Rear suspension, what do you think?

Rich said:

I'm thinking of getting a new mountain bike and am contemplating whether
to go for rear suspension or not.
What are the pros and cons?

Honestly, if you have to ask you don't need them. Numbers I have seen
bandied about, in here, £800~£1000+ is the sort of start region for a
bike to have DECENT rear suspension, then the price goes up to ... well
the sky's the limit. Cheap (relatively) rear suspension is likely to be
badly engineered and heavy for what it does, stay clear unless you know
what it would do for you.

--
www.cheesesoup.myby.co.uk

in message 46227e47.0@entanet said:

I'm thinking of getting a new mountain bike and am contemplating whether
to go for rear suspension or not.

What are the pros and cons?

Pro:
Absurdly flatters your skill on really technical sections
Less tiring on epic rides
Better traction on very loose surfaces

Con:
If it's any good, it's VERY expensive; if it isn't expensive it isn't going
to be good
Some pedal bob, although modern systems do minimise this
Some weight penalty
Some complexity/maintenance penalty, especially on multi-pivot systems

Nice full suspension bikes are very nice indeed. Bad ones are awful. The
cheapest good ones just now are probably the Giant Trance 3 (and you can
get good discounts just now on 2006 Trances which are actually better than
this year's model).
http://www.giantbicycles.com/en-GB/bikes/mountain/219/

The ones I lust after are the Nicolai Nucleon AMX (5,000 Euros frame and
gearbox only) and the Cannondale Rush Carbon (£3,000 complete)

http://www.nicolai.net/products/e-frames/e-nuc-amx.html
http://www.cannondale.com/bikes/07/cusa/mountain/rush/model-7VM0.html

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; when in the [censored], the wise man plants courgettes

soup <[email hidden]> typed:

Quoted message said:

Rich said:

I'm thinking of getting a new mountain bike and am contemplating whether
to go for rear suspension or not.
What are the pros and cons?

Honestly, if you have to ask you don't need them. Numbers I have seen
bandied about, in here, £800~£1000+ is the sort of start region for a
bike to have DECENT rear suspension, then the price goes up to ... well
the sky's the limit. Cheap (relatively) rear suspension is likely to be
badly engineered and heavy for what it does, stay clear unless you know
what it would do for you.

<AOL>
Wot e sed ... 😉
</AOL>

Rear sus, if it's [censored] is a real pain in the [censored], pun intended, it doesn't
do what it's supposed to do, which is keep the rear wheel on the ground as
much as possible.

Many bikes compromise on rear sus to have decent componentry elsewhere, and
it's a compromise that, IMHO, doesn't often work at all, let alone properly.

--
Paul - [censored]

Rich said:

I'm thinking of getting a new mountain bike and am contemplating whether to
go for rear suspension or not.

What are the pros and cons?

I had a FS MTB for 2 years, and have now gone back to hardtail.
Weight was a perceived issue, though the FS bike was only around 2lbs
heavier than my current HT mtb.
Ugly looking frame, with no way of lifting it on my shoulder going over
stiles/logs etc was another downside.
Maybe it is my riding style, but I dont think the rear sus helped me
much, I generally use it for MTB races (up to 2 hours long), and the
occasional night ride in the Peak District. If I was doing a 6 hour
enduro, then my [censored] might like the FS, but as it is, the HT suits me
fine, and I dont think it has slowed me down at all.

There was an article a couple of years ago in MBR (I think) which
compared riders times when doing the Red Bull 24hr race at West Brom.
The course was mainly flat land, with a couple of raliway embankments,
and a few sections of lumpy grass, usually around 50 minutes a lap.
IIRC, all but one rider did better on the FS than the HT, yet they all
said they felt they were going slower on the FS.

Get it if you can afford a decent set-up, but get the best you can, as
cheaper means heavier.
Alan.
--
To reply by e-mail, change the ' + ' to 'plus'.

Rich said:

I'm thinking of getting a new mountain bike and am contemplating whether to
go for rear suspension or not.

What are the pros and cons?

--
Rich

http://www.badangling.com -= Sea fishing badly explained =-

Depends on how you ride and where. If you want to get into DH or FR
then you'll need full sus. If you feel bust up and beaten after every
ride because the trails are so rough, then full sus may help. If you
ride some long up hill trails where you're constantly having to stop
pedaling to lift/hop the back wheel over roots and rocks a full sus
can allow you to pedal straight over problems. If you like long days
in the saddle, 4 hour plus epic rides, a full sus can help in the
comfort department. If you like dropping off 4 foot ledges at speed,
then a full sus bike can help absorb some of that impact.

As other folks have said, a good full suspension bike will cost you
loads (> 800 squid) and there's no point in buying a bad full
suspension bike, you'll just hate it. If you can justify a full sus
bike because of the terrain you ride or the way you want to ride there
are no cons. I have a full sus and a hardtail and ride either
depending on where I'm riding and what sort of ride I'm planning.

Oh, one con is your costs and time for maintainence have just jumped
up by a third.

Laters,

Marz