What is fastest around a half-marathon?

[RoboLuke]

A dual suspension or a HT? (See I'm giving us a break from the wheel size debate)

[TNT1]

wot's a half marathon? 21km on a mtb?

[RoboLuke]

Lets say 35 to 50 km mtb

[TNT1]

A dual suspension or a HT?

Lets say 35 to 50 km mtb

 

Well, those chicks that just won the Epic rode HT's...

[TNT1]

Well, those chicks that just won the Epic rode HT's...

 

I revise my answer. The hardest, most fit rider, with the best genes, is your answer. It's not about the bike. I honestly think Stauser woulda won on 26" HT's this week.

[RoboLuke]

 

 

I revise my answer. The hardest, most fit rider, with the best genes, is your answer. It's not about the bike. I honestly think Stauser woulda won on 26" HT's this week.

 

OK...for the same person...clearly someone with a Makro bicycle somewhere can beat me.....but given the same oak

[TNT1]

but given the same oak

 

map out a short XC course, ride your bike, then beg a ride on your mate's dream bike. see which is faster. The same oke would be you then...

[Edge_Design]

Honestly, there will probably be very little difference as far as time is concerned... It will come down to your skill (bit more needed to handle a hardtail at speed on technical stuff), the technicality and surface you're riding on (really rough then a dual should give you better traction/drive), the comparative weight of the bikes (dual would normally be heavier). I vote for comfort and hence will never ride a HT again - I definitely climb slower (possibly the extra 2kg's on my dual), but descend and do rough flats much faster (I'm not the most skilled rider so need the more forgiving ride).

[RoboLuke]

So now has been an eye opener for me? What you guys are saying is that when a MTB magazine rate one bike a 7/10 and another 9/10 that there is effectively NOT a 20 % performance difference? It just FEELs different....like great running shoes don't make you faster..just less blisters. Well that kinda sucks if I cant blame the bike

[Gluteus Maximus]

That's true for your shorter XC distances, but in other genres like DH, AM, and long distance XC it does make a big difference. In the short amateur XC you can blow to the top by only will-power on most decent bikes. However, I won't say you can't blame the bike, we're wired to blame.

 

Glute

[North Shore]

A hardtail is almost always going to be the faster bike because it's inherently lighter and a faster climber, unless the track involves a hell of a lot of technical. The reason to go full suspension is for comfort and on stage races (like the Epic) your recovery time is faster on a FS.

[Andrew_ew]

Really depends on what you want. Comfort - dual no question. Your question makes it clear you are after speed. For speed - lightness in body first then bike, and seriously consider a HT as in my own view, more time is lost going slowly up a hill than by descending a bit slower because you are on a HT. North Shore has it spot on.

 

Skills can be learnt and improved thereby improving your descending speed to the point where the difference between you and someone who matches you in fitness on a dual is not that far apart. A heavy bike will always be heavy and harder to get up a hill than a lighter bike.

 

I have gone from an alu dual at 12.5kg's to a carbon HT at 10.5kg and it has made a big difference. You will get a much bigger hammering on a HT though, but increasing flexibility, fitness and skills will minimize this. also on shorter races this is not a huge problem.

 

I agree that on stage races you have to be very fit to take the hammering a HT dishes out day in day out.