25 AM | | I owned a middle of the road aluminum HT before my superlight, which I have raced for 3 years now. I actually built the SL lighter than my previous HT and it weighs 23.5 lbs with a relatively heavy fork. This last year I bought a Ti HT because so many of the XC races are non-technical, and I just wanted a sweet HT :). It is just under 21 lbs. I do feel that the HT is more efficient and accelerates better. The Ti does absorb vibration a bit.
Overall I am a little faster on the HT, though I do give up some on the downhill. But I get it back on the flats and climbs. I do not feel more beat up than usual, but having said that there is one race where I absolutely will race the SL because there is so much flat bumpy trail and lots of washboards. |
| re: probably age dependent, course-dependent | rpi
Dec 22, 2003 10:29 AM | | many younger guys are able to race hardtails w/o much damage or excess fatigue from the pounding. i find that at my age (50) there are few courses that would be faster for me on a hardtail and for some of those, a cyclocross bike might be the best. Raced many years on a ti hardtail, then added a suspension post, then went FS and it's faster head to head despite the weight penalty on most courses. But we adapt to what we are riding so my hardtail technique is not as good as it once was, and my FS technique is better. |
| re: probably age dependent, course-dependent | Andrew McD
Dec 24, 2003 5:42 AM | | Somebody must have been reading my mind when they started this thread. I've decided to purchase an FS bike this spring and have been bugging my friends about the differences. I've been racing on Specialized M4 and M5 S-works of the HT........stiff aluminum. It's interesting to hear that the FS is easier on the upper body because at age 53 I seem to take a beating. (Upper body weight work is in the training plan.) So far I've investigated the Cannondale Scalpel and the Santa Cruz Blur. Any other FS suggestions for racing? |
| re: try a K2 razorback | rpi
Dec 24, 2003 8:40 AM | | I have been racing K2 razorbacks for 4 years now. Great race bikes, real sleepers. Easy to build to 24 pounds. Can often get framesets for $500 or so. This bike has a longer wheelbase than some and is super stable for long guys like me. Corners like a bobsled. |
| shoot, check Supergo... you can get a whole bike for $799 n.m. | shawndoggy
Dec 24, 2003 9:12 AM | | |
| I second the Razorback | pimpbot
Dec 31, 2003 8:53 PM | | I got one in July. I swear the thing is a good chunk faster than my hardtail. I do feel fresher after long rides, and my tailbone does not get hammered into my skull. You can stay seated for a lot more stuff than with a hardtail, so you don't use as much energy to get where you're going.
ediscountbike.com has framesets on sale for $300. Kick ass deal if you ask me. I paid $350 for my used SL, which is the same apart from the carbon seat stays. I got it cause what I really want is a RacerX, but pocket book does not cooperate with that plan. The Razorback is pretty close to the RacerX in geometry, so I gave it a go and I love it! I still want a RacerX, tho.
Mine buit up to 27 lbs, but I got Avid disc brakes and M545 pedals. Both of which are heavy items. Hope Minis and M959s would prolly drop two pounds.
.jpg</td) |
| re: Going from HT to FS in Races | mtcali
Dec 25, 2003 10:50 AM | | I rode a 9.8 TREK hardtail for 3 years and decided to give FS a try. I bought a Cannondale scalpel (more travel up front, discs and about 3lbs heavier) I think finding and deciding what is the 'ideal' xc bike is all relative to your riding style, course, length of race, conditions etc... The TREK is snappy, quick, and harsh. The CANNONDALE is overall a much smoother ride with much more control at higher speeds....for me..........hardtail is the way to go, rim brakes and 20 lbs or less is a REAL XC BIKE, rear suspension is not necessary and discs only in wet conditions. HT for racing, FS for playing. |
| I'm going backwards: FS to Hardtail for racing only. I raced | merlin
Jan 7, 2004 10:17 AM | | an Ellsworth for 2 years a love the bike, but most of the races here are not technical. I'm upgrading to Expert class next year and want all the help i can get, so I'm trying the hardtail, 3 pounds lighter, more efficient climber |
| |
