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.

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…

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

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….

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.