UKH

I’m thinking of replacing my ancient 2005 specialised Epic bike with something more modern. Suitable for technical uphill and downhill trails but not particularly into jumps or any riding that is too likely to break my bones. Also some long distance riding. I live next to a Greno and Wharncliffe but don’t see myself getting a full face helmet.

I’m vaguely aware that geometry and design of HT and FS has come on leaps and bounds since 2005. The latest HT offerings, particularly with Ti frames look very attractive, but is it still worth the extra for full sus? What are the real pros and cons? I’m quite short so feel that 27.5 wheels may be preferable but open to advice. No real idea of budget; I’m not looking for bling or over specifying but also want to avoid the adage of buy cheap, buy twice

In reply to kevin stephens:

The options and terminology are getting quite bewildering, and price, especially currently, is high, if you want higher end, but quality of ride has improved massively over the last 15 years, so you’ll probably notice a big upgrade no matter what you go for.

If the extra cost is affordable over a decent HT, I'd go for a full Sus for what you describe, probably shorter travel, like 110-130 front and rear, something that climbs well, but can manage downhill short of bigger jumps and drops. These types of bike are usually described as the crossover between XC/trail.

I have a titanium HT that has 2 wheelsets: 29 light carbons and 27.5 semi-fat plus, which makes it really versatile, and can be ridden for what you describe, but I still personally wouldn’t want it as my only-bike. My second is a longer travel “enduro” 150/160mm travel, but I don’t really use its full capabilities, and it’s a bit harder for the up, so I’m looking at selling and going shorter travel, ideally the new Scott Spark. Something  like this would be a great one-bike option.

In reply to kevin stephens:

Wharncliffe and long distance, presumably in the Peak District, are at fairly opposite ends of the spectrum. It's not 100% if your current epic is FS or hardtail, it appears to be have been available as both. If it is a FS and you switch to a hardtail technical climbs will feel a lot harder, given the choice I would always pick FS for a big Day out in the Peak District. Conversely, for Wharncliffe, Grenoside and Blacka descents a modern aggressive hardtail can be completely adequate, especially if not jumping, you just won't go quite as fast. Depending on what you feel is more important, and your budget, there are an awful lot of bikes that could be appropriate for you, although many/most of them will be 29ers now. Transition Spur for the best of all worlds but at a price, spec stumpjumper alloy as a good all rounder, ragley blue pig 27.5 if you do decide on the hardcore hardtail route

In reply to kevin stephens:

I have a full suspension (canyon spectral 27.5) and a hardtail (orange crush 29)  and love using both. The full suspension is faster and more fun going down rocky downhill and better at big jumps and drops. It is more expensive to maintain. 
 

The hardtail is great fun. It is actually faster at places like llandegla and for longer Peak District rides. I am planning on doing the west highland way over 2 days and will take this bike rather than the full suspension as it is a bit lighter and better on the flats and uphills. 
 

At your height and what you describe I would get 27.5 wheels and a high spec hardtail. Most people would say get steel for a hardtail. I actually opted for the aluminium version just to save weight. Am happy with that choice. Titanium could be a great choice but a little pricey. The likes of Ribble and Sonder do some great titanium hardtails. 

In reply to S Ramsay:

Thanks. My Epic is a FS XC bike with 26 inch wheels but only 80mm forks so not good for rocky drops even if taken slowly. Early generation “brain” limited travel rear shock . I’ve not found it good at climbing because the front wheel lifts no matter what I do with my elbows or even fitting a longer stem, presumably due to old fashioned geometry?

In reply to kevin stephens:

Hi Kev,

I'd go full sus if you're planning to do rocky and steep natural stuff in the peak like Jacob ladder etc - definitely makes a big difference to the enjoyment on rough stuff I think.   For more xc style stuff I imagine a good modern geometry hard tail would work well.   

Not an expert on newer developments in bikes and I'd probably prefer a 27.5 inch wheel but that's more about my personal feeling that smaller wheels are more nimble and fun given I did most of my riding on 26s. 

On the disadvantage side of full sus obviously significantly more expensive compared to equivalent spec hardtail, also need significantly more maintenance.   

In reply to kevin stephens:

Left field option - gravel bike with a lauf grit sl fork on it - expensive though.

In reply to kevin stephens:

FS to go faster, HT to have more fun

To be honest I don't even use my HT that much anymore as I've discovered how wild it can be to tame a fully rigid gravel bike on the trails... mental fun, if not a little tiring.  These are techy XC trails though, not the UK downhilly stuff.

In reply to kevin stephens:

Having just bought my hardtail I have even done the research for you if you wanted to go down that route. Bikes I was considering were the canyon stoic, orange crush, ribble HT ti. Others would probably recommend getting a steel frame and building the bike yourself but I am no bike builder and prefer to ride than mess with bikes. 

I think you should look at 27.5 wheels with 140 or 150 mm front suspension. A lot of the 29ers actually have 10mm less suspension than the 27.5 counterparts due to the geometry changes. 
 

Another thing you could do of course is a demo day at one of the bike centres or hire a full suspension then a hard tail and see what you think. 
 

You can definitely enjoy things like the cut gate on a hardtail. It is only stuff like jacobs ladder or the beast that I prefer on the full suspension. 

In reply to The Grist: Thanks very much Mark for your help on this. Hope things are good with you. I’ve done bike building with replacing the GS on my road bike but happier if I can get something ready built. Im leaning towards a top end HT rather than middling FS for the reasons you and others have given, also they’re easier to get hold of at the moment.  The Ribble HT Ti does look good, also the Cotic BFe while it is still available in 27.5, steel but overall not much heavier (with a good spec )than the Ribble and it can have 140mm fork.

In reply to kevin stephens: both of them would be awesome. If you work then ribble do a good cycle to work scheme. Bike waiting times are an issue at the moment as well though. 

In reply to kevin stephens:

If you’re finding that the front wheel is lifting while climbing then it is likely that the seat stays are too short for you, your weight becomes too rearward, and the bike loops out. Modern bikes have longer wheelbases and seat stays which should make your weight more centred and less over the rear wheel. This should reduce the tendency of the front wheel to lift up but comes at the expense of rear wheel traction.  Switching to a HT would further reduce rear wheel traction and you may find that on climbs where previously you couldn’t keep your front wheel down you now can’t stop the rear wheel spinning out. If technical climbs are as much a priority as you alluded to earlier then I would definitely say that switching to a HT would be a mistake. There are loads of climbs in the Peak District that I can clean on a FS but not on a HT. For the descents all being on a HT means is that you are a bit slower and it is a bit more tiring, whether or not it is more fun is much more subjective. Personally, I love Steel City DH on a HT although I never hit the gap jump or bomb hole regardless of what bike I am on but for loose and chunky gritstone descents, Jacob’s Ladder, Hope Cross, Chapel Gate before they bulldozed it, would prefer a FS. Maybe something like a Giant Trance 29 is what you want, good pedalling platform, modern geometry and available at a wide spread of price points.

In reply to kevin stephens:

If you just want to have fun out mountian biking I would say go full suspension. The improvement in quality of bikes over the past 20 years has been pretty exponential, a large part of that has been a better understanding of geometry. Unless you're racing for tenths of tenths on a XC course you're likely to be quicker and make it up more climbs on a squishy bike than a hardtail. Climbs are easier, descents are easier, so long as you're not over biked it will still be fun and exciting, and this depends largely on what you're into and where you ride.

I wouldn't let long distances dissuade you either way, unloaded a full suss is going to fatigue you far less off road. For multi-day rides both can be loaded up fine, just take a look at the rigs from tour divides past.

Wheel size wise I'm a shorty at 5'7, my personal bike is 27.5" but I use it for everything and for agility on steeper trails I prefer the smaller wheel size purely to keep the chainstay length where I prefer it. Ratio of front end to back end (front center:chainstay) being more important than really short or really long chiainstays full stop. That said if I wanted a bike whose focus was distance and adventure I'd go 29" in a blink. Increased comfort, grip and momentum.

There are endless category of bike these days but I'd hazard you're a good candidate for what the Canadians like to call downcountry (don't ask), typically at their core they are  a full suspension cross country bike but with geometry relaxed enough so they don't feel desperately twitchy at speed and just a little stiffness added to the frame and wheels to cope with the increased speed that comes with said geometry. ~120mm travel, 29" wheels, comfortable position and trail focussed tyres i.e. not paper thin. 

All of the above being said, my personal and (currently) only bike is a 27.5" steel hardtail. But a large part of that is sentimental as the fellas that made the frame are good friends; we and the bike have been on many an adventure and I love the way it rides, so despite only having room for one bike, that's the one that stays. It's pretty aggressive geometry wise so can keep its ducks in a row when things get fast and steep but isn't unreasonable on long flatter rides. There's a certain masochism and simplicity to riding hardtails and for some this is enough to prefer them over a FS, they offer more of a challenge at lower speeds.

I will say (and plenty of people might disagree) if you go the hardcore hardtail route then avoid long forks, ideally no more than 130mm, 140mm as an absolute limit: much more than that and as you corner or ride through a compression the geometry changes dramatically in a negative way. The reach becomes longer right at the point where you're trying to keep your upper body loose and in control. Long forks on hardtails feel crap just riding along and worse when you get into the meat of a trail. I find 120mm-130mm the sweet spot depending on the frame.

In reply to kevin stephens:

Having just bought a hardcore hardtail as a second bike a few things to watch out for:

- Geometry charts for hardtails can be sagged or static, this can make a significant difference when comparing bikes. 

- Steep seatube angles that work on a full suspension bike will steepen further on a hardtail, this can potentailly not be great on flatter or more rolling terrain. 

- Reach for a hardtail will increase as the fork compresses whereas on a full suspension bike the number stays fairly static as front and rear compress at similar rates. Generally your static hardtail reach should be slightly less than a full suspension bike. 

Aside from the above for the type of riding you are describing it maybe that a mullet bike would work well, 29 wheel up front for better rolling and efficiency and 27.5 in the back to allow you the freedom of movement on the bike (this could also be paired with a 2.6 or 2.8 tyre for some more comfort/compliance out back). 

If you don't want to buy new then decent hardtails seem to come up quite often second hand (Facebook Marketplace, Pinkbike BuySell, etc - usual caveats apply about seeing orginal purchase receipts and generally making sure you don't buy stolen or get defrauded) , people either buy as second bikes and realise they aren't being used or people purchase as a first bike and realise that they want full susupension for the riding that they are doing. Also buying a hardtail second hand always seems less risk than a full suspension bike due to there being inherently less things that can be wrong/need replacing. 

Finally even though it can be a pain in the backside to fit i would recommend running an insert in the rear wheel of a hardtail. It can prevent rim dings that are more likely when on a hardtail with no squish to take out some of the force. 

In reply to jamie_bkc:

What a load of tosh.

Been riding 160mm forks on hardcore hardtails (650b and now 29er) for years.  

In reply to ChrisJD:

I think this is now less of an issue with slack headangles. The change in geometry as the fork compresses is less than it used to be as the compression is less vertical meaning the bar height and reach change less for a given compression of the fork. 

Also newer forks with better damping don't tend to dive as much as they used to in low speed compression situations (berms, g-outs) so the situation is further controlled. 

In reply to sxrxg:

Yes - they have all been slack (and now much longer) - but that is what a hardcore hardtail is all about

Currently have a SolarisMax 29er (the earlier one without the stupid number of bottle cage bosses, lol) with Lyric Ultimates, so the front end is well controlled. 

In reply to ChrisJD:

I did say some won't agree, doesn't make it tosh, just another point of view.

Doesn't mean people don't do it and like it. And it doesn't make it un-ridable as you quite prove.

But the reality is the more disparity you have front to back irrespective of head angle or damper quality the less settled the bike will feel in high G situations compared to the same bike with equivalent spring rate and damping levels. 

Damping has improved fork dive for sure, but x% dive on a long fork is more than x% on a shorter one. And if you're stiffening your spring rate to compensate for that then why bother running the long one at all?

It's horses for courses I suppose, if what you're into is low speed technical riding on very natural terrain, thinking peak district style loops then there could be argument for a a longer fork on a hardtail that can take large jarring impacts. But for my money I prefer a bike that behaves better at speed and that's reflective of the kind of trails I ride most of the time.

In reply to kevin stephens:

If buying a bike after 17 year gap, be aware that modern handle bars are about 6 inches wider each side nowadays for some reason. I took a hacksaw to my new bike 3 years ago before giving it away and going back to my old full suss and hardtail.

On a long ride came back with more tired arms than legs.

In reply to kevin stephens:

In short, I’d recommend a full suspension 29’er.

They roll better and give more grip, both up and downhill.  Smaller wheels accelerate more quickly and can be better in tight corners but I wouldn’t trade that.

I went from good 27.5 hardtail to a heavier full suss 29’er trail bike.  Best time around the Red route at Dalby went from 3 hours 3 mins to 2 hours 17 minutes - 3 weeks apart, in similar conditions and similar fitness levels.

In reply to afx22: I’m 5’4” and concerned that 29 inch wheels for my size would compromise the geometry. Some bikes eg Trek Fuel have 29 wheels for large sizes and 27.5 for small sizes

In reply to jamie_bkc:

In the Peak I ride it across all the range of trails, from steep slow tek, off-piste, to the fast rocky natural stuff, and everything in-between.

Forks are set up compliant so that the often brutal reality of HT riding is kept manageable, so get to use all the travel.  Fork dive is the last of my worries, lol. 

In reply to kevin stephens:

It's down to budget. There are many very nice full suss XC bikes, with remote lock etc.. mainly on 29s though. Light, fast, versatile, but sadly usually £5k and beyond. 

In reply to kevin stephens:

You are the same height as Mrs 65 and she rides a 27+, occasionally with 29er wheels. She likes the 29 wheels for long non-tech rides but much prefers 27x2.8 tyres for everything else. The 29ers roll over things better but they are a little less manoeuvrable.

As far as full sus or HT goes, try before you buy. For big distances I prefer short travel full sus as aside from smoothing the ride it makes technical uphills much less physical.  

All depends what you want to do with it.

In reply to kevin stephens:

Hi Kevin, that’s worth thinking about.  I’m 5ft 6.5” but understand the thinking about smaller wheels.

I would recommend trying to test ride the alternatives and going of what feels best.  I used to run a hardcore mountain bike shop, so have strong feelings on riders to fitting with their bikes.  A test ride is of greater value than what any sales person or sizing chart tells you.

In reply to kevin stephens:

Sounds like a shortish travel 27.5" 140/140mm FS would be ideal. 

At 5'4", as a good starting point I would be looking at bikes with a geometry Reach of ~410mm, which will probably put you in S frame sizing (current gen bike sizing).

On smaller frames, just check the dropper seat post can go down far enough if there is a seat-tube frame bend/kink (real issue on some smaller bikes, e.g. Giants)

In reply to kevin stephens:

I’ve got a Whyte T130 which for me (old & not very skilled) is way too much bike but it’s a very calm thing to ride and gives me a lot of extra confidence on rocky bits. Before I got it, though, I got a chance to try a  Santa Cruz (?)Chameleon which was a bit short of reach but had 2.8 section tyres which made it incredibly smooth to ride., almost like a full sus bike. Mind, I’m comparing it with my ‘95 fully rigid Kona which routinely tried to kill you on anything rougher than a gravel fire road! If I ever replace my Whyte, or succumb to the N+1 virus, it’ll be a hard tail possibly from Sonder (no I’m really not looking. Honest…)

In reply to kevin stephens:

Echoing what others have already said, but I'll add that at 5'4" not every manufacturer will have made a concerted effort to design for your size, merely allocated you the smallest they do. Keep an eye on reach and stack figures. If they expect you to ride a bike suitable for someone up to 5'9 maybe look elsewhere.

In reply to jamie_bkc:

A good option might be to look at the Giant Liv range.

Both my sons have ridden XS and S Liv FS bikes - perfect sizing when they were 10-13.

In reply to kevin stephens:

I'm 5'4", and I've got a 29er FS bike. I rode a few different bikes, both 27.5 and 29, before I bought, and found that the sizing and geometry of the bike had far more effect on how nimble I found it than wheel size alone. I've been really pleased with the 29" wheels - they're especially good for rooty, techy climbs - and I'm about to buy another after some b*stard stole mine.

In reply to kevin stephens: thanks for the advice everyone, I went for a Cotic Flaremax, 29r “down country” full sus with 130 fork

In reply to kevin stephens:

Nice! You have some fantastic riding on your doorstep in Sheffield. I went over to Wharncliffe today for the first time. Definitely full suspension terrain and amazing riding. Take it to George’s climbing meet in Scotland and we should hire a mountain bike guide in Torridon for a day or two.  

In reply to kevin stephens:

Sounds ace. TBH if you've been riding around on a 2005 bike whatever you went for is likely to feel amazing. I swapped a 2008 Kona Cindercone HT for a Whyte T130 FS a couple of years back and the difference was amazing. The 27.5 wheels, slack geometry, dropper post etc make everything feel so much easier and that's even before you factor in rear shocks and an extra 30mm of front travel. It's so much fun to ride!

In reply to The Grist: Thanks Mark. Wharncliffe is within walking distance of our house. I don’t think I’ll have room for the bike for George’s meet with all our sea kayaking gear- we've booked the campsite site for an extra week before the climbing trip to enjoy the awesome sea kayaking in the area. I think it’ll take some time to get biking fit again 

In reply to kevin stephens:

Nothing to add on modern bikes but I'm loving all this discussion on modern "short travel" bikes at 120 to140mm. I used to race dowh Hill back in the mid 90s, a full on down hill race bike would only have 100mm of travel. How things have changed. 

In reply to Dax H:

Yeah.

But back then the social and party scene was as hard as the course, bombing down half cut or hung over many wouldn't notice 100 or 160mm! 

Sport has changed a lot, courses were narrower, more technical, arguably steeper, but also slower, there were very few big air jumps with sponsors names next to, cars underneath etc.. Bar width today would struggle through some forested sections back then. 

In reply to ExiledScot:

Its definitely changed, I got out as the jumps started getting bigger. Crashing was hurting more and more and the way the courses were going it was only a matter of time before I had a serious accident. 

In reply to Dax H:

Every has got harder and more technical.

I raced a dozen of the Dragon DH series back in 2001-2003 and then raced three seasons of PMBA Enduro in 2016-2018 (as a GVet).

Most of the current PMBA Enduro stages (Gisburn aside) are way harder technically and physically than anything on the old Dragon courses, especially the Graythwaite and off-piste Grizedale stages; Ard Moors had some great stages as well.

Doubt I could even fall down a current proper modern DH course.

In reply to climbingpixie:

My partner upgraded her T-130 from the stock fox float and suntour airfork to a Cane creek IL coil shock and Rockshox revelations last year. The thing is an absolute ripper now!

In reply to tomsan91: that’s reassuring, Rockshox Revelation is standard on the bike I’ve ordered 

In reply to kevin stephens:

We have two pairs of the Revelations in the 140mm, they work very well on my Ragley Big Wig hardtail. At that price point you really can't fault them and you can always upgrade to the charger 2.1 damper from the Pike at your first fork service. 

In reply to ChrisJD:

My last race was in 1998, part of the UK national series. It was won by Steve Pete. I crashed but to be fair I never actually finished a race without crashing at least once but I did finish every race.

Slight change of direction but I had the opertunity to ride with Steve Pete once. I was involved with building the first DH trail at Wharncliffe. Way before the trail center took over, this was just a bunch of us not knowing any better digging a trail on Saturdays.

On the day we finished the trail Steve came ambling up the hill, he was the current world champion but not racing at the time because he was recovering from a broken collar bone.

He asked if he could run the track and would I like to race him down dual descender style. He borrowed a FT Zaskar hard tail off one of the lads (his bike he had lent the lad a few years earlier) and was off with me in hot pursuit.

Half way down I was still on his back wheel, I was keeping up with the best in the world and it was a massive buzz. Okay so I built the course and knew every inch,  I was on my own custom DH bike in full body armour, I was riding out of my skin with nothing left in reserve and Steve was on a borrowed hard tail, injured, on a course he has never seen and wearing shirts and a tee-shirt but I was keeping up with the best in the world.

About half way down he looked over his shoulder at me, grinned then started peddling. You have seen star wars where the melenium falcon jumps to hyperspace leaving the tie fighters behind? The gap between us opened that fast that I had to check to make sure I hadn't turned round and was heading back up the hill.

It's one of 2 times in my life when I have played out with a top end sports person and it was both awesome and humbling seeing how good he was compared to a mear mortal. 

In reply to kevin stephens:

HTFU and go fully rigid.