Switch from Solid to Full Suspension Bike

Hi there all,
I'm just an amateur, occasional cyclist, but enjoy it all the same. I
used to have an old Specialized Rockhopper, with a completely solid
frame. It was incredibly light, and very fast and easy to ride. At
Christmas I received a full suspension mountain bike, which although
it has an aluminium frame, is a lot heavier, and imo much much harder
to ride. Although it is more comfortable, it takes a hell of a lot
more work for the same effect.
Has anyone else found this when making the switch from solid to
suspension bikes, or have I not set it up right?
Any opinions appreciated,
Ross

"Ross" wrote in message
om...
I'm just an amateur, occasional cyclist, but enjoy it all the same. I
used to have an old Specialized Rockhopper, with a completely solid
frame. It was incredibly light, and very fast and easy to ride. At
Christmas I received a full suspension mountain bike, which although
it has an aluminium frame, is a lot heavier, and imo much much harder
to ride. Although it is more comfortable, it takes a hell of a lot
more work for the same effect.
Has anyone else found this when making the switch from solid to
suspension bikes, or have I not set it up right?

I still have my 13 year old fully rigid mtb, it feels fast on the road 1
and lively off-road, however an hour off-road is as long as I'd want to
spend on it nowadays.
It was replaced with a full suss bike some years ago as my primary mtb. The
full susser is pointless on the road except for the neccessity to link
off-road trails but I can, and do, ride it for hours on end off-road (5.5
hours today in fact) on very technical terrain without undue discomfort.
Horses for courses.
Unfortunately, sale bikes aside, you need to spend 1000 pounds upward to get
an efficient and reasonably light full suss bike.
1 Currently set up as a winter road bike, a role it fills admirably).

Pete

Ross wrote:
Hi there all,
I'm just an amateur, occasional cyclist, but enjoy it all the same. I
used to have an old Specialized Rockhopper, with a completely solid
frame. It was incredibly light, and very fast and easy to ride. At
Christmas I received a full suspension mountain bike, which although
it has an aluminium frame, is a lot heavier, and imo much much harder
to ride. Although it is more comfortable, it takes a hell of a lot
more work for the same effect.
Has anyone else found this when making the switch from solid to
suspension bikes, or have I not set it up right?
Any opinions appreciated,
Ross

Depends what you got for a full suspension bike. The Rockhopper is a
very good bike for its price. On suspension bikes you need to spend a
quite a bit to get something reasonable. With low price suspension
bikes it can sap a lot of energy not least because putting the money
into the suspension means having to make lots of savings elsewhere plus
cheap suspension tends to be underdamped and boingy.

Check the usual thing though - brakes not rubbing, tyres pumped up etc -
just in case.

Tony

"Ross" wrote in message
om...
Hi there all,
I'm just an amateur, occasional cyclist, but enjoy it all the same. I
used to have an old Specialized Rockhopper, with a completely solid
frame. It was incredibly light, and very fast and easy to ride. At
Christmas I received a full suspension mountain bike, which although
it has an aluminium frame, is a lot heavier, and imo much much harder
to ride. Although it is more comfortable, it takes a hell of a lot
more work for the same effect.
Has anyone else found this when making the switch from solid to
suspension bikes, or have I not set it up right?
Any opinions appreciated,


Don't get rid of the 'hopper. Bloody good bikes.

T

On 9 Jan 2005 09:30:56 -0800, (Ross) wrote:

Hi there all,
I'm just an amateur, occasional cyclist, but enjoy it all the same. I
used to have an old Specialized Rockhopper, with a completely solid
frame. It was incredibly light, and very fast and easy to ride. At
Christmas I received a full suspension mountain bike, which although
it has an aluminium frame, is a lot heavier, and imo much much harder
to ride. Although it is more comfortable, it takes a hell of a lot
more work for the same effect.
Has anyone else found this when making the switch from solid to
suspension bikes, or have I not set it up right?
Any opinions appreciated,
Ross

Which bike is it? Also does it have adjustment on the front and rear
shocks if so try setting them to as stiff as possible. Normally a
clockwise adjustment on front shocks and if there are two adjusters
you'll need to do both by the same amount. The rear shock is normally
adjustable on all bikes that have them even the very cheapest models.
Set this to as stiff as possible for road use. Also change the tyres
to slicks if your not going off road.

in message , Ross
') wrote:

Hi there all,
I'm just an amateur, occasional cyclist, but enjoy it all the same. I
used to have an old Specialized Rockhopper, with a completely solid
frame. It was incredibly light, and very fast and easy to ride. At
Christmas I received a full suspension mountain bike, which although
it has an aluminium frame, is a lot heavier, and imo much much harder
to ride. Although it is more comfortable, it takes a hell of a lot
more work for the same effect.
Has anyone else found this when making the switch from solid to
suspension bikes, or have I not set it up right?

Full suspension bikes are obviously and necessarily a little heavier
than rigid bikes of similar age and quality, but not very much -
perhaps 2Kg over all at most. The riding technique is a little
different. Don't get out of the saddle and honk - the suspension will
just bob and you'll lose traction. Stay sat down, get into silly low
gears, and spin like mad. When on firm, even surfaces like tarmac, it
often helps to lock the suspension.

You don't say what your new bike is or what it weighs but it should not
be much heavier. Broadly a good full suspension cross-country bike
shouldn't weigh more than 13Kg ('freeride' bikes may weigh a bit more
and downhill bikes may weigh a lot more).

In my experience full suspension is just amazingly better than rigid -
not only is it much easier particularly on longer rides, but you can
easily go places which on a rigid you just could not ride.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

to err is human, to lisp divine
;; attributed to Kim Philby, oddly enough.

Ross wrote:

Hi there all,
I'm just an amateur, occasional cyclist, but enjoy it all the same. I
used to have an old Specialized Rockhopper, with a completely solid
frame. It was incredibly light, and very fast and easy to ride. At
Christmas I received a full suspension mountain bike, which although
it has an aluminium frame, is a lot heavier, and imo much much harder
to ride. Although it is more comfortable, it takes a hell of a lot
more work for the same effect.
Has anyone else found this when making the switch from solid to
suspension bikes, or have I not set it up right?
Any opinions appreciated,
Ross


It sounds quite possible that a well-meaning person has
"upgraded" you from a high-quality lightweight rigid bike to a cheap
heavy suspended horror story. However, it may just be that you are not
used to the slightly softer ride and the new bike is not well set up (or
just not suitable for your use). What is the make and model of new bike?

James
--
If I have seen further than others, it is
by treading on the toes of giants.
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/

In ,
James Annan typed:
Ross wrote:

Hi there all,
I'm just an amateur, occasional cyclist, but enjoy it all the same. I
used to have an old Specialized Rockhopper, with a completely solid
frame. It was incredibly light, and very fast and easy to ride. At
Christmas I received a full suspension mountain bike, which although
it has an aluminium frame, is a lot heavier, and imo much much harder
to ride. Although it is more comfortable, it takes a hell of a lot
more work for the same effect.
Has anyone else found this when making the switch from solid to
suspension bikes, or have I not set it up right?
Any opinions appreciated,

It sounds quite possible that a well-meaning person has
"upgraded" you from a high-quality lightweight rigid bike to a cheap
heavy suspended horror story.

I'm afraid that's exactly what it sounds like to me, too. My full suspension
mountain bike is plenty more fun to ride on dry roads in daytime than my
mid-market urban bike. Of course, put a bit of rain into the equation, or
darkness, or locking it up, and it changes, but it sounds like something's
wrong if it doesn't at least feel a bit fun. I'd be wondering how to
tactfully arrange a refund and exchange it for something like some forks for
the Rockhopper if you've still got it, if I were you.

Sorry, I don't like to bring bad news, but it's what it sounds like to me,

Ambrose

"Simon Brooke" wrote in message
news
in message , Ross
') wrote:

Hi there all,
I'm just an amateur, occasional cyclist, but enjoy it all the same. I
used to have an old Specialized Rockhopper, with a completely solid
frame. It was incredibly light, and very fast and easy to ride. At
Christmas I received a full suspension mountain bike, which although
it has an aluminium frame, is a lot heavier, and imo much much harder
to ride. Although it is more comfortable, it takes a hell of a lot
more work for the same effect.
Has anyone else found this when making the switch from solid to
suspension bikes, or have I not set it up right?

Full suspension bikes are obviously and necessarily a little heavier
than rigid bikes of similar age and quality, but not very much -
perhaps 2Kg over all at most. The riding technique is a little
different. Don't get out of the saddle and honk - the suspension will
just bob and you'll lose traction. Stay sat down, get into silly low
gears, and spin like mad. When on firm, even surfaces like tarmac, it
often helps to lock the suspension.

You don't say what your new bike is or what it weighs but it should not
be much heavier. Broadly a good full suspension cross-country bike
shouldn't weigh more than 13Kg ('freeride' bikes may weigh a bit more
and downhill bikes may weigh a lot more).

In my experience full suspension is just amazingly better than rigid -
not only is it much easier particularly on longer rides

Agreed

but you can
easily go places which on a rigid you just could not ride.

Disagree strongly. Where are these places? It may take more skill but theres
no-where a full-sus bike can go that a rigid can't follow. If you managed to
catch Steve Peat win the 1996 National mtb DH championship on a rigid bike
( when everyone else was on full-susssers or hardtails) you would appreciate
how fast you can go too.

Steve.

--


---------------------------------------------------------------------
"Are you still wasting your time with spam?...
There is a solution!"

Protected by GIANT Company's Spam Inspector
The most powerful anti-spam software available.
http://mail.spaminspector.com


"Ambrose Nankivell" wrote in message
...
In ,
James Annan typed:
Ross wrote:

Hi there all,
I'm just an amateur, occasional cyclist, but enjoy it all the same. I
used to have an old Specialized Rockhopper, with a completely solid
frame. It was incredibly light, and very fast and easy to ride. At
Christmas I received a full suspension mountain bike, which although
it has an aluminium frame, is a lot heavier, and imo much much harder
to ride. Although it is more comfortable, it takes a hell of a lot
more work for the same effect.
Has anyone else found this when making the switch from solid to
suspension bikes, or have I not set it up right?
Any opinions appreciated,

I have bothtypes of bike like you.
I use my non sprung bike for the road and my dual susser for off
road....................Its horses for courses.
I used to go off road with my non sussed bike and though I got through I was
more knackered and hurt more.
Off road the full susser is a delight......on the contrary on road the
susser absorbs a lot of energy that I guess would otherwise propel you
forward.Who needs all that cushioning on the road?....that's my take on
your question.

Barry