02-16-2022, 04:46 PM
This was such an intriguing topic for me when I started biking.
I had personally enjoyed suspension for the glamour of it, but was always put off by the weight and eccentric resistance that it adds (from the buoyancy effect between the ground). I'm a winter biker, so one incredibly interesting bit for me to discover was how rigid compares to suspension in the snow. I had a full suspension bike, but I rode it like a hard tail, with the spring dialed tightly to the max. I would have never considered anything but suspension for the snow, because you would think there's too much turbulence to deal with on such unstable, unforgiving terrain. When your primary objective is to keep balance, suspension is your ultimate tech for this, right?
Wrong.
Now that I've ridden both, I can add that both do have some unique advantages to them. But overall, the opposite of what was expected was true. With a suspension, I find that it's much harder to keep your balance over certain unstable terrain, particularly flats (and/or icy terrains) because the suspension goes wild and adds all kinds of eccentric resistance that compromises balance as it needs to be stabilized. Being able to do this successfully is a crucible. No better way to explain it. On icy terrain the bike so easily slips out from under you with this. With a rigid, it's easier to keep a center of balance on these terrains, but recovery suffers a little more on all terrains when it falls way off balance to one side.
On rockier terrains, suspension naturally gives you tons of comfort, but at such a compromise of inertia. Inertia is so important in the snow, to breakthrough barricades and deep pockets, and maintain your momentum. You need to be very aggressive, and it's hard to put that kind of aggression in on a flat when you're flanked against the buoyancy of the suspension. On a rigid, the rockier unstable terrains are still very manageable, but just very uncomfortable. So much so—it can have you sweating about it. I honestly don't see this being easy to get used to under any circumstances.
Nosediving is probably the biggest disadvantage that rigid has on the unforgiving terrain. There's simply no answer for this. If you hit a deep pocket and the front sinks, you're going forward without any give. This was incredibly frustrating to deal with. Suspension naturally will bounce you back, which is great for recovery. It's kind of the only benefit though—falling terribly short to reign a champion.
Even given all this, I would not totally count out suspension as being inferior to rigid, but moreso have come to the conclusion that half-suspension is majorly overrated on its utility and effectiveness over rigid. Full suspension though I would almost guarantee is superior to rigid. With the added compliment from the rear shock (to counter-balance the buoyancy from the front) I can easily see it excelling in every avenue. It's amazing how pumped that half-suspension is—and the truth is simply that its purpose is not utility and performance—but is simply comfort. Half-suspension provides comfort from bumps, but does not excel in any performance category by itself.
No matter if you're on snow or hard ground trail, rigid is your go-to if you ask me. I would save suspension only for the really treacherous trails and downhills. Ones with lots rock gardens and crevices. Mobility on rigid is just so prime, and allows you to fly up and over obstacles with no bounce back from the buoyancy of the shocks. That kind of performance is just king in my book.
I had personally enjoyed suspension for the glamour of it, but was always put off by the weight and eccentric resistance that it adds (from the buoyancy effect between the ground). I'm a winter biker, so one incredibly interesting bit for me to discover was how rigid compares to suspension in the snow. I had a full suspension bike, but I rode it like a hard tail, with the spring dialed tightly to the max. I would have never considered anything but suspension for the snow, because you would think there's too much turbulence to deal with on such unstable, unforgiving terrain. When your primary objective is to keep balance, suspension is your ultimate tech for this, right?
Wrong.
Now that I've ridden both, I can add that both do have some unique advantages to them. But overall, the opposite of what was expected was true. With a suspension, I find that it's much harder to keep your balance over certain unstable terrain, particularly flats (and/or icy terrains) because the suspension goes wild and adds all kinds of eccentric resistance that compromises balance as it needs to be stabilized. Being able to do this successfully is a crucible. No better way to explain it. On icy terrain the bike so easily slips out from under you with this. With a rigid, it's easier to keep a center of balance on these terrains, but recovery suffers a little more on all terrains when it falls way off balance to one side.
On rockier terrains, suspension naturally gives you tons of comfort, but at such a compromise of inertia. Inertia is so important in the snow, to breakthrough barricades and deep pockets, and maintain your momentum. You need to be very aggressive, and it's hard to put that kind of aggression in on a flat when you're flanked against the buoyancy of the suspension. On a rigid, the rockier unstable terrains are still very manageable, but just very uncomfortable. So much so—it can have you sweating about it. I honestly don't see this being easy to get used to under any circumstances.
Nosediving is probably the biggest disadvantage that rigid has on the unforgiving terrain. There's simply no answer for this. If you hit a deep pocket and the front sinks, you're going forward without any give. This was incredibly frustrating to deal with. Suspension naturally will bounce you back, which is great for recovery. It's kind of the only benefit though—falling terribly short to reign a champion.
Even given all this, I would not totally count out suspension as being inferior to rigid, but moreso have come to the conclusion that half-suspension is majorly overrated on its utility and effectiveness over rigid. Full suspension though I would almost guarantee is superior to rigid. With the added compliment from the rear shock (to counter-balance the buoyancy from the front) I can easily see it excelling in every avenue. It's amazing how pumped that half-suspension is—and the truth is simply that its purpose is not utility and performance—but is simply comfort. Half-suspension provides comfort from bumps, but does not excel in any performance category by itself.
No matter if you're on snow or hard ground trail, rigid is your go-to if you ask me. I would save suspension only for the really treacherous trails and downhills. Ones with lots rock gardens and crevices. Mobility on rigid is just so prime, and allows you to fly up and over obstacles with no bounce back from the buoyancy of the shocks. That kind of performance is just king in my book.
![[-]](https://forums.bikeride.com/images/flatty/collapse.png "[-]")
