[Closed] Will a HT always climb better than a FS?

Not always, no.

Weight? How draggy are your tyres? Will you get better traction on the FS? Will you be less beaten up and more ready for uphill action?

I guess it depends on the lumpiness of the trail but I'd bet on that hardtail against that FS for most climbing

(I've never ridden either model)

Depends on the terrain I suppose but really over that distance I don't see how the Blue Pig could fail to be the faster given equal effort. I'd still just take whichever I fancied though

To answer the question in your title, no, there are some fs bikes that will out climb some ht bikes.
To answer your question in the post, take the Blue Pig, they climb very well indeed and I'd pick that over the 5 for that kind of ride unless the climbs were very rough indeed.

No, a FS can often climb better than a hard tail over technical sections.

Mm. If it's rooty, slippy, rocky or whatever, a FS should climb better. If it's all fireroad, traction's not an issue and an HT wins.

A hardtail, earlier.

[img] [/img]

I've owned both. I started off with the assumption that my 19lb hardtail would be much better climber than a 27lb FS, but I was wrong - on my local trails.

Ten years later I now own a fully rigid bike which has also been HT, and a short travel FS both 29er. The FS is *much* better on rocky trails.

Where the rigid bike wins out is when it's smooth, but only if I modify my style to get the benefit. Because it's so stiff and stable it allows me to move about on the bike far more, which allows me to bring in my core and arms, which might help leverage and power but the moving around really helps keep my body loose and comfortable. So my FS is what I reach for when I want to be fast, and my rigid bike when I want to be out for a long time.

But if I stay seated on smooth trails I reckon there wouldn't be much in it.

I'm with them two ^ above, if it's technical, wet, rooty, rocky, bumpy, I'd sooner be on the full sus.

wukfit are you on the IOW?

Nope. I'm quicker on most uphills on my Flare compared with my Soul, certainly on anything bumpy. The only uphill PRs on my local loops which predate the arrival of the Flare were set on very windy days or with almost supernaturally lucky gate positions!

Not sure that will necessarily apply to a 26 Five though. You must know how it climbs compared to the Ragley.

No. I tested an Orange 4 and got up a hill faster than usual. It was a techy, rocky climb.

I've only had rigid and HT

Assuming control tyres, then climbing terrain and climbing style would be the big difference (I would assume)

Rougher the terrain the more likely a susser will keep the back tyre in touch with the ground.

FS is also more likely to let you sit and spin your way up, particularly if it's rough

If it's short and sharp then maybe the lack of pedal bob on a HT will win out, and being able to stand without any loss of effort

For climbing I would bet on the hardtail in most situations

Although, my rigid 29er was better up the rocky climbs than my FS 26er...

Short travel, lightweight, full sus 29er for ultimate climbing.

Loved climbing on my Scandal too.

Hardtail every time for me….

It depends, though, on what you mean by climbing…short, sharp, rocky, v technical and no need for speed \ is prob full suss territory but most of the real climbing I do these days is long stuff, not particularly technical and I "need" to beat my mates, so carbon HT it is!!!

I found my old Orange 5 thoroughly unsuitable for the sort of riding I do (so it didn't last long in my garage!)…..so I'd go with the Blue Pig every time!

😀

Rocky rooty techy climbs - FS every time. Anything tamer, HT

General XC, nothing technical, there is bugger all difference between my 130mm FS and a 25 year old rigid (XT spec kit).

Throw in bumps and stuff, then game over.

My 2012 five, was a great bike, but it was not a climber at all. In fact the main reason I got a decent hardtail for south downs riding etc. My Segment has 'almost' rendered the hardtail obsolete but haven't parted with it yet. So unless 'the hills' is somewhere with significant technical decent, big rocks and stuff, then I'd go hardtail. You spend more time going uphill make it as enjoyable as you can the descents are still fun, but may be slower (a bit)