[Closed] Recommend me a new hard tail frame that is not so harsh

Maybe a Soul rather then BeFe? Mine is a Mk1, newer versions are even tougher.

Rear tyre, seatpost and saddle make more of a difference IME.

My Sanderson is the most sproingy ride of any HT I have tried - but that is a more trail/xc/light bike than a 'core gnarpoon HT.

<awaits various claims of pixie dust, steel, etc...>

Well, hardtails are fundamentally stiff regardless of what people will claim - you can moderate that though with seatposts, tyres, bars etc.

That said, Chameleons are probably one of the stiffer frames out there so you may well notice a difference going to a different frame - just don't believe that steel is always springy or other such nonsense. A BFe for example is a great frame but it's not a springy one. Fatter tyres and longer (flexy) seatposts would do more.

I have a Decade Virtue (now called Virsa) which has seemingly paper thin Tange Prestige tubing.
I have heard from a forum member that they can be a bit snappy but I have had mine a good few years and it hasn't snapped yet. I am no light weight either at around 15 stone.

I bought the frame initially as I had been riding full sus bikes for many years and had a hankering for a hardtail as my previous had been nicked some years before. I use the hardtail more than my full sus now and love this frame. I don't notice any harshness from it at all.

Yep, a BFe doesn't feel stiff in quite the same way as a Chameleon but don't expect it to be springy or soft, it's really not- I reckon all heavier steel frames feel pretty much the same, pretty solid. It seems to be basically thinness of tubes that provides the spring/"steel is real" stereotype.

It's not super-hardcore but a Soul's up for the riding that most people buy a BFe to do, and has a pretty different feel. Though, not sure if the latest ones with the biggest seat tubes etc are as boingy.

I love my Ragley Ti but even now they're not cheap used buys.

as nemesis says.....chameleon is one stiff bike..........big tyres try a suspension seat post not KOOL but moderate the battering some what.

The most compliant HTs i have ridden were a Dialled Alpine and a 456-evo, the Alpine had 853 steel which i really couldnt tell any difference with over the cheaper 4130 steel of the On-One.

What made them great was delicate tubing, small 1 1/8 steerer tubes, narrow/compliant 27.2 mm seat tubes etc etc...i also had a 45650b and currently have a Ragley Piglet-2....both are harsh as you like with large 44 mm headtubing, 30.9 and 31.6 mm seat tubing and burly stays...comfy they are not!

Sadly the prevalence of tapered steerers and dropper posts are making delicate steel HTs a thing of the past....i remeber an article from one of the magazines when they tested 29er HTs, they had a steel Kona in the test with a 27.2 mm seat tube and were of the opinion that it was the high water mark of comfy HTs....the big wheels, the delicate stays, the narrow seat tube etc....nearly had me going to 29 inch wheels.

Anyway, frames i have found comfy as HTs:

Kona Caldera (aluminium and only takes 120mm forks but has the crucial 27.2 mm seattube and stays that were so thin i thought it was a steel frame when i first saw it, it rode great).

On-One 456-evo (steel and cheap, less than £100 on ebay, just sold mine for £75!...old school features make for a very compliant ride and takes long forks...i found 140mm to be perfect).

Dialled Alpine (steel of the Reynolds 853 variety, hold their price and getting rare now, same principle as the 456 above but more 'boutique', lovely purple colour too).

...dont get a 45650b, the bigger wheels do not aid comfort on this, the frame is super stiff.

...likewise a Ragley Piglet-2 looks lovely and appears to be bombproof, but it is easily the heaviest bike i've owned, including full sussers!...the 31.6 mm seat tube is ridiculous but i cant sell it, i have a great set of 140mm coil forks on the front and take it on uplift days for giggles, mental bike but long way from comfortable).

The rear triangle of a hardtail is as near as makes no difference uncompressable between the rear axle and the top of the seat tube.

My very firm belief is that steel bikes have a reputation as being springy because they traditionally used a 27.2 post. Ally bikes tend to have larger diameter seatposts as the tubes have a larger diameter to get the required stiffness. The larger the diameter, the harder it is to bend so ally bikes got reputation for being stiff.

Then everyone wanted a bike which was dropper post compatible so even steel bikes such as the Soul went for a fatter seatpost which negated the advantage of steel as far as springyness is concerned. Ride next to someone on a bike with a 27.2 seatpost and see how much it bends - you will be amazed.

Basically the smaller the diameter of seatpost, and the more seatpost is out of the seat tube, the "springyer" the ride. Fat, soft tyres will help as well.

Maybe try a 27.2 post with a shim?

stand up more, let your tyres down a bit.

What Matt says, what pressure are you running in your rear tyre ?

I have a BFe (around 2012 model) I don't find it harsh at all despite some discussion on here about them being so

Anything feels comfortable after a Chameleon. I got rid of mine as I concluded it would have been an ideal frame if I'd been 10 years younger, and less knackered. 😥 I've moved onto steel hardtails instead. Presently running 140mm forks on my P7, and I love it.

If you're after something less harsh, but still gnaaaarrrrrrrr enough to run big forks, then how about a Stanton Slackline? They're things of beauty!

Stiff frames go beyond comfort though, tbh comfort was never an issue for me but I got fed up of my mmmbop's tail bouncing and skipping all over the place with a mind of its own- the ti just smooths that out a little, it has more grip and carries speed a little better on rough ground. But mostly just feels more composed. It's only like the difference of a few psi, but that's still pretty useful.

What about the privee shan and it's flattened seat stays ? Maybe that one is still dropper able and has a compliant rear end?

My Explosif 650b is very comfortable. I went from a variety of steel/Ti/Ali frames to the Explosif and don't feel beaten up after longer rides. I did wonder whether the QR rear helps over 142/135x12 bolt throughs.

(The Stooge is even more comfortable though 😈 )

i've had a succession of steel hardtails and have had a chameleon now for 4 months. it's not the frame. as above - seatpost and air in your tyre. tubeless may have some bearing too.
if you want a new frame go buy one, but don't get one on the basis that it's going to be more comfy ( especially true for any 'burly' frame like a BFe ), and steel frames are heavy, stiff old things post CEN.

My Stanton Slackline is definitely springier than my old Kinesis, but it's nowhere near the difference between getting beaten-up and not.

With a fatter tyre on the back this felt like a soft tail:

[URL= http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd279/letmetalktomark/IMGP2685.jp g" target="_blank">http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd279/letmetalktomark/IMGP2685.jp g"/> [/IMG][/URL]

Seatpost and rear tyre really transformed the ride.

I do miss the frame 🙁

ahwiles - Member
stand up more, let your tyres down a bit.

^^^ This.

I've known a few who've said they find their HT harsh, especially on rougher stuff like the odd few roots, and turns out they're running pressures like 50psi!

Drop to 20 to 30, or lower if tubeless. Depending on weight of course.

Out of the seat, use legs as rear suspension, not your arse. Less rigid suspension on the front, don't ride with it locked out all the time. If you don't tend to pump/bob at the front when climbing I feel there's no need for lock out at all. Never use it myself.

I'd not be looking at a BFe if you want comfort. I didn't find mine all that comfortable at all, in fact I thought it was pretty harsh and comparible to my old Chameleon. My Slackline felt much springier and less harsh over the same trails.

I never thought my chameleon was that bad (have had three in total) although I though it was harsher than my Orange Sub Zero that cracked.

It'll be interesting to see what my new Switchback is like with a 30.9mm post and 142x12 rear axle.

456Ti

You can see, never mind feel the 'compliance' 🙂

I can see the logic in some of the comments above, but ever since I bought a steel framed Hoo Koo e Koo in preference to Cannondale's aluminium equivalent back in 1986 I have been quite sure that all other things being equal an aluminium frame is less forgiving than a steel one. There was certainly a huge difference in comfort between my steel Orange P7 and aluminium E2 back in the early 90s and they both had very similar geometry - if anything the E2 seatpost was longer, and I'd have run the same tyres/pressures on both. Both had rigid forks, and I'm sure the E2 ones were stiffer.

I've been riding my 853 inbred SS a lot recently, with a long seatpost and a Ti Charge, and it's very comfortable, as is my Tinbred with an identical setup. I don't have anything to compare them with, but both are a joy to ride compared to my old Chameleon...

But that's a silly comparison. For a start, in '86, there was no butting on aluminium frames. Second there's a massive difference between aluminium frames, just as there is with steel ones so comparing such a small number and thinking that reflects all of them is just innacurate.

FWIW, I just sold my 853 inbred. Great frame but I wouldn't say that it was particularly springy. Other steel bikes I've ridden have been but they've typically been thin tubes and with long seat posts.

Or another example - straight frame swap between a Pace RC303 (fat aluminium) and a steel 456. The Pace was marginally less harsh but then the Pace had a significantly longer seatpost sticking out of it...

Charge skinny Duster is a lovely ride and genuinely 'see it move' springy but it isn't exactly a hardcore hardtail..
My Ti456 is about as good a balance as you're likely to get - would be even better with a decent carbon post I think (I'm using a Thomson, which is excellent and 100% reliable but pretty stiff).

456Ti

Still very happy with my 456EVOTi 😀

I'd love to be able to run the rear at 20psi but I'm just not smooth enough. Dual-ply Maxxis, at 35-40 psi, tubeless on Flow EX.

nemesis - I'm not sure it's an entirely silly comparison. I only gave a couple of examples in my previous post, but in my experience over almost three decades I have consistently preferred steel hardtail frames to aluminium. That may be the result of all kinds of biasing factors, but it is my experience. Incidentally my wife just found the same thing looking for a decent (>£600) commuter bike and ended up rejecting aluminium in favour of steel - entirely her own decision, not influenced by me.

I certainly wouldn't extrapolate from my experience to say that all steel frames are more compliant than all aluminium ones, but when I have compared the bikes that have been on my shortlists that's what I've found. Perhaps it's just skinny tubes and long seatposts, and if that comes with steel more than with aluminium that could explain it - it's not necessarily the material used to build the frame, but it might be the kind of frame that gets built from a particular material.

Thanks so far.

I run my chameleon with a reverb so don't really want to go swapping posts.
I already run a wide as possible rear tyre tubeless with as low psi as I dare.

I've come from a background of racing dual slalom/4X so feel pretty confident that I'm using my body the best I can to smooth the ride,

I like the idea of a Stanton Slackline so checked their website.
Then I stumbled across the Switchback. Really like the look of this particularly the geometry.
Anyone got one/tried one?

Keep the ideas coming, I'm sure there are more frames out there from the smaller brands.

Also are there any current MK4 Chameleon owners? Wondered what that's like compared to the MK3

Matey has a Trek of some kind and it feels like it's floating along compared to my blunt instrument Commencal Ramones

Comes at a price though. All that compliance and comfort makes it horribly inefficient when pressing on. Nothing in particular but the whole bike just feels [img] [/img]

choose carefully

not sure what version my chameleon is. it's the latest 26" ( they're now 27.5 ).
FWIW i previously had an DN6 inbred, 853 inbred ( not significantly different to one another but i would wager the back eds were effectively identical ), orange P7 ( post CEN, weighty bugger ), genesis alpitude 853 with a loooong post, and now the chameleon. i run a tall spesh captain sport tyre at ~ 40psi tubeless, ks lev.
i don't spend a lot of time in the saddle to be fair as it's setup SS.

i also found my spesh langster ( ally ) far more comfortable than the on-one pompino i had ( steel ). same diameter but longer seatpost on the langster, narrower and harder tyres though.

there are lots of factors at work, and certainly i could believe that 'all other things being equal' there is a difference in compliance and damping characteristics between the materials, but very rarely are all other things equal. wheels, tyres etc were all swapped oer on my hardtails as i changed, so I was able to do quite a reasonable comparison, though the chameleon has gained the dropper in place of the old on-one post i was using.

as i guess the new chameleon rolls on bigger wheels they may be more comfortable. i understand they make the trails come alive however, so this may be counter-productive. 😉

Get a Soul. Souls are ace, and are plenty Hardcore. And they look good, are well made and finished, and come from a company run by a likeable fellow.

it's not necessarily the material used to build the frame, but it might be the kind of frame that gets built from a particular material.

Yes, that's probably true to some extent but you could look at steel which covers everything from a noodletech skinny XC frame to a hardcore hardtail designed to take all sorts of abuse and there'll be nothing in common in how they ride - that's my point to the OP - don't look at the material in isolation as it's unlikely to tell you much about how the bike will ride in itself.

Look for skinny tubes, a long seatpost (and ideally decent tyre clearance) and you'll stand a reasonable chance of getting some spring in the frame.

Thanks nemesis - I think we're probably saying different versions of the same thing 🙂

Perhaps it's all just down to seatposts, which as far as I can tell tend to be skinnier on steel bikes, or at least used to before dropper posts became common (ie when I was last in the market for a new frame)

Probably 😉

Mind you, that Pace I mentioned above had a 31.6 seatpost but with plenty sticking out

I like the idea of a Stanton Slackline so checked their website.
Then I stumbled across the Switchback. Really like the look of this particularly the geometry.
Anyone got one/tried one?

I've just swapped my Slacklin for a Switchback, not because of the wheels but to get a frame that actually fits me (I swapped my diddy BFe for a bigger Slackline for mucking about on but have some BFe rediscovered the fun of hardtails so wanted something I could ride properly).

It's not built up yet as I'm waiting for parts to arrive but I reckon it'll be a bit harsher than the Slackline due to the bolt thought back end and bigger post (my Slackline was the 853 with a 27.2mm seat tube).

steel Kona in the test with a 27.2 mm seat tube

I have a Salsa El Mar with a 27.2mm seat tube. On the cobbles (which are a feature of local riding) it's more filling-loosening than the 26" alloy Cannondale (with 31.8mm SP) it replaced. It does feel utterly bombproof though,

I think a carbon seatpost might help...

My very firm belief is that steel bikes have a reputation as being springy because they traditionally used a 27.2 post. Ally bikes tend to have larger diameter seatposts as the tubes have a larger diameter to get the required stiffness. The larger the diameter, the harder it is to bend so ally bikes got reputation for being stiff.

Then everyone wanted a bike which was dropper post compatible so even steel bikes such as the Soul went for a fatter seatpost which negated the advantage of steel as far as springyness is concerned. Ride next to someone on a bike with a 27.2 seatpost and see how much it bends - you will be amazed

I'm 100% sure this is correct

I won a Al frame with 27.2 post and it no or more or less comfy than the steel bike it replaced. My mate had the same frame with fat post and with both thought it horribly harsh

I've ridden a good selection of hard tails over the last 4 years including a 2000 chameleon with the box section chain stays, a 16" dmr trailstar and a 16" piglet 2. The chameleon, you're right, does make you feel beat up after a hour or so of hard riding, i have to agree. The dmr gave me the best feeling of springiness. The piglet 2 is somewhere in between with 2.3 conti barons running 35psi and a joplin dropper, and on the whites trail at afan yesterday it was very impressive. To give the piglet more compliance i've tried shimming it with a 27.2 post with 30cm of post exposed and it made a big difference. I'm thinking of selling the piglet 2 if you're interested.

Finding a steel frame to take your dropper will be the problem, if it's not 27.2 dia.
A Soul is the obvious answer.
The comments re: 27.2 posts are valid points.
My Niner rides better than any hardtail I've tried before.

This [img] [/img]

I got an 853 Slackline with 27.2 seatpost and 1 1\8 headtube. Old fashioned and off trend but spot on geo and I love it. Its the future..

Some great info thanks.

The list so far is:

Cotic Soul
Cotic BFe
MK4 Chameleon
Ragley Blue Pig
Ragley Piglet
Stanton Slackline
Stanton Switchback
Dialled Alpine

I'm leaning towards the Switchback so far.

[URL= http://i293.photobucket.com/albums/mm72/gb1m/48279_zps6c5034dc.jp g" target="_blank">http://i293.photobucket.com/albums/mm72/gb1m/48279_zps6c5034dc.jp g"/> [/IMG][/URL]

Love mine (26 inch version) and quite happily ride it all day.

To be honest a 29er makes perfect sense for HT ragging, I have one winging its way to me right now.... but boy that Switchback looks flipping good in green...

You do realise when you stand up all that shock is going through your legs? Kind of like running downhill.. I would go for something really soft, like 120mm soft.

Some of the bikes being recommended are very bad choices for comfort. Alpines, shans, bfe, these are all tough stiff frames. Steel vs alloy isn't relevant. And yes, you absolutely Do get hardtails that are much more comfy, regardless of seatpost. Try a soul, a steel explosif, alloy kinesis maxlight xc and see what a comfy frame feels like. They'll all cope with a bit of rough riding 🙂

#edit, just read the whole OP and see its a 'hardcore' type frame you're after. Good luck!

I'm hoping anything will feel better than my current Chameleon. It's just unbelievably harsh and justs seems to vibrate. I'm sure it's caused a couple of fillings to come lose

what tyre do you run?
what pressure?
tubeless?

Surly frames ride nice and are tough. 27.2 seat posts though.... (good for comfort, bad for droppers).

I had a maxlight xc pro 2, with a carbon rear triangle, it was super smooth, but wouldn't take a pounding like a BFE or similar.

I'm looking to do away with my commuter frame - a cannondale badboy 26" - a super heavy, super stiff, horrible lump of alu. Still searching for a nice cheap 26" steel frame I can just swap the bits over to (v mounts, rack mounts, guard mounts and a steel rigid fork).

If you want to stay 26", this should be much more comfy than your Cham...

[url= http://www.on-one.co.uk/i/q/FROOC456E/on-one-carbon-456-evo-frame ]http://www.on-one.co.uk/i/q/FROOC456E/on-one-carbon-456-evo-frame[/url]

Have you tried a modern 29er HT though? They can still be a lot of fun and those big wheels give a nice smooth ride.

It's a drum I should stop banging. But can someone please point out the bit of the steel seat stay that compresses to give a comfy ride on all these steel frames?

A steel tube in compression is as near as perfect as we're going to get to resisting that particular force. Tyre volume, seatpost dia and saddle rail, all these will make a difference.

The bit of air filled rubber at the bottom is transmitting enough force to compress a steel tube that's fixed at both ends? Compressing it enough to make the ride more comfortable, how much "travel" would that actually need? 2-3mm?

I think the comments regarding seat tube diameter are valid - in general a larger diameter tube is stiffer over a given length. Unlike most of the other tubes in a bike frame the seat tube has to be circular.

You need to change your riding style a little when coming from a FS plus you have to anticipate things a bit more as well as possibly chosing a different line through technical sections. I found the hardest part to adjust to wasn't the technical stuff but the moderately bumpy ground (something a bit bumpier than fireroads) that on a FS you'd sit down for and let the rear shock absorb the little bumps but on a HT you need to be slightly off the saddle or pick a better line.

Larger volume tyres along with tubeless and the associated lower pressures do help, it's likely that without these innovations hardtails would be very unpleasant. The 650b+ and 29+ rim/tyre sizes now appearing will only help in this regard, of course fat bikes are the ultimate expression of low tyre pressures acting as suspension.

If you look at the continuum of mountain biking styles from long distance XC to pure downhill then hardtails will manage for most things up to somewhere around red/black trails depending on your skill level. I'm happy blasting around on reds on my hardtail and can keep up with those in the group on full sussers but I'd be pushing it to do a black. Having adjusted my riding I don't find a HT that tiring but it's balancing the extra effort in handling versus the benefits of a lighter bike.

It's a drum I should stop banging. But can someone please point out the bit of the steel seat stay that compresses to give a comfy ride on all these steel frames?

I thought it was the shape of the seat stays that (allegedly) allowed them to bend a bit, or not, depending on the design, rather than the tubes actually compressing? (This has always been my understanding of the claims regarding steel, seat stays and a springy ride. I've no idea whether it's true or not!)

You do realise when you stand up all that shock is going through your legs? Kind of like running downhill.

Well, it's sort of what your legs were designed for 8), even on a FS you are going to be stood up using your legs as your primary suspension.

Running downhill is a whole different kettle of fish, the muscle contractions when your foot hits the ground generate a force of about 3 times your body mass.

Fit a 27.2 carbon seatpost. Mine gives at least 0.5cm of fore and aft travel and I noticed an immediate improvement. This on a. Steel 520 HT Genesis.

I love my Ragley Ti but even now they're not cheap used buys

The 20" Ragley Ti I had was significantly harsher than the 27.2 seatpost 456 that replaced it. This used the same wheels, tyres saddle etc. from the Ragley, but the seat post on the latter is 31.6.The other major difference in the structure of the seat stays is that the Ragley's were completely straight and ended together at the top of the seat tube, whilst the 456 joined further down with a linking tube. This perhaps allows for an element of flex at this junction on the 456 that the Ragley did not have-just a thought, I'm not an engineer.

As I have posted before, I have also ridden an 18" Ragley Ti which seemed significantly more comfortable but it did have different wheels and a carbon seatpost.

The most compliant hardtail I have ridden is a Litespeed Kitsuma. This has a 27.2 seat tube and the seatstays are subtly S-shaped which again I think may add an element of spring. Incidentally, the Kitsuma is no less efficient pedalling and is very stiff laterally.

That's interesting with the different sizes- the Ragley's not the softest of ti bikes but my 18's nothing like the steel 456s I've ridden which are big solid lumps (and some of the least "steel feeling" steel bikes I've ever ridden).

Ride next to someone on a bike with a 27.2 seatpost and see how much it bends - you will be amazed.

I've not ridden my HT too much since it was built but a recent foray to Swinley allowed me to drag it out of its slumber and give it a thrashing. The trails we rode weren't rough by any stretch of the imagination but I could feel the post moving a hell of a lot. Quite spooky to start with but it didn't snap. An Easton EC70 27.2 sitting at full extension, so yeah - I'd agree with that for sure.

Cotic Soul
Cotic BFe
MK4 Chameleon
Ragley Blue Pig
Ragley Piglet
Stanton Slackline
Stanton Switchback
Dialled Alpine

You should add an on-one inbred onto that list. I recently acquired a ss inbred and built it up with the spare parts I had in the garage and although I didn't expect much from it I was quite shocked at how comfortable it was. I still am in fact, every time I ride it I'm amazed at how good it is seeing as it cost £120 and I'm seriously considering getting a 29er version.

I also have a Solaris which is very comfy for long rides and is my go to bike these days. Used to have a Mk1 BFe. Absolutely loved it but it was quite stiff and uncomfortable unless you get out the saddle a lot. I ran a 27.2 carbon post on it with a shim just to make it a bit more amenable as with a alu post you feel like you're being booted up the backside every time you go over a bump.

Yes, The Ragley was a conundrum-I really wanted it to be a longer travel version of the Kitsuma, but was quite disappointed with it.I guess the truth is that the expectation was too great compared to the reality, and once you concentrate on an apparent 'issue' you tend to miss the other positives about the bike-excellent handling, efficient pedalling etc. etc. My friend who still has his Ragley absolutely loves it.
Could it be that the larger frame size has a subtly shallower angle of join at the top of the seat tube- would this make a difference?

Edit: sorry got off topic. I have also ridden a Solaris and this is also very comfortable over long distances.

I was using an old 27.2 Use Ti seatpost in a steel Voodoo Wanga frame, with an old Selle Italia Gel Flow saddle.

I also used that seatpost in a genesis equilibrium road bike, which is also a steel frame.

I thought both bikes exhibited the steel trait of soaking up bumps like road potholes.

Then I broke the clamp on the post and replayed it on the equilibrium with a carbon post (and a charge spoon ti saddle) - and that 'steel' feeling had gone, the carbon post/spoon saddle is a lot harsher.

So I think the ti post with the ti rails of the saddle and also the elastomor rail mountings on the saddle made a huge difference to comfort, the raw steel frames didn't contribute much at all compared.

Now I have a Kinesis Tripster ATR and am using that (fixed) 27.2 Ti post (in a shim) with the flite gel flow saddle and it sucks up big potholes like they weren't there.

In fact it is almost too springy (which is the fault of the elastomer rail mounts I think, as they let the saddle move a fair bit).

I owuld also look at a Kinesis Sync Ti based on how good the Tripster is...

pictonroad - I'm no engineer but it looks as if the consensus is that whatever the role of the frame there seems to be a big influence from the seatpost. The kinds of steel frames being discussed here generally have 27.2 seatposts with plenty of post showing, while aluminium frames will have larger diameter and thus stiffer seatposts. The comfort is thus an indirect function of the frame material, but not for the reasons one might first think of.

I find it hard to believe that two frames of identical geometry made of different materials wouldn't exhibit different characteristics, but I am perfectly happy to accept that the secondary things like tyres, saddle rails and seatposts have much more of an effect....

And I very much second dazh's comment about an inbred - as I said before my 853 SS Inbred is really comfortable. I've used it every other day over the holidays and it impresses me every time. It's set up a bit differently now but as you can see from the photo below there's a lot of seatpost showing....

[img] [/img]

I find it hard to believe that two frames of identical geometry made of different materials wouldn't exhibit different characteristics, but I am perfectly happy to accept that the secondary things like tyres, saddle rails and seatposts have much more of an effect....

I've had Ragley Mmmbop (alloy), Blue Pig (steel) and Ti (erm, ti) all the same geometry, all set up with pretty much the same tyres, posts, saddle and the Bop was definitely appreciably harsher than the other two. That's partly because, I think, the tube profiles were designed to be big and stiff to make the most of the basic properties of the metal, but whatever the nuances of the design, the thing is definitely stiff.

That said, my old Edge One single speed was the harshest bike I've ever ridden by a way. The rear triangle was made of box-section alloy girders…

I'm not saying seat posts don't make a difference, I can tell the difference between a Thomson and a Lynskey titanium seatpost for example and I actually prefer the Thomson for some reason, but do think some hardtail frames ride stiffer than others.

Of all the hardtails I've ridden my Dialled Alpine seems to have the most forgiving back end; more so then my Soul. They both have 27.2 seatposts, and I have ridden both with the same wheels, tyres and tyre pressure and the Alpine is definitely easier on the lower spine; no idea why though!!

Can't say I'm hearing "harsh" from opinions of the Bird Zero, so add that to this list.

Anyway, my hard tail is a Carbon 456. Bike Radar reviewed it as "harsh". Rubbish, in my opinion. Very much depends on the set up though. They reviewed a full build but the review went against the frame. My self build is utterly different and it doesn't feel anything like they claim. The only harshness I feel is in it being a hard tail, but only when compared to a full sus.

Anyway, I'm not sold on flexy being an attractive quality for a bike frame.

And as for judging frame flex on the seatpost, well most the problem there is that you're sitting at all. Unless you ride mainly for climbing and judge a bike based on climb comfort. Still though I'm usually out of the seat when it comes to climbing over a pile of gnarly looking roots.

deadkenny - Member

Anyway, my hard tail is a Carbon 456. Bike Radar reviewed it as "harsh". Rubbish, in my opinion.

One of the stupidest reviews I've ever seen tbh- they claimed it was so stiff, they had to stop halfway down a rocky descent to shake out their hands. No frame can do that- that's a faulty fork or a faulty human. Then later in the test they complained that actually, it's not stiff at all, and feels too soft when pedalling. Just gibberish.

It's a drum I should stop banging. But can someone please point out the bit of the steel seat stay that compresses to give a comfy ride on all these steel frames?

In many ways I agree with you. But I shall try and explain the other argument. Not because I'm saying you should believe my but because I think you should know whats claimed

Firstly as said above one arguments that seat stays are't always straight. In particular our glass stays are said to be more compliant Even straight seat stays can splay

I have heard the big flex point is the front triangle. An impact on the rear wheel bends the top tube down. You can see on carbon bikes that people are trying to design this by making the top tube a flat oval in front of the seat post

Now whether you can really tell i don't know. But its simpler than compressing a tube along its length

I have heard the big flex point is the front triangle. An impact on the rear wheel bends the top tube down. You can see on carbon bikes that people are trying to design this by making the top tube a flat oval in front of the seat post

I did some stress analysis of bike frames at uni that showed the same. As stated, the rear triangle doesn't really provide much movement unless you make the stays really really skinny. splay in the bike (the wheels moving apart) actually provides the 'travel' or flex and that's one reason why a softish suspension fork on the front of the bike can make it feel less harsh even at the back. Again, as stated, the top tube/seat tube junction seemed to be the point of most importance in terms of flex and we see that with carbon frames now which are fairly easy to make complex shapes around there. Or taken to the extreme with the Domane pivot from Trek.

Also, harshness or comfort isn't just about flex. IMO it's also about damping which is where I reckon (well designed) carbon does well though it's much more noticeable on the road (hard tyres, typically short seatpost).

So in conclusion, the effects from different frame designs and use of materials are potentially there but they'll be masked by many other things like tyres, seatposts and so on so it's silly to make claims about the frames in isolation.

I did some stress analysis of bike frames at uni that showed the same.

I think I may have learn this from you

Well, it's sort of what your legs were designed for 8), even on a FS you are going to be stood up using your legs as your primary suspension.

Running downhill is a whole different kettle of fish, the muscle contractions when your foot hits the ground generate a force of about 3 times your body mass.

Yeah but even with 100mm of travel all that high frequency stuff that fatigues you is gone. I'd also bet the G loads are pretty high riding down rough terrain. Plus you get the added bonus of tons more cornering/braking/climbing grip. Boggles my mind that people ride hardtails these days when good suspension bikes are available so cheap.

I admit you're right in that running downhill is harsher though.

I think I may have learn this from you

Circular confirmation 🙂

generate a force of about 3 times your body mass

Awaits the pedants' heads exploding 🙂

When I started on my HT I was riding it like a FS so got a lot of jarring. I don't get that so much now that my riding style has changed to suit. Would the ride be smoother on a FS? More than likely but on longer rides (not trail centres) the extra weight of the FS will begin to tell. While there are other factors (on trail maintenance, reliability, carriability), most of the entrants in things like the HT550 use hardtails or rigids so there must be something to them.

If most of my riding was trail centres then I'd mainly ride a FS simply to handle the bigger hits, but I don't so a HT suits me, I've got the set-up dialled in to my taste, I don't get back pain or tired legs (other than from the distance). I'm not saying they are right for everyone but they are right for me.

Re: force/mass - yes I know it's technically incorrect, couldn't phrase it better at the time 😳

As it goes, I would expect it to be much higher than that when running downhill. You're only experiencing just your weight when standing still. Even walking would be significantly higher.

Saddens me to read that people are too weak to ride hardtails these days when tougher people are available so cheap.