|
Post by Julio on Aug 2, 2006 13:34:59 GMT 8
Full suspension mountain bike improves off-road cycling performance
AIM: The purpose of the present study was to determine the effects of suspension systems on the cycling performance of cyclists during off-road bicycling.
METHODS: Eight elite male cyclists performed 30-minute riding tests on bicycles with 2 different suspension setups: front suspension (FS) and front and rear suspension (FRS). Heart rate, blood lactate concentration, pedaling power, cadence, cycling velocity, and completed distance during the trial were measured creatin kinase (CK), lactic dehydrogenase (LDH) and glutamic-oxaloacetic transaminase (GOT) were measured before and after the trials.
RESULTS: The average cadence during the trial was significantly higher with the FRS (73.6+/-6.1 rpm) than the FS (70.2+/-6.2 rpm). Subjects rode significantly faster on FRS (24.1+/-2.6 km/h) than FS bikes (22.9+/-2.4 km/h), although no significant difference was observed in pedaling power (240.7+/-26.6 W vs 242.2+/-28.8 W, FS vs FRS, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that the FRS improved cycling performance over rough terrain. FRS might therefore be more suitable for cross-country mountain bike races.
J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2004 Dec;44(4):356-60
|
|
|
Post by gadgets88 on Nov 9, 2006 9:17:09 GMT 8
Full suspension is better than hardtails... ...as you age. The body of a 30 year-old would appreciate the softer ride in the long run. Just my 2cents.
|
|
|
Post by grnhrnt on Nov 9, 2006 16:07:22 GMT 8
I agree over rough terrain. last sunday's combination road/trail race i borrowed a hardtail w/c was 3 lbs lighter than my FS (This is another plus factor to the ht) i use cyclocross tires and flew during the tarmac stages but as soon as the trails came, i slowed down tremendously! I was not used to the ht. At 1st I tried sitting down (being used to my FS) but the bumps and vibration were so severe I had to stand. It was very difficult to spin standing up (wasted a lot of energy there). In the end, i realized I should have used my FS instead.
|
|
trailblaster
Free Rider
another one bites the dust!
Posts: 273
|
Post by trailblaster on Nov 10, 2006 15:05:05 GMT 8
no comment.. hardtail for me. peace!
|
|
leo
Bike Commuter
Posts: 68
|
Post by leo on Nov 10, 2006 15:16:56 GMT 8
No point in going light if you end up using the brakes more... I go way faster on fs than I did on my HT . less time analyzing and finding the line and more time to enjoy or concentrate on gunning it
|
|
|
Post by mountguitars on Nov 10, 2006 19:10:54 GMT 8
I agree over rough terrain. last sunday's combination road/trail race i borrowed a hardtail w/c was 3 lbs lighter than my FS (This is another plus factor to the ht) i use cyclocross tires and flew during the tarmac stages but as soon as the trails came, i slowed down tremendously! I was not used to the ht. At 1st I tried sitting down (being used to my FS) but the bumps and vibration were so severe I had to stand. It was very difficult to spin standing up (wasted a lot of energy there). In the end, i realized I should have used my FS instead. sir ramon, i totally agree. but im not talking about the age though. i got used to full suspension (i've been using my shawn H2 for sometime), when the time came to hit the dirt section at the race (i also joined the race last sunday), it really slowed me down. i used a HT which is considerably lighter but didnt provide the comfort, handling, and ease of using a full suspension on dirt roads. and in the end, i realised i should've used my FS also. i guess it varies with the terrain. the off road section at the race last sunday was so rough, you can rate the trail as 'all mountain'. there's just no way to go fast on a HT when you're up against a FS on that trail. but then again, some folks were able to conquer this section on HT. hats off to those people.
|
|
|
Post by gilbs72 on Nov 10, 2006 22:05:08 GMT 8
I guess it depends what you're after in picking cycling as your sport. The test mentioned (like many of the comments) is severely lopsided in favor of racing. Does cycling equate to speed alone? Should we be stuck in this mindset the way motorcar dragsters forget there is also "better" in economy cars or people movers?
There are people who want to keep the "purity" of cycling where certain skills remain strong--picking your trails or path.... control... etc. With FS, you don't really need these skills that HT riders need (or else suffer the consequences)--at least not the way HT riders need them.
In the same way people find gems in other types of riding--why there is a growing community of single-speeders, the "steel is real" and the rigid-riders crowd.
BMX and jumpers probably have their own reasons to pick hardtails. If we ask them which is "better" they will probably answer differently. How about which is "better" for weight-weenies?
Of course, marketing-wise, manufacturers would always prefer the more expensive mindsets. Thus cycling magazines and sponsored competitions would always promote the "better" and "best" in terms of the price tags. You will find the purists in some small corner of non-profit bulletin boards like PinoyMTBiker. ;D
|
|
|
Post by anshwa on Nov 10, 2006 22:52:08 GMT 8
Each type of frame has it's place in the different categories of MTB riding.
You need a different set of skills for riding a full suspension bike and a different set of skills for riding a hardtail. I think it really isn't a matter of w/c frame is better. It is a matter of personal preference.
If I could only have one bike, my preference right now is my full suspension DW-link FR bike. It pedals like a hardtail, although the weight isn't, and works for me when I FR & do some DH runs. I may not be fast trailriding but I can ride it anywhere.
|
|
|
Post by marcs on Nov 11, 2006 0:20:21 GMT 8
what the heck do you mean by purist mean anyway? what is the purity of cycling? riding rigid modified klunkers while wearing jeans and a bonnet? Why do people always have to diss FS as if it's not 'pure' just because it costs more? There are a lot of HT frames there that cost so much more than your basic FS.
at the end of the day, it's about your own personal experience, it's about pushing your limit with the equipment you got, and it's about getting that thrill by getting close to whatever 'edge' you have.
just because you ride an affordable HT that makes you a purist? What about that fork slapped on your frame? Or the disc brakes you got? Aren't those technological gizmos that make your bike not so pure?
|
|
|
Post by BrusKO on Nov 11, 2006 1:49:00 GMT 8
what the heck do you mean by purist mean anyway? what is the purity of cycling? riding rigid modified klunkers while wearing jeans and a bonnet? Why do people always have to diss FS as if it's not 'pure' just because it costs more? There are a lot of HT frames there that cost so much more than your basic FS. at the end of the day, it's about your own personal experience, it's about pushing your limit with the equipment you got, and it's about getting that thrill by getting close to whatever 'edge' you have. just because you ride an affordable HT that makes you a purist? What about that fork slapped on your frame? Or the disc brakes you got? Aren't those technological gizmos that make your bike not so pure? Taray papa! ARIGATU!
|
|
|
Post by Onie on Nov 11, 2006 2:20:19 GMT 8
Only me here, huh¿!¿
It trickles down to two most imp0rtant factors: preferential exuberance & its application.
.
|
|
|
Post by rob on Nov 11, 2006 7:49:16 GMT 8
heheh
I wouldn't even bother commenting here. enjoy your rigs people!
|
|
|
Post by janix on Nov 11, 2006 8:34:45 GMT 8
i don't pick my lines when i go downhill on my HT... not until my fork stuck up.
when it comes to racing, getting used to high speeds with your body taking a lot of beating is something to consider.
i like FS, if only i have the cash to buy an FS. But for racing, i still prefer HT, not unless i've tried to race with an FS, which i haven't, which i would really like to try, which is only possible when i have an FS, which is only possible when i am able to buy an FS, which is possible when i have the cash to buy an FS.
|
|
|
Post by OnebyOne on Nov 11, 2006 9:30:05 GMT 8
FS is better than hardtails???ans; YES AND NO
|
|
|
Post by gilbs72 on Nov 11, 2006 23:08:21 GMT 8
Who ever said it's "pure just because it costs more"? For sure, not me--it's no where in my post. Pure riding is actually another thing that's different for different people. So what the heck to I mean by purists? Well first I did not coin the term... it's a fact that "purists" exist (maybe they just want to be called that). My post doesn't necessarily mean I agree with them. But "pure" in practically any thing--even chemicals and juices--means it's not modified or mixed with anything that takes away from the original. The original bikes don't have any of the gizmos that make things comfortable or easy for riders. The bike has remained practically the same for at least a hundred years--for the most part, SS and rigid... You will see very strong similarities in a 1900 bike and a 1960's bike. The first significant deviation is perhaps multiple-gearing and then suspensions. And, yes... HT is not pure in this sense of the word. But all the more stresses my point that there are different goals for different riders... that's why I mentioned rigid and SS (even steel). So too with HT fans. It's not the "FS"... it's the word "better" that is wrong in the title. Good thing HT fans don't react as violently when people claim here that "FS is BETTER than hardtails". Some people are just naturally cool noh--you just have to admire them. what the heck do you mean by purist mean anyway? what is the purity of cycling? riding rigid modified klunkers while wearing jeans and a bonnet? Why do people always have to diss FS as if it's not 'pure' just because it costs more? There are a lot of HT frames there that cost so much more than your basic FS. at the end of the day, it's about your own personal experience, it's about pushing your limit with the equipment you got, and it's about getting that thrill by getting close to whatever 'edge' you have. just because you ride an affordable HT that makes you a purist? What about that fork slapped on your frame? Or the disc brakes you got? Aren't those technological gizmos that make your bike not so pure?
|
|
|
Post by gilbs72 on Nov 11, 2006 23:29:00 GMT 8
Sorry brad.
Just having a series of bad days at work.... pressures.... looking for outlet.
Maybe I just need to ride again but can't.
Peace!
|
|
|
Post by Julio on Nov 12, 2006 8:00:14 GMT 8
"Good thing HT fans don't react as violently when people claim here that "FS is BETTER than hardtails". Some people are just naturally cool noh--you just have to admire them. "
I started the thread but I have a hardtail... I was just researching in the library when I came across this "peer -reviewed, scientific journal article." I didn't claim FS was better than hardtails. The authors of the article did and they did it through experimentation. The Full-Suspension riders were able to maintain a higher cadence while riding in rough terrain. I don't see a problem with that. If you want to contest their findings, go do an experiment yourself.
|
|
|
Post by Superbad on Nov 12, 2006 10:53:37 GMT 8
what the heck do you mean by purist mean anyway? what is the purity of cycling? riding rigid modified klunkers while wearing jeans and a bonnet? Why do people always have to diss FS as if it's not 'pure' just because it costs more? There are a lot of HT frames there that cost so much more than your basic FS. at the end of the day, it's about your own personal experience, it's about pushing your limit with the equipment you got, and it's about getting that thrill by getting close to whatever 'edge' you have. just because you ride an affordable HT that makes you a purist? What about that fork slapped on your frame? Or the disc brakes you got? Aren't those technological gizmos that make your bike not so pure? Taray papa! ARIGATU! Brus, nakakahawa ka kasi!
|
|
|
Post by Onie on Nov 12, 2006 11:37:32 GMT 8
It's truly contag1ous! ;D ;D ;D
Everyone's cool! Let's keep it that way then!
|
|
|
Post by GALVinChie on Nov 12, 2006 13:10:10 GMT 8
Here's my thought naman. For epic rides, FS is the best recommendation. (It's really a lot healthier for the body.) For quickies, HT. Say.............PEYUPS oval or long uphill rides.
|
|
|
Post by janix on Nov 12, 2006 14:46:13 GMT 8
i'll say, this is the "purist" bike. hehe
|
|
|
Post by allegra on Nov 12, 2006 23:19:00 GMT 8
I just ride 1 mtb so I woudnt have to know what a lighter/heavier/softer/faster//easier/hard pedaling/efficient bike feels like I just try to adapt what I have to every ride, it's cheaper Exception lang, after riding my 35lb fs on 3 triathlons , bumili nako ng road bike hehe
|
|
|
Post by gilbs72 on Nov 13, 2006 21:52:14 GMT 8
"Good thing HT fans don't react as violently when people claim here that "FS is BETTER than hardtails". Some people are just naturally cool noh--you just have to admire them. " I started the thread but I have a hardtail... I was just researching in the library when I came across this "peer -reviewed, scientific journal article." I didn't claim FS was better than hardtails. The authors of the article did and they did it through experimentation. The Full-Suspension riders were able to maintain a higher cadence while riding in rough terrain. I don't see a problem with that. If you want to contest their findings, go do an experiment yourself. No sir, I wasn't referring to you.... more about the author of the article and some comments. You were just the messenger.
|
|
|
Post by gilbs72 on Nov 13, 2006 21:58:50 GMT 8
i'll say, this is the "purist" bike. hehe Yeah, I'd think they would like your bike. Except maybe for the chain tensioner. I've heard it said that part of the liberating experience is the lack of excess chain slap. You just hear your tires bouncing off the rocks, the sound of the wind and the trees passing by. There are other things. Oh yeah... just to clarify my earlier posts... I ride a derailleur bike with front suspension and don't consider myself a purist, simplist, old-school or whatever they want to call themselves (I'm expanding the words used to avoid further misunderstandings). While I'm not one, I appreciate the back-to-basics concept and would like to experience it sometime.
|
|
|
Post by jr on Nov 13, 2006 22:50:33 GMT 8
No matter what they say..I experienced both. The truth is FS way better than Hardtail base on all around ride. FS used to have draw back on climbing but todays technology with lockout system I dont see any different between the two.
just my dos centavos.
|
|
|
Post by king on Nov 14, 2006 9:08:45 GMT 8
FS bikes are better the hardtails, but hardtail riders are better then FS riders! harharhar just fanning the flame
|
|
|
Post by Ben Dover on Nov 14, 2006 9:37:13 GMT 8
my first ever mtb was a HT..my second was a FS...my current bike is a HT...if i can have my way i'll have 4 MTBs..rigid SS, FS trail bike, HT XC race and a FS XC race bike..i just dont believe there is such a thing as all around/all purpose MTB. gusto ko rin pala ng road bike..mahirap talaga maging dukha
|
|
|
Post by Ben Dover on Nov 14, 2006 9:39:25 GMT 8
FS bikes are better the hardtails, but hardtail riders are better then FS riders! harharhar just fanning the flame hail to the king of HT's !!!
|
|
|
Post by kulot_salot on Nov 14, 2006 10:17:09 GMT 8
mahirap talaga maging dukha same here sir tolits... same here...
|
|
|
Post by jr on Nov 14, 2006 12:41:00 GMT 8
Here two questions..
hows your body feels after long ride with hardtail doing a rocky, rutty, technical setions?
How fast you can go with those trails above mention?
|
|