Hardcore hardtail vs Downcountry FS?

I currently ride a hardcore hardtail (Sonder Transmitter with 150mm recon 27.5+). I ride pretty much exclusively in the southeast of england in Surrey Hills and similar trails.

My preference is for trails that are more ‘technical’ than flowy/jumpy. I rarely feel like I’m underforked but do think it would be nice to have a bit of cushion on the rear when things get really rough and for better traction uphill. As an aside it would be nice to be riding something that feels a bit less lazy on the flats.

I think that if i were to move to a 120/120 full sus bike (transition spur seems to be the typical example in this category) then it would give me the improvements I’d like but i wonder if the front end might then feel lacking. I imagine the dampers in 34s/sids are way better than my recons but don’t know if id feel like I didn’t have enough travel in comparison?

I appreciate that the best thing to do is go and demo something but I’m sure STW has opinions on this topic. All thoughts welcome!

You really do need to demo for an answer.

All the people I ride with have different bikes, travel options, specs, geo & sizing preferences etc.

Out of 22 people no one has the exact same bike. With several having 5+ bikes.

I would say that you would most enjoy 130/120 or 130/110 moving from your current bike.

Anyone else made a transition from mid travel hardtail to short travel full suss? I’m also interested on opinions of how a 120/130 sid/pike compares to a 150mm pike.

Whilst a SID may have 35mm stanchions the same as a Pike it has very limited adjustability (rebound and lockout only) , unless your racing, go for the Pike with it’s additional compression settings.

I don’t think a downcountry bike is going to give you what you’re looking for, which is confidence when things get really rough.

Downcountry FS tend to get overwhelmed in those situations, from my observation of my mate who’s got a Transition Spur, and is a decent rider, trying to keep up on downhills. It’s great up to a point, and then it tends to puncture or throw him off.

If you like running into things with a 150mm travel fork, but want to feel a bit more secure doing so, then IMV you need a 130-150mm/150mm full sus.

That’s interesting, I don’t think I want to feel much more secure really and I’d be worried that 150mm at the back would make my local trails feel too easy. It would be nice to have some cushion at the rear but I dont think I need that much.

Also, would you not expect the better damping of, say, a Pike to compensate for a small reduction of front travel? Especially if I’d be getting the benefit of rear suspension vs a hardtail?

I went from a 150mm hard tail 26er (modern geo) to a 29er downcountry ish trail bike (130mm each end – Saracen Ariel 30). The Saracen is longer but the angles are otherwise similar.

I find the form way nicer, despite being shorter, as the geo isn’t horrendous when you’re at full travel. This gives me a nicer feel, and whilst I do occasionally clank through all the travel, I never feel out of my depth. Part of that is probably the bigger wheels as well, the old view was that 29ers were worth 20mm travel..

I had a 160mm 29er hardtail and to be fair it was brilliant peaks lakes trail centre it did it all, and most of the time I left my 160 each end full bounce in the study. I changed simpley due to back problems and being rattled was becoming a pain 9pardon the pun ). I swapped the frame out for a 140 120 frame (tallboy) Everything became quicker ups downs long days in the saddle. No as I type this the bigger bike sits behind me wondering if it will ever see the light of day again.

I rode with someone who had a transmitter and it was an excellent bike, but no real way of getting those bigger tyres to feel less draggy on flat stuff.

In my opinion – and I may be wrong, everyone has an opinion – it doesn’t sound like you want the lighter end of the downcountey bikes but something more “trail” orientated. Not my phrases before I get shot down in flames.

In your shoes I’d look at some of the good mismatched front / rear bikes, and as a taller person I’d always go 29’.

Canyon spectral 125 is very good value for money and reviews really well. 140 front / 125 rear

Nukeproof reactor is another, reviews very well and designed around a longer fork than rear shock.

The new transition smuggler would be the other option compared to the spur, but more of a party at the front.

Probably loads I don’t know about or have forgotten but the squish on the rear certainly helps certain climbs.

The spur looks great and everyone loves them, izzo and Tallboy also review well.

I went from a sentier 27.5 with a 140mm z2 to a Bird Aether with 150\130 and it’s great. Not ridden it on flat trails yet but so much more confidence on jumps and lumpier stuff, seems to float over stuff rather than impacts that you feel through your feet.

I’m curious to see if anyone has any directly relevant experience. All I can offer is that I’ve tended to pair hardtails with full-sus bikes with similar fork travels and (sagged) geometry and that way both can be ridden with similar aggression, just the hardtail requires you to deal with a lot more chaos from the feet upwards.

That’s based on a 140mm Soul with a 160/140 Banshee Spitfire, a 150mm Bird Zero (also tried 130 & 140 on that with anglesets) witu the Spitfire and then with my 160/150 Levo (now 160/157) and now a 160mm Pipedream Moxie beside the Levo. (The wheels have gone 26, then 27.5, to 29).

I had a Trek Fuel Ex, 130 back and 140 rear. Never really felt overbiked, I could lock the rear out when I was taking it easy. I even used to drive past Thetford on my way home from work and do a blast around there on the Fuel Ex…..ok for a lot of the flat open stuff it wasn’t the ideal bike, but it was still fun.
I now have an Orange Crush hardtail with 150mm fork and a Trek Remedy with 150 back and rear.
The Fuel Ex was a great bike for the type of riding you describe. It might just be me, but while the Fuel Ex wasn’t a magical climber, was a heck of a lot better than the Crush. My Mrs loves the Orange otherwise I’d sell it and buy another Fuel Ex.
I’ve also extensively ridden a Trek Top Fuel which was 120/120. Wasn’t majorly impressed, it wasn’t that much lighter than my Fuel Ex and I preferred the bigger travel. Both bikes were the same level spec wise (but SID on the Top Fuel versus a Fox Rhythm 36 on the Fuel Ex). At the time I had a 10kg XC hardtail (Procal) and was thinking of swapping this out for the 120mm / 120mm Top Fuel….I didn’t swap it but did buy the larger travel Fuel Ex as for me the 120/120 felt for my riding that it was a master of nothing…..hope that makes sense. Better riders than me would be fine on it, but I’m a XC and long distance rider in the main. I wanted something for the times when I ride rougher stuff (I’m in Wales most weekends)
So long story short, my preference if I was going to one or two bikes….. I think a lighter 130/140mm trail bike and keep the hardtail if possible. But as others have said, you may need to demo if possible?

I just spent the weekend away riding a hard and fast 100km on an aggressive Ti HT with a 36mm stanchion 140mm fork on rocky singletrack with some big hips, gaps, road gaps and steep stuff.
The four other riders I was with were all on Giant Trance X (150/135?). I could just about keep up on the smoother stuff, sometimes taking the b-lines/jumps, but on the chunkiest stuff I was getting dropped. They all used to ride the shorter travel Trance and all think the extra travel really helps.

So my thoughts is the DC option may not make too much of a difference.

I have a 150mm HT, plus a 120/100 29 full sus, built as “downcountry” I suppose, fox 34 Fit4 forks. I have ridden Surrey Hills on both.

They really do have different strengths, but I think your suspicion is probably right about feeling a bit lacking at the front. That depends how you personally ride though. A good 120 fork will do its best, but if you like to just charge in,you are going to feel those roots.

My short full sus is a great bike on flowy trails and is great for covering ground on singletrack and places where you can pick a line. The 150HT though is better when I’m riding brutally (not specifically faster, mind) because I can power in as much as I can then absorb with my legs and core. Both bikes are built accordingly though, so that also has a bearing on it. I don’t like compromising the great abilities of the full sus,whereas I’m happy to build the HT heavierfor some reason (tyres are a forced choice I guess!)

You could always long-fork a ‘downcountry’ bike?

I’ve a Swarf Contour, designed to be 130/140 front, 115 rear, but I run it with a 150mm fork and a slackset, runs great like that. I tried for a while to just run a HT (Ragley BigWig, also 150mm fork) as a do-it-all bike, but its just a bit too compromised for steep/chunky stuff.

Admittedly, the Contour, being steel, is not really a DC bike, but the principle of running ‘just enough’ suspension at the rear, with a burlier, longer fork, applies.

That’s interesting, I don’t think I want to feel much more secure really and I’d be worried that 150mm at the back would make my local trails feel too easy. It would be nice to have some cushion at the rear but I dont think I need that much.

Also, would you not expect the better damping of, say, a Pike to compensate for a small reduction of front travel? Especially if I’d be getting the benefit of rear suspension vs a hardtail?

You’re correct 150/150 is quite a big bike, especially for a lot of UK riding outside of bike parks. However, as others have said, something slightly smaller in the 130-140 range would give you what you want.

It really does depend on what riding you want to do with it? I do think that a downcountry/short travel trail bike is perfect for most UK riding, and it’s what I’d go for if I wasn’t doing any uplift/steeper stuff/trips to the Alps, or if/when I n+1 on top of my Stumpjumper EVO.

IME the terrain where being overbiked is the biggest PITA are rolling traverses where there are short downs interspersed with short punchy climbs.

I do think better damping can make some suspension feel like it has more travel than it does, but not to the extent of 30mm difference.

I have given up hardtails now, and for the last few years my most-ridden bike has been my Orange Stage 4 (with a slackset).

110mm rear/130mm front – feels a lot like a hardtail but better and so much more versatile. About the same weight as a steel HT anyway.

So I think you’re on the right track OP, I’d just say look for light, good-pedaling trail bikes rather than XC bikes with longer forks.

If a 460mm reach would suit you, I’m now selling the Stage 4 frame BTW.

I do think that a downcountry/short travel trail bike is perfect for most UK riding

Given how broad a church mtb is, I dont think anyone can really say that. What even is ‘most UK riding’?

Do you mean trail centres?

Am I the only one who doesn’t really know what the heck a downcountry bike is (albeit, it’s sort of apparent from the threads it’s mentioned in), or where/when this new phrase appeared that now seems to crop up all the time

What even is ‘most UK riding’?

From this weeks picture thread, it appears to be the following. HTH.

I’ve always had a long travel FS and a HT. Recently swapped out my Ribble HT for a Cotic Flaremax for the exact reasons stated by the OP.

It’s worked out well. Only issue for me now is overlap between the 2 as bikes these days are so versatile.

Am I the only one who doesn’t really know what the heck a downcountry bike is (albeit, it’s sort of apparent from the threads it’s mentioned in), or where/when this new phrase appeared that now seems to crop up all the time

Mike Levy from Pinkbike started it as a joke – describing how him and his friends modified XC race bikes to improve their descending capability with droppers (back when they didnt have them), beefier tyres, and possibly upping the fork travel or using anglesets – for high speed suffer fest rides on British Columbia singletrack.

The name has kind of stuck (I think to Mike’s embarassment), and its exact definitions are now blurry.

To paraphrase the Mighty Boosh – “combining elements of the XC and the Trail bike to make something not quite as good as either”

Hardcore hardtail is designed to plough through stuff leaving your feet bouncing, or hitting big park jumps
A DC bike is designed to be fast around stuff up and down with sensible line choices
That’s how i see the definition of the two categories

As a +1 bike it might work for you, but from the question it sounds like you want something more trail orientated

I went from a transmitter (150/27) to a signal (130/29) and recently switched out my Bird Aeris 160/145 for a Banshee Spitfire 160/135
The Signal covers XC duties through to natural off piste type stuff and pump/jump track, depending on the wheelset i chuck on it.
the Banshee covers the same stuff, plus that little extra get out of jail free card that a full sus carries, both bikes are capable of point and plough, but both are more rewarding if ridden with finesse.
i don’t know that i could fit in a DC bike alongside my hardtail, but the overlap with a sensible trail bike covers all bases

I ran an orange segment. It, or the orange stage, would be great for what you describe.

I now ride a geometron G13 160/135mm travel.

For me it Not over biked, not under biked it’s just right.

Hope you find something that fits your use

As someone has mentioned the transition Spur, another DC bike you should trial that works really well in the SE is the EpicEvo. Beyond Bikes at Smithbrook Kilns usually have some stock. Faster on all the down than a mate on a Canyon Spectral, no slower than the HTs on the up (except for the really skinny fit lad at the front)

I own a P7 HT with coil 140mm forks and a Spur. The Spur is fantastic, but it certainly has its limits. The Spur is pretty much perfect for majority of South Downs riding and I wouldnt hesitate on taking it lakes or n.Wales for an epic day out. Where it hits its limit though is on the fast, steep, chunky descents. eg, I ride QECP regularly and its great up there. No issues with any of it. However, not too long after I built it, I took it to Hindhead and suffered trying to stick with my mates on longer travel FS rigs. The same is said for my mates Orange stage evo when he was riding with us in Barry Sidings. Its the front that suffers. my 120mm forks just havent got enough travel for comfort/plushness/bit hits at speed and recover.
On my HT, my legs can take the rear bouncing around and my arms are given a bit more slack with the longer travel fork.
I suppose you could stick a 140mm fork on a DC bike, but you might as well look at the many trail bikes really

Personally for me, hardtails are fine just for covering miles on pretty smooth trails and bridleways, but I’ve always had way more fun on anything “proper” with a full sus. Even smoothish flowy trail centres I prefer having some squish on the back, I find a hardtail takes way more effort and rider input to keep momentum over repeated small bumps etc. From what I’ve owned around 140-150mm seems to be the sweet spot of enough to get you out of trouble but not too much to make pedalling it a chore. Currently on a hardtail with a 170mm fork (it’s designed for up to 180!) and it’s not great. Feels too unbalanced even with the fork set up firmer to be less divey.

I should caveat that with saying I’ve not owned anything other than 26″ bikes yet though! So a 29er hardtail may be better at holding momentum, but I imagine it would still have that same unbalanced feel.

Given how broad a church mtb is, I dont think anyone can really say that. What even is ‘most UK riding’?

Do you mean trail centres?

No, I mean most of the routes I’ve ridden in the UK, at trail centres, but also in the Peaks, the Lakes, the dales, Exmoor, Wales etc.

I used to ride 140/140 and most of the time in the UK outside of bike parks I felt overbiked, especially when doing longer routes with lots of climbing. However when doing gnarly steep nadgery chutes of death, I appreciate more travel.

“I do think that a downcountry/short travel trail bike is perfect for most UK riding”

This would be a perfect statement if you added: “for how (and where) I like to ride”.

I haven’t ridden loads of the UK, I got back into MTBing too few years before kids entered my life so it’s a constant challenging time juggle. But from the amount I’ve ridden I’m pretty confident I’d rather haul around a bigger, slacker, longer travel bike and suffer the climbs to enjoy riding a monster truck on the descents.

But I also know that’s a very personal thing – I don’t know anyone else who swaps between a heavy ebike that he’ll happily ride with the power off and a big forked singlespeed hardtail. Clearly my desires are atypical!

I believe that by saying that I think something, the fact that it’s a personal choice is implicit in the statement?

Surrey hills regular here,

One thing I would suggest is don’t sweat being ‘overbiked’ or it being too easy. I have moved over the years from hardtails, to 100mm full sus to 140mm full sus and now 160/150mm full sus with a coil. It has given me so much speed and confidence since getting the 160/150 bike. My riding has progressed significantly, taken up a bit of local racing and a lot more jumping.

Basically, demo stuff and ride what u enjoy but there is plenty to enjoy on a 160/150 bike in the Surrey hills if you know where to look, and if you get the right one it’s not a chore on the smoother stuff. And plus one on a shorter travel forks lesser stiffness and damping quality will be noticeable

Ps my mate who I ride with had a spectral 125 as his first proper Surrey hills mtb, riding with me and other locals. After a year he has swapped in for a coil nukeproof mega as he was sick of the back end not keeping up as his riding has progressed

“I believe that by saying that I think something, the fact that it’s a personal choice is implicit in the statement?”

No, it’s not implicit at all. You can see this if you substitute in many other phrases, eg:

“I think adults shouldn’t ride bikes”
“I think mountain bikes should be banned from bridleways”
“I think no able-bodied person should be allowed to buy an ebike”

Or add in any fascist viewpoint to spice things up! 😉

I think a modern geo downcountry bike with 120-130mm travel will suit what you want fine. Having 150 on the front of a hardtail is great, but as you said it’s limited by the rear and the geo change is quite significant as it goes through the travel (I’ve spent years on long travel HT and still have one as my main bike). Something like the Spur does have less travel up front but the added comfort on the rear will make up for it over all.

I think these modern 120-130 full sus bikes are great for what a lot of people want in the UK (although I totally understand why people get more travel now that bigger bikes pedal so well).

I think these modern 120-130 full sus bikes are great for what a lot of people want in the UK

Yep, a light 120mm-ish 29er can feel absolutely amazing when you’re bombing through the woods or on undulating trails out on the hills.

I went from a 150mm aggressive hardtail, to a 120/120mm Full-suspension Cotic FlareMAX which I rode mainly around QECP/Surrey Hills and some local XC type riding. I did end up fairly swiftly upping the fork to 140mm and ended up with the best of both in my eyes, it climbed better on techy stuff and was less fatiguing on big XC rides but didn’t hold me back on descents.

I’m not the best/most confident descender and having that extra fork travel back again made a massive difference to my riding and enjoyment. Personally if I was going down to one bike it would be a ~120mm full-suspension with a ~140mm fork. But I’m not one for maximum attack on descents regardless of bike.

Am I the only one who doesn’t really know what the heck a downcountry bike is

You’re not alone

The Spur is fantastic, but it certainly has its limits…fast, steep, chunky descents

As a Spur owner I would also agree with this. Can still ride this kind of trail but you have to back off the gas and prepare for a bumpy ride.

For the other 95% of the ride it’s an absolute hoot.

I keep switching from FS to HT but I am now probably settled on HT. The relatively light build META HT with a 160mm Lyrik but crucially on 2.8/2.6 Rekons on Trail Hunts V2s has become the perfect compromise for me for both smooth trail riding (in other words XC) and stuff like the Surrey Hills which are also local to me.

But this probably has more to do with the HT/FS conundrum and my eventual acceptance that the feel of a HT is what I prefer than a purely objective perception as something like a Canyon Spectral 125 would probably have yielded the opposite conclusion. Or not at all.

Am I the only one who doesn’t really know what the heck a downcountry bike is

You’re not alone

it is a category of bike that describes a cross country bike that has been made more trail-worthy. a bit like a purpose designed/off the peg bike for the person who would over-fork, for example, a santa cruz blur and fit sturdier wheels and tyres. lighter than a trail bike, less single minded than an xc bike. transition spur is the classic example, or specialized’s evo version of the epic.

i actually reopened this thread because i had a suggestion for the OP. Chromag Darco. it’s a 120 frame that will take a 150 fork. it has been designed to be a hardcore hard tail with a more forgiving ride.

and as you live in SE england, i’m going to assume that you are rolling in money and as such, it’s worth noting that there’s a titanium version of the darco