bike weight vs full suspension

woodchuck said:

I am in my second year of MTB racing (sport level) and have a full suspension and a hardtail MTBikes. The hardtail is older but still raceable (got it off of ebay and have spiced it up a bit). The full suspension bike weights 30lbs (I could probably knock this down to 29 lbs with a race tires) and the hardtail weight 25 lbs.

A few questions for those with more experience:

1) Would the 4-5lbs less weight on the hardtail make it worth racing it or does the full suspension make up for the 4-5lb difference?

2) Would the answer to (1) be race course specific?

3) Any other factors?

My body weight is 140 lbs (if this matters) and I have squeezed that down probably as far as it can go (i.e. don't ask me to lose another 4-5 lbs 🙂 ).

It really depends on what the two bikes you have are and how they are set up. Some full suspension frames are much better for racing than others.

I think this question is right up there with "what is the meaning of life", as it's come up for just about everyone I know who rides (as well as myself) at one time or another.

I think it depends on 1) personal preference, and 2) the type of course you race on. Also, the type of full suspension bike can be dependent on the course type too - some are better for downhill and others for XC.

I've ridden about a dozen different full suspension bikes, and my personal preference is the multi-link variety, with something called a "horst link". This is where there's a pivot near the rear drop-out, but the pivot has to be on the chainstay, and it should be lower than the rear axle. This puts the rear wheel on the seatstay section, not the chainstay section.

I like this design the best because it seems (to me at least) to cause the least about of pedaling-induced suspension action of any of the other types I've ridden. I *hate* unified rear triangle bikes, and I'm luke-warm about swingarm bikes (where there's one big link, and the whole rear triangle moves as a unit).

For me I've decided that for now, the extra weight isn't worth it, mainly because of my riding style and the terrain I ride on. Also, my mountain bike weighs in at < 23 lbs, so a full suspension bike would be a pretty noticable weight penalty.

So my advice is to see if the type of full suspension bike you have suits itself to the terrain you're racing on. If not, you might be better off on the hard tail.

Full Sus - Specialized Epic
HT - Trek 8000

Similar components but Trek 8000 is a bit older.

woodchuck said:

Full Sus - Specialized Epic
HT - Trek 8000

Similar components but Trek 8000 is a bit older.

Ack, lol. You replied while I was still editing my reply. Guess I need to make use of the "preview" feature, heh.

An Epic IMO is an excellent bike. Perhaps one of the best. Unless you're doing downhill racing, it might be worth a try, especially if your course has a lot of rooted climbs. One thing I like best about a FS bike it its ability to keep the rear tire planted on rough climbs.

The extra weight might pay itself off in the form of reduced fatigue and less wasted energy.

IMO if you could get the epic down to around 26 to 27 pounds you would have a great race bike. The problem right now is that at 30 pounds the weight is going to really get to you during races with longer climbs. Granted the suspension will help out a lot with fatigue.

I guess the reason I am having problems giving you a good answer is because 25 pounds is also pretty heavy for a hardtail. With that bike you will have the fatigue of a hardtail plus get tired from carrying around the extra weight.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to bash either one of your bikes, they are both great bikes, it's just that at their weights neither one of them are really xc race bikes.

LowCel said:

IMO if you could get the epic down to around 26 to 27 pounds you would have a great race bike.

I concur with that assessment. I'm wondering where most of the weight on that bike is coming from. If it's the baseline Epic, he can probably shave a good bit of weight off it, but if it's something like an S-Works, it might be expensive to make it lighter.

woodchuck: Which model Epic is it?

It is a base Epic. I have some heavy (flat resistent) tires on right now because our local trails cause lots of flats. They have worked great for that. I have a different set of tires that I plan to use during the race season that should shave about .9 lbs off of the Epic. Other than that it is stock. I suppose there are grams to save on water bottle holders, etc. but I am not sure of any other big things.

woodchuck said:

It is a base Epic. I have some heavy (flat resistent) tires on right now because our local trails cause lots of flats. They have worked great for that. I have a different set of tires that I plan to use during the race season that should shave about .9 lbs off of the Epic. Other than that it is stock. I suppose there are grams to save on water bottle holders, etc. but I am not sure of any other big things.

Most likely your biggest and best weight savings would be in some new wheels, tires and Stan's no tubes. You could probably save about two pounds of rotating weight by just doing these changes. The difference in climbing would be unbelievable and you would have yourself a nice bike to race.

Interesting idea. Then I could also keep my heavy tires on the other rims and use them when I want a bit of extra weight during training and don't want to fix flats. I need to investigate that a bit.

LowCel said:

Most likely your biggest and best weight savings would be in some new wheels, tires and Stan's no tubes. You could probably save about two pounds of rotating weight by just doing these changes. The difference in climbing would be unbelievable and you would have yourself a nice bike to race.

That's great advice. Plus, you could always use these as your "race" wheels for both bikes and probably shave a little weight off of your hard tail as well.