robpax
Bike Commuter
Veni, Vidi, Vici
Posts: 73
|
Post by robpax on Nov 20, 2006 14:29:00 GMT 8
If you have the budget, no issues having both FS and HT rigs.
But for the "dukha" subgroups like us, a HT rig will do whatever the ride situation. Especially for me, speed may not be too much of an issue since i do not have enough courage anyway to ride a downhill fast.
For my kind of riding, i'm still happy with a HT XC.
I'm not sure though what happens next year.
|
|
|
Post by gilbs72 on Nov 23, 2006 13:12:39 GMT 8
The bicycle was created primarily to multiply human effort in traveling without being complicated. For at least a hundred years, the goals have been...
- reduction in weight (improve materials) - improve efficiency (newer drive systems and geometries) - low-maintenance (bicycles' main edge over motorized machines) - comfort and safety - performance (without sacrificing the above bicycle characteristics)
The "better" bike must strike a balance among these qualities, and combine these with human effort and skill to navigate through rocks and rough terrain--not necessarily to effortlessly roll over them as longer and longer travel allow us to.
If the challenge is to deploy all available technology one can afford so he can ride FASTER and through larger rocks and rougher terrain, then might as well put in a motor to make weight irrelevant and put in larger, heavier suspensions... the motoX bikes have this figured out.
|
|
|
Post by marcs on Nov 23, 2006 14:50:16 GMT 8
helloooooo
this is Pinoy MOUNTAIN BIKERS. The whole discussion is about Mountain Bikes, not bicycles in general. as the first ad of the Stumjumper went, it's not just a new bike, it's a whole new sport.
and if we look at the history of mountain bikes, technology has always been a key part of the sport. it's the irony of it I guess, we use the most highly sophisticated equipment to get away from modern life. becoming moto x bikes? the first 'mountain bikes' ridden down mt tam were modified clunkers (your so called pure bikes) fitted with moto bike parts to make them more durable. were these pioneers 'destroying' cycling coz they were altering the 'pure' bike? the modifications they did then I think is no different from what modern tech is doing to the modern mt bike. they were adding things to make the bike ride better, faster, harder.
and the evolution continues today. i agree that sometimes too much technology is not good, where you become an equipment operator rather than a mountain biker. but all the modern tech does make all our riding that much more enjoyable.
and why focus the argument of technology again just on suspension? what about all those other techs that help you ride faster and harder? IN FACT, taking your argument further, why even ride a bike which is technology in itself? Why don't you just walk?
Comfort and Safety? What could be more comfortable than an FS? Ever tried bombing down a trail on a HT? for 30 mins? Seated? Sarap
I love my FS. And although one day I might ride a HT also (when I have enough money to maintain a second bike) it's because I want to enjoy a diff facet of the sport. And there are a lot.
|
|
|
Post by janix on Nov 23, 2006 17:50:26 GMT 8
|
|
|
Post by BrusKO on Nov 23, 2006 18:10:44 GMT 8
So FS is better than hardtails?
|
|
|
Post by Superbad on Nov 23, 2006 18:42:43 GMT 8
So FS is better than hardtails? IMHO, yes it is. I don't think I'll ever buy a HT again.
|
|
|
Post by nhan on Nov 23, 2006 18:52:43 GMT 8
So FS is better than hardtails? IMHO, yes it is. I don't think I'll ever buy a HT again. Sir Raul does that mean that you already dispose your KHS HT which you bought recently? i notice that you're already using the NRS
|
|
|
Post by Superbad on Nov 23, 2006 19:07:48 GMT 8
IMHO, yes it is. I don't think I'll ever buy a HT again. Sir Raul does that mean that you already dispose your KHS HT which you bought recently? i notice that you're already using the NRS Hi Nhan, Yes, my cousin got the KHS HT from me. But he lends it to me whenever I have races (provided the course is suitable for a hardtail).
|
|
|
Post by Ben Dover on Nov 23, 2006 19:33:01 GMT 8
Sir Raul does that mean that you already dispose your KHS HT which you bought recently? i notice that you're already using the NRS Hi Nhan, Yes, my cousin got the KHS HT from me. But he lends it to me whenever I have races (provided the course is suitable for a hardtail). i thought you said fs is better? ;D
|
|
|
Post by BrusKO on Nov 23, 2006 19:37:13 GMT 8
How is it better? Why?
|
|
|
Post by Ben Dover on Nov 23, 2006 19:43:26 GMT 8
last time i checked..the combat record of that HT KHS showed that it beat the hell out of a white NRS...yeah, please explain? heheh! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Onie on Nov 23, 2006 19:58:23 GMT 8
Admittedly I've been one of those curmudgeons (but am stoic enough for everyone to know)...________________________________________________________________________________________________ Admittedly I've been one of those curmudgeons (but am stoic enough for everyone to know) unwilling to admit that full squishy is better than HT particularly after witnessing Freeman breezed thru the rooty uphill climb in one of the sections of Sampaloc trail during the infamous Aug 12 Rocky Road - Helipad NEWBIE Fun Ride. & he looked at me & smiled as if telling me, "UmanGkas ka pa, Onie!" Yeah, Baby!!! With that said, I thought FS actually kept the rear end tracking the ground for better traction during climbs? Conversely, FS is not as efficient to a HT since there will always be a % of energy loss that's somehow directed to the shock and not the tires. Well, some people could over come that while others couldn't. Most arguably, FS will really shine in an XC race/ trail during the descents of its race track/ trail course . At the end, I think it all comes down to what kind of trails you're doing and how exceptional your bike handling skills are. Just my unsolicited 2 cents. With that, the floor is now open for nominations!!! Ahem! Ahem! I respectfully nominate Paul aka Freeman as the PTMB's mountaingoat for 2006! ;D Cheers! IMHO, yes it is. I don't think I'll ever buy a HT again. Sir Raul does that mean that you already dispose your KHS HT which you bought recently? i notice that you're already using the NRS Pardon me, brad... Let's fast forward it... Shall we, Raul? You have a li'l naughty secret there, Raul!¿! Is still a secret until now? I doubt, he he he he!!! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Superbad on Nov 23, 2006 20:10:05 GMT 8
I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT ONIE!
|
|
|
Post by Superbad on Nov 23, 2006 20:11:32 GMT 8
Hi Nhan, Yes, my cousin got the KHS HT from me. But he lends it to me whenever I have races (provided the course is suitable for a hardtail). i thought you said fs is better? ;D It is...but the KHS is a pure race bike (sayang naman). But I wished i brought my NRS during the Lipa race (especially the offroad portion).
|
|
|
Post by grnhrnt on Nov 23, 2006 20:18:12 GMT 8
I think the study does not say FS is better than HT all the time? Like pedalling efficiency for instance, What it says is "We conclude that the FRS improved cycling performance over rough terrain. FRS might therefore be more suitable for cross-country mountain bike races." emphasis on the rough terrain" in smooth terrain HT could be and i actually feel is much better because of reasons that Onie mentions. BUT over rough terrain FS is better.
|
|
|
Post by Onie on Nov 23, 2006 20:27:08 GMT 8
I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT ONIE! Here you go, old chum! 1 smilie...2 smilies...3 smilies...4, 5 smilies! Bwaha-HA-HA!!! Night night! Cheers!
|
|
|
Post by BrusKO on Nov 23, 2006 21:09:56 GMT 8
last time i check..the combat record of that HT KHS showed that it beat the hell out of a white NRS...yeah, please explain? heheh! ;D I think the white NRS is ready now. ;D
|
|
|
Post by mikeyngson on Nov 23, 2006 22:12:25 GMT 8
I think the study does not say FS is better than HT all the time? Like pedalling efficiency for instance, What it says is "We conclude that the FRS improved cycling performance over rough terrain. FRS might therefore be more suitable for cross-country mountain bike races." emphasis on the rough terrain" in smooth terrain HT could be and i actually feel is much better because of reasons that Onie mentions. BUT over rough terrain FS is better. After reading all the posts, I guess this is the answer I'd stick with too. I've got an FS and an HT, and I race and go on trail rides on both. Which goes faster depends on the terrain I guess. Now that I've come to think of it, yup, the rougher the course, the more I tend to use my FS (Mud Spring Race, Divine Mercy). For smoother courses (like Lipa) or where there are more uphills, I chose the HT. But then again, my first and 2nd trophies came after using my HT at the Divine Mercy tracks. Hmmm, I too find that strange. BUT when doing plain trail riding or exploring unknown trails, I tend to use my HT more often. I guess coz its easier to portage my HT rather than the FS. Bottomline for me, it depends. But I love em' both for sure
|
|
Allan
Urban Assaulter
Posts: 87
|
Post by Allan on Nov 24, 2006 8:30:53 GMT 8
After reading all the posts, I guess this is the answer I'd stick with too. I've got an FS and an HT, and I race and go on trail rides on both. Which goes faster depends on the terrain I guess...... Bottomline for me, it depends. But I love em' both for sure i couldnt agree more...it really depends on the trail..get the right tool for the job!
|
|
|
Post by marcs on Nov 24, 2006 9:45:46 GMT 8
yeah end of the day, as with everything else in mountain biking, it depends! the bottomline is know yourself, know how you want to ride, and get the right tools for the job.
this thread is getting boring, let's see some action. who is the better cyclist, a roadie or a mountain biker? hahahahahahaha this should be fun
|
|
|
Post by Ben Dover on Nov 24, 2006 9:52:08 GMT 8
its raul! hands down...roadie and xc mtbiker at the same time..much better if he's into DH also
|
|
|
Post by Freeman on Nov 24, 2006 10:37:23 GMT 8
Admittedly I've been one of those curmudgeons (but am stoic enough for everyone to know)...________________________________________________________________________________________________ Admittedly I've been one of those curmudgeons (but am stoic enough for everyone to know) unwilling to admit that full squishy is better than HT particularly after witnessing Freeman breezed thru the rooty uphill climb in one of the sections of Sampaloc trail during the infamous Aug 12 Rocky Road - Helipad NEWBIE Fun Ride. & he looked at me & smiled as if telling me, "UmanGkas ka pa, Onie!" Yeah, Baby!!! With that said, I thought FS actually kept the rear end tracking the ground for better traction during climbs? Conversely, FS is not as efficient to a HT since there will always be a % of energy loss that's somehow directed to the shock and not the tires. Well, some people could over come that while others couldn't. Most arguably, FS will really shine in an XC race/ trail during the descents of its race track/ trail course . At the end, I think it all comes down to what kind of trails you're doing and how exceptional your bike handling skills are. Just my unsolicited 2 cents. With that, the floor is now open for nominations!!! Ahem! Ahem! I respectfully nominate Paul aka Freeman as the PTMB's mountaingoat for 2006! ;D Cheers! are you sure its me you saw during that ride?... I heard there's a ghost rider in that area accompanying riders traversing those trails ;D IMHO..., In races which in most cases almost all the racers tend to stand up on rough terrains, making their legs as the suspension system, but the power transfer's still direct, unlike fs bikes which tends to reduce the transfer of power to the drivetrains, I have used both FS (nanghiram ng NRS hehehe) and HT on races, I think It's still HT for me in terms of pedal efficiency. In terms of comfort, I still envy those people having FS rigs on trail rides.. ;D peace
|
|
|
Post by marcs on Nov 24, 2006 10:52:07 GMT 8
pero think of it this way, since the suspension acts as a spring in a way, isn't the supposed power loss during the shock compression given back when the shock extends? sort of like the Nike Shox? hehehehehe
|
|
|
Post by rocky on Nov 24, 2006 15:19:34 GMT 8
I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT ONIE! Haber! Haber! What secret is this hiding in the bushes again Gentlemen? I am tickled Pink.
|
|
|
Post by Onie on Nov 24, 2006 16:58:27 GMT 8
I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT ONIE! Haber! Haber! What secret is this hiding in the bushes again Gentlemen? I am tickled Pink. Yeah! Go FaFa Rock! Some more nudge until... ;D Freudian slip!!! ;D
|
|
|
Post by king on Nov 24, 2006 21:11:12 GMT 8
tomorrow the truth will be known Haber! Haber! What secret is this hiding in the bushes again Gentlemen? I am tickled Pink. Yeah! Go FaFa Rock! Some more nudge until... ;D Freudian slip!!! ;D
|
|
|
Post by gilbs72 on Nov 27, 2006 2:05:43 GMT 8
While the topic is indeed getting boring, I think I deserve a chance to defend my views. I think my post has been misread. I am not advocating that HT is better - but I am saying FS is NOT necessarily "better" as described in the title. The qualities I mentioned (including comfort and safety) are present in all bikes in varying levels... what I said was each bike must strike a balance among these qualities relative to their use. Again what I meant is that FS is not necessarily "better" because speed and downill capability are not the only measures used in describing what's "better". The quoted article simply isolated a few qualities and used these as standard for "beter". The above statements are meant to clarify and not to argue with anyone. I did argue against technology at one point - but only to point out that some people (those who want simplicity) will see things opposite the way the thread is titled. I have high respect for the qualities of an FS bike and even hope to own one someday. But even if I did own one, I will still see both types as having their own pros and cons. There are people who spend big money on FS and also for HT. These people value their rides equally. I hope this clarifies my views. helloooooo this is Pinoy MOUNTAIN BIKERS. The whole discussion is about Mountain Bikes, not bicycles in general. as the first ad of the Stumjumper went, it's not just a new bike, it's a whole new sport. and if we look at the history of mountain bikes, technology has always been a key part of the sport. it's the irony of it I guess, we use the most highly sophisticated equipment to get away from modern life. becoming moto x bikes? the first 'mountain bikes' ridden down mt tam were modified clunkers (your so called pure bikes) fitted with moto bike parts to make them more durable. were these pioneers 'destroying' cycling coz they were altering the 'pure' bike? the modifications they did then I think is no different from what modern tech is doing to the modern mt bike. they were adding things to make the bike ride better, faster, harder. and the evolution continues today. i agree that sometimes too much technology is not good, where you become an equipment operator rather than a mountain biker. but all the modern tech does make all our riding that much more enjoyable. and why focus the argument of technology again just on suspension? what about all those other techs that help you ride faster and harder? IN FACT, taking your argument further, why even ride a bike which is technology in itself? Why don't you just walk? Comfort and Safety? What could be more comfortable than an FS? Ever tried bombing down a trail on a HT? for 30 mins? Seated? Sarap I love my FS. And although one day I might ride a HT also (when I have enough money to maintain a second bike) it's because I want to enjoy a diff facet of the sport. And there are a lot.
|
|
|
Post by dayuhan on Nov 27, 2006 7:04:34 GMT 8
I think in a hypothetical situation where you could simply choose any bike out there, almost anyone would choose FS, even XC racers at anything but the most ferociously competitive level. The pedaling efficiency of the best FS designs is so close to HT that the advantage of the HT is practically nil, not enough to compensate for the comfort advantage of the FS.
That's really hypothetical, though: most of us don't get to choose any bike out there. I'd rather have a really good FS than any HT, but i'd rather have a really good HT than a mediocre FS. For someone who has 100k+ to spend, I'd say go FS, no doubt. For someone who has 40-50k, I'd say get a nice HT rather than an entry-level FS. In between... well, it depends on what kind of riding you like to do. There is no "best bike": the "best bike" for you is the one that does what you want to do at the price you want to pay.
|
|
|
Post by Patrick on Nov 27, 2006 7:34:39 GMT 8
For someone who has 40-50k, I'd say get a nice HT rather than an entry-level FS. In between... well, it depends on what kind of riding you like to do. There is no "best bike": the "best bike" for you is the one that does what you want to do at the price you want to pay. Maybe people should disassociate price with quality, have you seen the new shawn H-3? Its a lot better than Kona's and Jamis @#$% (a single pivot suspension with many 'pivots'). Many get fooled by branding and packaging. (disclaimer: my opinion on the new H3 is based on initial impression only, and not a review) If I had that budget I'd get a Norco hardtail (40T-50T) , a moment ;D ... but along with the topic if I go into XC or DH, FS is the only way to go. I remember this article in MBAction (but they are @#$%), its an interview with a rider that placed first who rode a heavier 21 lb FS over his 18 lb hardtail and said that he felt fresher at the end part of the race where he atribute his win.
|
|
|
Post by dayuhan on Nov 27, 2006 7:46:30 GMT 8
Maybe people should disassociate price with quality, have you seen the new shawn H-3? My issue with entry-level FS bikes is not so much with the frames themselves. An FS frame is inherently more complex than an HT, and it's more expensive to make a good one. In a lot of low-price FS rigs, either the manufacturer (if it's a built bike) or the owner (if assembled) has spent a lot on the frame and then cut back on other key components to meet a price point. I don't think that's a great idea: i'd rather get a solid HT frame and dress it up with good quality then spend an an entry level FS frame - even if frame quality is good - with dubious quality in key components. The point is that while FS is usually preferable if all things are equal, all things (especially money) ain't equal in the real world. At some price points HT usually represents better value.
|
|