 You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
As the thread title asks. Does anyone own both a hardtail and a short travel xc race bike?
If so, what do you use the most and do you feel that having both is justifiable? Or have you found one bike to be used all the time over the other? Mulling over the thought of n+1 or if money is better saved.
Current hardtail is 100 mm 29er, 9.5kg, axs / xx1, dt swiss etc.
Bike comparing it to: 100mm front and rear, lock out, about 11.5kg
My riding: gravel, trail centres, bike packing, off road events, all day epics, planning on doing some xc races during the year.
Yup, I've got a 100mm XC 29er HT that's a smidge over 10kg and also a 100mm XC 29er FS that's a smidge over 11kg.
The HT is great for ripping round not massively technical courses, general XC riding, mixed surface rides, riding with the kids, etc. The FS is just as good as the HT at those things but really makes life a lot easier on rougher, rockier more technical stuff and when you just want to go faster for longer.
Yip pace 529 so 130mm of pretty fun ht point it down almost anything and a 9kg carbon 100mm ht xc bike, only used for race/events. The xc bike has done a lot of 12/24hr stuff. If I'm going or base fitness it's gravel bike, steep stuff the pace or a fs.
The xc gets out a few weeks before a race just to get my head around it.on trails.
Got a 100mm carbon HT and a 120mm FS. Tend to ride the HT locally and in winter. The FS gets used for racing, longer rides and summer.
Can't really justify. I have a gravel bike as well. But they all get ridden at different times. I would probably just go gravel and FS if I had to. The HT was a "bargain". Probably only a couple of FS services so I loe to myself I saved money.
Mate has a Scott Hardscale (as he calls it) and an Intense Sniper(?)
He got beat up racing the Scott on 100km races and realised that everyone he beat had an FS. He uses the Scott now for gravel and adventure XC and the Sniper for gnarly xc… although he did recently fracture his scapula crashing it on a jump.
He is retired and spends all his time riding though.
Yep. FS in summer and HT in winter as a single speed.
I have a current hidden shock Scott Spark and a Trek X Caliber. I used the Spark many times more. I live in Scotland so there are no race courses where a hardtail is quicker and the Spark is more fun, capable and comfortable for everyday riding too.
I have the Trek as a spare race bike should the Spark go wrong, for touring with a trailer and, its primary use, as a winter bike to save the Spark getting ruined.
If I had only one, it'd be the Spark.
Got both but almost no crossover.
HT is a mk1 Sonder Transmitter. Longish, slackish, 140mm forks, big-ass tyres. Proper do it all bike. Gets a lot of use over winter.
FS XC is an old (2012) Spesh Epic. 120mm both ends. Steep, shortish and twitchy. Built for some marathon stuff I never got round to riding. Gets used mostly for local pedally rides. Probably about to be reborn as what I think a Gravel bike should actually really be.
Both trumped by my RocketMAX on most occasions...
I've not ridden my 27.5" custom steel hardtail after building my Carbonda FM936 29er FS.
Although my lumbar disc issue has something to do with this.
I did, eventually got rid of the shiny shiny racey HT frame as the amount of use it got, it wasn't worth it.
So i did a shuffle of components, upgraded a couple of other bikes (Race bike for one) and built a "play" bike out of spare parts and a cheapish frame, it's ended up with a selection of XT/XTR/Hope/FOX and a 100 quid saddle. The seatpin cost me 8 quid and the frame, 119 (plus P+P).
FWIW, if i was still doing 20-30 races per year and looking for good finishes in ~30% of them, i'd probably have kept them both.
Depends where / what / how much you ride I guess?
I'm thinking of going the other way, can I combine my "trail" hardtail and gravel bike, and itch to buy an XC bike, into one XC-ish bike. Something light but slack like a BMC Two-Stroke or Cannondale Scalpel. Reason being the road biking round here is just better than the MTBing. And when I jump in the car it'd still be a choice between 120mm HT or 140/150 FS. So do I 'need' both a 140mm HT and a gravel bike, the HT currently just exists in this no-mans-land between stuff that's worth driving to, and stuff that's worth taking the FS. And I've run out of spaces to hang bikes in the shed, so n-1 would be nice to make space for dedicated summer and winter road bikes.
If you ride the HT several times a week then the XC-FS maybe makes sense.
If you don't then ones just going to get stuck in the shed.
The bikes I'm comparing are my current specialized chisel custom build (9.5kg xx1, dt swiss, sid ultimate SL) and a vitus rapide FS CRX that I've secured.
The chisel is pretty rowdy on the downs, and holds its own well. Perhaps thinking it just needs some more stopping power. Question is, will the rear travel really add more to my experience and capabilities? Or with the bikes I'm mentioning, would I just basically be doubling up and overlapping too much - money better saved and invested?
For the XC racing, I can imagine the big time gains are more on the riders fitness and during the climbs rather than the descents.
For the XC racing, I can imagine the big time gains are more on the riders fitness and during the climbs rather than the descents.
You can't win a race on the descents, but you can certainly lose one. A proper XC FS just makes life a bit less like hard work on the courses that make you think, ooh a FS might be handy here.
There's plenty of people ride all sorts on HT's but certain things make a FS more of a sensible choice to me, like a proliferation of rocks or many many roots as on a HT they both add up to excessive fatigue for me. For XC bikes when compared pound for pound - as in a 100mm HT v 100mm FS - I'd say the FS will always descend, if not quicker, but more in control and in a less tiring manner, which ultimately is the aim.