Hardtail- which light but comfy longtravel hardtail?

Bike Forum

Hardtail- which light but comfy longtravel hardtail?

101 posts & 57 voices | Started 6 months ago by hora | Latest reply from mamadirt

Tags:

Pages: « Previous 1 23

jameso - Member

OP, if you want comfy and capable, I'd get something with good geometry and 120mm forks that are as stiff as poss (bolted, and tapered ideally), some stiff wheels with wide rims + big UST tyres and a frame that's compact and fits well. A ti post would finish it off nicely and make more difference than the frame to seated comfort. There's loads of options in steel. Bigger forks make what you're after a bit tricky -

However frame compliance (or damped suspension) removes high frequency low amplitude trail buzz in a way that tyre compliance doesn't.

I'm not sure I'd agree with that either, from the pov that 'frame compliance' is mostly twisting flex and seatpost flex. That flex comes from low frequency / hiher amplitude stuff, ie cornering hard over roots, slightly off-center landings etc. It adds comfort. It can add, as well as reduce control. When you really stress a frame vertically - ie use the fork as a lever - there's movement, but not a lot and it takes a lot of force to do it. Small fast bumps are reduced by the bike as a system, no one part is fully responsible. Most of it goes into fork and tyres, some into seatpost and a tiny amount in frame flex.

Comfy frame = flexy frame in general. No bad thing, but 'vertical compliance' has to be one of the most waffled-on subjects imo. Steel frames usually flex more than Al frames, in every direction. They twist a lot more than they move vertically - they're triangles afterall. imo that twist is not a good thing if you want to get the best out of a long fork and you ride hard, it's nice to a point and then the rear can't follow the front and stay on line and you realise FS is a better bet.. never mind all the pitch and dive that LT HTs have. They're fun, but only to a point.

Posted 6 months ago #
jfeb - Member

catvet - Member
Still have one of the first Cotics running with a 120mm fork (max I feel as otherwise seat angle too slack)

Seat angle? Unless it is already on the limit, just slide your saddle forwards

Posted 6 months ago #
sv - Member

I had a similar thread a short while back, now enjoying my Sanderson Life.

Posted 6 months ago #
PJay - Member

I'm a complete numpty when it comes to angles and geometry and a totally unskilled rider, so probably not the best to be recommending frames. Having said that, I really like my Pipedream Sirius for general riding around on and off road. I ride mine rigid but it'll handle 90-130mm forks.

Weight's a funny thing and if 5 1/2 pounds is considered heavy, then the Sirius isn't a lightweight for an 853 frame (although it feels fine to me). I think that the quoted weight is around 5 1/2 for a large (19.5") frame, but there's a slightly lighter Scion that comes with standard, rather than sliding, dropouts.

Posted 6 months ago #
buzz-lightyear - Member

I like this quote from Sheldon:

Short chainstays give a harsh ride for the same reason that you bounce more in the back of a bus than in the middle...if you're right on top of the wheel, all of the jolt goes straight up.

I had not considered that.

FWIW, my Alu Boardman HT is really not desperately stiff. It's the frame design, not just the metal that does this

Posted 6 months ago #
hora - Member

SV I'd be interested to hear your view on Soul v Life.

Posted 6 months ago #
DaveyBoyWonder - Member

Mark, track someone down who bought a Curtis on a whim and see if they want to part with it. Think its a different tubeset to the Freeride (which sounds like you might want) but had a spin around the street and lanes near me tonight on the S1 and whippy/springy is one thing the comes to mind! Lovely little thing it is...

Posted 6 months ago #
headpotdog - Member

Loads of niche suggestions here, but how about a steel framed Genesis Latitude/Altitude/ Alpitude? Reynolds 853 tubing rides just as well on these bikes as it does with other badges on it and often at a better price.

Posted 6 months ago #
brawny - Member

Orange P7

Posted 6 months ago #
davidtaylforth - Member

Orange P7

Light, nippy and springy.

You've recommended a bike that does none of them.

Posted 6 months ago #
kane10255 - Member

Not sure if this has been mentioned but I considered this before deciding on a slackline for myself
A 2012 decade versa II

Posted 6 months ago #
hora - Member

I've been thinking about the psi argument etc and thought why build a hardtail in steel at all for trail use etc if you build the rear triangle stiff? This is aimed at a couple of the manufacturers/steel frames that I've owned.

Posted 6 months ago #
chiefgrooveguru - Member

I gather much of the vertical movement at the rear axle comes from the top tube bending and the rear triange essentially pivoting around the bottom bracket, not from the rear triangle flex. Regarding buzz, I suspect it ties in with the resonant frequencies of the frame, which are a function of mass and compliance - steel frames are more likely to have usefully low resonant frequencies which absorb the buzz frequencies. The lower mass and compliance of aluminium frames shifts the resonance much higher.

I observed this switching everything from a Boardman HT to a Soul - the Boardman isn't a stiff frame but the Soul damped trail buzz so much better you can run the tyres about 40% harder before it loses the compliance edge - and with the harder tyres it rolls and pumps better.

Posted 6 months ago #
Normal Man - Member

@ OP Rock Lobster of any interest to you?

@ Deviant and Mamadirt - nice to see some other owners of modern Kona HT's about. (I have a steel Kona Blink btw)

Posted 6 months ago #
hora - Member

Looking at the Kona range- little confusing. Is there anything light in there that you could cheekily lift the travel +20mm?

Posted 6 months ago #
sv - Member

SV I'd be interested to hear your view on Soul v Life.

Haven't had a Soul before but just changed from a steel 456 and before that an 853 Inbred and two ordinary ones before that.

The Sanderson is much more XC than any of the On-Ones IMO (I have the Revs at 110mm) and for 'normal' trails a whole lot faster than the 456. It climbs very well and is quite light for a steel frame (4 odd pounds). Lovely finish on the frame too.

Posted 6 months ago #
5lab - Member

I gather much of the vertical movement at the rear axle comes from the top tube bending and the rear triange essentially pivoting around the bottom bracket, not from the rear triangle flex

I don't think this could happen with a traditional front triangle. There would have to be a *hell* of a lot of force to bend a big top tube using compression forces (ie - the force from the seat stays pushes directly into the end of the top tube). If you had a curvey top tube, this might be possible, which I think is the philosophy behind a jones frame

the whole thing looks like its designed for the rear triangle to pivot as you suggest, pulling the seattube in and the top tube down

Posted 6 months ago #
wwaswas - Member

but I think Jones welds the seat stays/brace to the seat tube which rather defeats the object?

Why not leave the seat stays just to pivot from the head tube?

Posted 6 months ago #
Euro - Member

You seem to go through a lot of bikes Mr Hora. What exactly are you looking for? The easiest to ride bike in the world? The most fun? Most efficient? Something else? Ridden some good bikes in the past but just didn't 'get on' with them? Probably easier to change bikes than to change how you ride. Probably more fun too.

Posted 6 months ago #
prezet - Member

I've been thinking about the psi argument etc and thought why build a hardtail in steel at all for trail use etc if you build the rear triangle stiff? This is aimed at a couple of the manufacturers/steel frames that I've owned.

This lecture by Cy from Cotic explains some of the materials usage choices. Quite an interesting watch.

http://thisisheffield.co.uk/2011/cotic-lectures-cy-turner-from-cotic-on-bike-design/

Posted 6 months ago #
5lab - Member

but I think Jones welds the seat stays/brace to the seat tube which rather defeats the object?

Why not leave the seat stays just to pivot from the head tube?

i agree that makes it 'more rigid' - I can only guess the bike was too flexy otherwise. even with it welded there, as it is pressing into the middle of the seat tube, rather than into the top (where the top tube joins) i expect the flex in that part of the seat tube gives it a bit more compliance than a regular frame?

incidentally, does anyone still make 'soft-tail' bikes?

Posted 6 months ago #
hora - Member

Euro I want to try almost every bike in the world. Love it. Not at mamadirt's levels though Saying that if I was as wealthy as Robin Williams I've have a similar sized number of bikes! Hes got circa 30 top end road bikes, hes no TDF rider but hes passionate about it, its his hobby and he loves it

Great fun and its a good job I can tear down and build up any frame within an hour.

All the power in the world to people who ride the same bike for 10yrs etc. However I like change, its fun. Like my Mum said about my Dad, you can't be buried with your money now can you?

I genuinely enjoyed the Sanderson Life that I owned. It felt comfy and lively in a way that the Ti456 didn't. That just felt flexy.

I also loved my 2001 Rocky Mountain Vertex. If I'd stick to a handful of bikes in my life I'd never know the good, the bad and the ugly

Posted 6 months ago #
ir_bandito - Member

Voodoo D-jab.
There's one on the classifieds at the mo' i think.

Love mine. Cost £450 for the frame which weighs about 3.5lb
Got 140mm Thors and a Rohloff on it, and it goes like stink.

Posted 6 months ago #
GW - Member

Euro I want to try almost every bike in the world. Love it.
You don't need to buy them to try them.
I've owned less than 200 bikees but I've tried thousands.

Posted 6 months ago #
mamadirt - Member

chiefgrooveguru - Member

I gather much of the vertical movement at the rear axle comes from the top tube bending and the rear triange essentially pivoting around the bottom bracket, not from the rear triangle flex.

I seem to remember I think, Brant, saying something similar on a previous thread a while ago, making me wonder why as a result all tiny frames weren't harsh - that said, the shorter frames I've ridden have always felt more 'lively' (read, challenging to control on faster downhills) than those with longer TTs. I think 'bending' and 'pivoting' are maybe extreme descriptions - I guess 'give' and compliance' may better describe the feeling of a more comfy frame . . . but hey, what do I know . . . I'm still on a massive learning trip and loving it

Hora, the Five-O is designed for 140mm forks (comes with Marz 55s as standard). My Lyriks have been set at 130 this week but I've only ridden it on the road so far - as said above it feels really comfy but I have to say that today my legs are shot - no idea why . Off to Cwmcarn in a mo' anyway (the make or break ride ) so we'll see. Quite sure it'll handle the forks wound out another 20mm just fine.

You don't need to buy them to try them.

Yes you do, if you're only 5'2"

Posted 6 months ago #
GW - Member

I ride smaller bikes than most 5'2" riders.

I'm not talking about demo bikes BTW, never ridden a demo bike in my life, I tend to just ask for a shot of anything I like the look of (or if it's a mates bike, I'll jusrt ride it when not attended)

Posted 6 months ago #
hora - Member

Same here, anything that looks interesting. Rude not to

Posted 6 months ago #
bigbloke - Member

Hora......saw this on another "cough" forum......

http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=40050&t=12808632

seems reasonable

Posted 6 months ago #
mamadirt - Member

Gis a go on your bike then GW? I have no (small) friends .

Cwmcarn on the Five-O was great - aching like crazy now but in a good way - I like this one .

Posted 6 months ago #
GW - Member

you're welcome to have a go on any of them any time mama

Posted 6 months ago #
mamadirt - Member

Posted 6 months ago #