![]() |
View
New Forum Topics Today's Forum Topics Set as homepage |
|
|||||||
| |
||||
Welcome to CyclingForums.com You are currently viewing our website as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions. You will have to register before you can post to this thread. By joining our free online community you will have access to post new topics, communicate privately with other cyclingforums.com members (PM), respond to polls, upload photos and access other special features like product reviews and classifieds. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
#1 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Hi there all,
I'm just an amateur, occasional cyclist, but enjoy it all the same. I used to have an old Specialized Rockhopper, with a completely solid frame. It was incredibly light, and very fast and easy to ride. At Christmas I received a full suspension mountain bike, which although it has an aluminium frame, is a lot heavier, and imo much much harder to ride. Although it is more comfortable, it takes a hell of a lot more work for the same effect. Has anyone else found this when making the switch from solid to suspension bikes, or have I not set it up right? Any opinions appreciated, Ross |
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
"Ross" <ross.deane@gmail.com> wrote in message news:c0a0cc57.0501090930.31a308de@posting.google.com... > I'm just an amateur, occasional cyclist, but enjoy it all the same. I > used to have an old Specialized Rockhopper, with a completely solid > frame. It was incredibly light, and very fast and easy to ride. At > Christmas I received a full suspension mountain bike, which although > it has an aluminium frame, is a lot heavier, and imo much much harder > to ride. Although it is more comfortable, it takes a hell of a lot > more work for the same effect. > Has anyone else found this when making the switch from solid to > suspension bikes, or have I not set it up right? I still have my 13 year old fully rigid mtb, it feels fast on the road <1> and lively off-road, however an hour off-road is as long as I'd want to spend on it nowadays. It was replaced with a full suss bike some years ago as my primary mtb. The full susser is pointless on the road except for the neccessity to link off-road trails but I can, and do, ride it for hours on end off-road (5.5 hours today in fact) on very technical terrain without undue discomfort. Horses for courses. Unfortunately, sale bikes aside, you need to spend 1000 pounds upward to get an efficient and reasonably light full suss bike. <1> Currently set up as a winter road bike, a role it fills admirably). Pete |
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Ross wrote:
> Hi there all, > I'm just an amateur, occasional cyclist, but enjoy it all the same. I > used to have an old Specialized Rockhopper, with a completely solid > frame. It was incredibly light, and very fast and easy to ride. At > Christmas I received a full suspension mountain bike, which although > it has an aluminium frame, is a lot heavier, and imo much much harder > to ride. Although it is more comfortable, it takes a hell of a lot > more work for the same effect. > Has anyone else found this when making the switch from solid to > suspension bikes, or have I not set it up right? > Any opinions appreciated, > Ross Depends what you got for a full suspension bike. The Rockhopper is a very good bike for its price. On suspension bikes you need to spend a quite a bit to get something reasonable. With low price suspension bikes it can sap a lot of energy not least because putting the money into the suspension means having to make lots of savings elsewhere plus cheap suspension tends to be underdamped and boingy. Check the usual thing though - brakes not rubbing, tyres pumped up etc - just in case. Tony |
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
"Ross" <ross.deane@gmail.com> wrote in message news:c0a0cc57.0501090930.31a308de@posting.google.com... > Hi there all, > I'm just an amateur, occasional cyclist, but enjoy it all the same. I > used to have an old Specialized Rockhopper, with a completely solid > frame. It was incredibly light, and very fast and easy to ride. At > Christmas I received a full suspension mountain bike, which although > it has an aluminium frame, is a lot heavier, and imo much much harder > to ride. Although it is more comfortable, it takes a hell of a lot > more work for the same effect. > Has anyone else found this when making the switch from solid to > suspension bikes, or have I not set it up right? > Any opinions appreciated, Don't get rid of the 'hopper. Bloody good bikes. T |
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
On 9 Jan 2005 09:30:56 -0800, ross.deane@gmail.com (Ross) wrote:
>Hi there all, >I'm just an amateur, occasional cyclist, but enjoy it all the same. I >used to have an old Specialized Rockhopper, with a completely solid >frame. It was incredibly light, and very fast and easy to ride. At >Christmas I received a full suspension mountain bike, which although >it has an aluminium frame, is a lot heavier, and imo much much harder >to ride. Although it is more comfortable, it takes a hell of a lot >more work for the same effect. >Has anyone else found this when making the switch from solid to >suspension bikes, or have I not set it up right? >Any opinions appreciated, >Ross Which bike is it? Also does it have adjustment on the front and rear shocks if so try setting them to as stiff as possible. Normally a clockwise adjustment on front shocks and if there are two adjusters you'll need to do both by the same amount. The rear shock is normally adjustable on all bikes that have them even the very cheapest models. Set this to as stiff as possible for road use. Also change the tyres to slicks if your not going off road. |
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
in message <c0a0cc57.0501090930.31a308de@posting.google.com>, Ross
('ross.deane@gmail.com') wrote: > Hi there all, > I'm just an amateur, occasional cyclist, but enjoy it all the same. I > used to have an old Specialized Rockhopper, with a completely solid > frame. It was incredibly light, and very fast and easy to ride. At > Christmas I received a full suspension mountain bike, which although > it has an aluminium frame, is a lot heavier, and imo much much harder > to ride. Although it is more comfortable, it takes a hell of a lot > more work for the same effect. > Has anyone else found this when making the switch from solid to > suspension bikes, or have I not set it up right? Full suspension bikes are obviously and necessarily a little heavier than rigid bikes of similar age and quality, but not very much - perhaps 2Kg over all at most. The riding technique is a little different. Don't get out of the saddle and honk - the suspension will just bob and you'll lose traction. Stay sat down, get into silly low gears, and spin like mad. When on firm, even surfaces like tarmac, it often helps to lock the suspension. You don't say what your new bike is or what it weighs but it should not be much heavier. Broadly a good full suspension cross-country bike shouldn't weigh more than 13Kg ('freeride' bikes may weigh a bit more and downhill bikes may weigh a lot more). In my experience full suspension is just amazingly better than rigid - not only is it much easier particularly on longer rides, but you can easily go places which on a rigid you just could not ride. -- simon@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/ to err is human, to lisp divine ;; attributed to Kim Philby, oddly enough. |
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Ross wrote:
> Hi there all, > I'm just an amateur, occasional cyclist, but enjoy it all the same. I > used to have an old Specialized Rockhopper, with a completely solid > frame. It was incredibly light, and very fast and easy to ride. At > Christmas I received a full suspension mountain bike, which although > it has an aluminium frame, is a lot heavier, and imo much much harder > to ride. Although it is more comfortable, it takes a hell of a lot > more work for the same effect. > Has anyone else found this when making the switch from solid to > suspension bikes, or have I not set it up right? > Any opinions appreciated, > Ross It sounds quite possible that a well-meaning person has "upgraded" you from a high-quality lightweight rigid bike to a cheap heavy suspended horror story. However, it may just be that you are not used to the slightly softer ride and the new bike is not well set up (or just not suitable for your use). What is the make and model of new bike? James -- If I have seen further than others, it is by treading on the toes of giants. http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/ |
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
In news:34e3lbF4ao3kjU1@individual.net,
James Annan <still_the_same_me@hotmail.com> typed: > Ross wrote: > >> Hi there all, >> I'm just an amateur, occasional cyclist, but enjoy it all the same. I >> used to have an old Specialized Rockhopper, with a completely solid >> frame. It was incredibly light, and very fast and easy to ride. At >> Christmas I received a full suspension mountain bike, which although >> it has an aluminium frame, is a lot heavier, and imo much much harder >> to ride. Although it is more comfortable, it takes a hell of a lot >> more work for the same effect. >> Has anyone else found this when making the switch from solid to >> suspension bikes, or have I not set it up right? >> Any opinions appreciated, > > It sounds quite possible that a well-meaning person has > "upgraded" you from a high-quality lightweight rigid bike to a cheap > heavy suspended horror story. > I'm afraid that's exactly what it sounds like to me, too. My full suspension mountain bike is plenty more fun to ride on dry roads in daytime than my mid-market urban bike. Of course, put a bit of rain into the equation, or darkness, or locking it up, and it changes, but it sounds like something's wrong if it doesn't at least feel a bit fun. I'd be wondering how to tactfully arrange a refund and exchange it for something like some forks for the Rockhopper if you've still got it, if I were you. Sorry, I don't like to bring bad news, but it's what it sounds like to me, Ambrose |
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
"Simon Brooke" <simon@jasmine.org.uk> wrote in message news ir8b2-k35.ln1@gododdin.internal.jasmine.org.uk...> in message <c0a0cc57.0501090930.31a308de@posting.google.com>, Ross > ('ross.deane@gmail.com') wrote: > > > Hi there all, > > I'm just an amateur, occasional cyclist, but enjoy it all the same. I > > used to have an old Specialized Rockhopper, with a completely solid > > frame. It was incredibly light, and very fast and easy to ride. At > > Christmas I received a full suspension mountain bike, which although > > it has an aluminium frame, is a lot heavier, and imo much much harder > > to ride. Although it is more comfortable, it takes a hell of a lot > > more work for the same effect. > > Has anyone else found this when making the switch from solid to > > suspension bikes, or have I not set it up right? > > Full suspension bikes are obviously and necessarily a little heavier > than rigid bikes of similar age and quality, but not very much - > perhaps 2Kg over all at most. The riding technique is a little > different. Don't get out of the saddle and honk - the suspension will > just bob and you'll lose traction. Stay sat down, get into silly low > gears, and spin like mad. When on firm, even surfaces like tarmac, it > often helps to lock the suspension. > > You don't say what your new bike is or what it weighs but it should not > be much heavier. Broadly a good full suspension cross-country bike > shouldn't weigh more than 13Kg ('freeride' bikes may weigh a bit more > and downhill bikes may weigh a lot more). > > In my experience full suspension is just amazingly better than rigid - > not only is it much easier particularly on longer rides Agreed > but you can > easily go places which on a rigid you just could not ride. Disagree strongly. Where are these places? It may take more skill but theres no-where a full-sus bike can go that a rigid can't follow. If you managed to catch Steve Peat win the 1996 National mtb DH championship on a rigid bike ( when everyone else was on full-susssers or hardtails) you would appreciate how fast you can go too. Steve. |
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
-- --------------------------------------------------------------------- "Are you still wasting your time with spam?... There is a solution!" Protected by GIANT Company's Spam Inspector The most powerful anti-spam software available. http://mail.spaminspector.com "Ambrose Nankivell" <$firstname+n$@gmail.com> wrote in message news:34e6jnF46fkd1U1@individual.net... > In news:34e3lbF4ao3kjU1@individual.net, > James Annan <still_the_same_me@hotmail.com> typed: >> Ross wrote: >> >>> Hi there all, >>> I'm just an amateur, occasional cyclist, but enjoy it all the same. I >>> used to have an old Specialized Rockhopper, with a completely solid >>> frame. It was incredibly light, and very fast and easy to ride. At >>> Christmas I received a full suspension mountain bike, which although >>> it has an aluminium frame, is a lot heavier, and imo much much harder >>> to ride. Although it is more comfortable, it takes a hell of a lot >>> more work for the same effect. >>> Has anyone else found this when making the switch from solid to >>> suspension bikes, or have I not set it up right? >>> Any opinions appreciated, >> I have bothtypes of bike like you. I use my non sprung bike for the road and my dual susser for off road....................Its horses for courses. I used to go off road with my non sussed bike and though I got through I was more knackered and hurt more. Off road the full susser is a delight......on the contrary on road the susser absorbs a lot of energy that I guess would otherwise propel you forward.Who needs all that cushioning on the road>>?....that's my take on your question. Barry |
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
BARRY wrote:
> Off road the full susser is a delight......on the contrary on road the > susser absorbs a lot of energy that I guess would otherwise propel you > forward.Who needs all that cushioning on the road>>?....that's my take on > your question. It needn't. First it suspension movement doesn't mean you lose energy. Whatever goes into compressing the suspension is returned minus the minor losses when it uncompresses. Also many forks and some shocks have lock outs for road/climbing use and a good rear shock like the Fifth Element will not bob anyway on the road if set up correctly. Tony |
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Tony Raven wrote: > BARRY wrote: > >> Off road the full susser is a delight......on the contrary on road the >> susser absorbs a lot of energy that I guess would otherwise propel you >> forward.Who needs all that cushioning on the road>>?....that's my take >> on your question. > > > It needn't. First it suspension movement doesn't mean you lose energy. > Whatever goes into compressing the suspension is returned minus the > minor losses when it uncompresses. Um...all that sophisticated damping had better do a lot more than "minor losses". Also, I suspect in practice there is likely to be biomechanical inefficiency eating up the returned energy, even if in principle the rider ought to be able to avoid this. James -- If I have seen further than others, it is by treading on the toes of giants. http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/ |
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
in message <41e3fa03$1@news.yourcomms.net>, spademan o---[) *
('steve.eckersley@NOSPAMPLEASEWEREBRITISH.its.lancscc.gov.uk') wrote: > "Simon Brooke" <simon@jasmine.org.uk> wrote in message > news ir8b2-k35.ln1@gododdin.internal.jasmine.org.uk...> >> In my experience full suspension is just amazingly better than rigid >> - not only is it much easier particularly on longer rides > > Agreed > >> but you can >> easily go places which on a rigid you just could not ride. > > Disagree strongly. Where are these places? It may take more skill but > theres no-where a full-sus bike can go that a rigid can't follow. Let's rephrase that: for any given skill level, there will be places you can go on a full suspension bike that you could not go on a rigid. Agreed that someone a lot better than you probably will be able to take a rigid there, but (s)he could take a full suspension bike to places you would not even believe a bike could go. -- simon@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/ [ This .sig subject to change without notice ] |
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
"Simon Brooke" <simon@jasmine.org.uk> wrote in message news:43dnb2-oga.ln1@gododdin.internal.jasmine.org.uk... > in message <41e3fa03$1@news.yourcomms.net>, spademan o---[) * > ('steve.eckersley@NOSPAMPLEASEWEREBRITISH.its.lancscc.gov.uk') wrote: > Let's rephrase that: for any given skill level, there will be places you > can go on a full suspension bike that you could not go on a rigid. > Agreed that someone a lot better than you probably will be able to take > a rigid there, but (s)he could take a full suspension bike to places > you would not even believe a bike could go. True, I find there are sections that I'm far more confident to tackle with full suss. In fact just replacing my front suss fork to one with another 30mm of travel a year ago boosted my confidence, as verified by my riding companions. And if there is a gnarly downhill near the end of a long ride not only will you be in a better physical state to tackle it but the suspenion will be more forgiving on the actual descent. There will always be people who can knock spots off me riding a Raleigh Roadster but that's irrelelevent to my situation. Pete |
|
|
|
#15 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
"James Annan" <still_the_same_me@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:34sbvmF4f0et0U1@individual.net... > > > Tony Raven wrote: > > > BARRY wrote: > > > >> Off road the full susser is a delight......on the contrary on road the > >> susser absorbs a lot of energy that I guess would otherwise propel you > >> forward.Who needs all that cushioning on the road>>?....that's my take > >> on your question. > > > > > > It needn't. First it suspension movement doesn't mean you lose energy. > > Whatever goes into compressing the suspension is returned minus the > > minor losses when it uncompresses. > > Um...all that sophisticated damping had better do a lot more than "minor > losses". Also, I suspect in practice there is likely to be biomechanical > inefficiency eating up the returned energy, even if in principle the > rider ought to be able to avoid this. I tried a full susser with front and rear lock-out climbing on a fire road in Afan forest yesterday, it was noticably easier than my very similar bike with no lock out that I'd just swapped it for. It's definately the way I'd go given the money, certainly when my rear shock gives up it'll be replaced with a lock out version. Pete Pete |
|