This forum uses cookies
This forum makes use of cookies to store your login information if you are registered, and your last visit if you are not. Cookies are small text documents stored on your computer; the cookies set by this forum can only be used on this website and pose no security risk. Cookies on this forum also track the specific topics you have read and when you last read them. Please confirm whether you accept or reject these cookies being set.

A cookie will be stored in your browser regardless of choice to prevent you being asked this question again. You will be able to change your cookie settings at any time using the link in the footer.


Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
FS v ht
#1
So today went out to fowlmead to do a little experiment.

Went late tis afternoon so bit quieter, earmarked a small loop.

Warmed up on my ht

Canyon cf, comes in at 21lbs.

Done 5 laps at race pace

3.52
3.49
3.56
3.53
3.50

Then back to a known point near the car park again race pace

8.06


Then swopped for 26lbs FS

Done exact same setup

3.45
3.46
3.46
3.45
3.45

7.40 to get back.

Interesting to me the heavier FS is better.  That's for me anyway, not saying it's the same for everyone.  I suppose different courses different result but I tried to have some techy bits, a sharp climb, fast decent etc.

I suppose if I put my race wheels on the FS may have knocked of a couple more seconds.
Reply
#2
interesting. though I would have expected that to be honest. best sell the HT now  Tongue
I have never done anything as scientific but I always felt quicker on my old FS compared to the HT I build for the Mrs on anything remotely bumpy.
The 26" wheeled HT is virtually extinct in the US incidentally.
Reply
#3
Much more consistant results on the FS!

Very interesting test - thanks for sharing Smile
Reply
#4
Fowlmead is quite bumpy but flat, tight corners where the heavier bike should suffer out of but prob carries more speed elsewhere. a course with long climbs and not that tech should suit ht more plus a muddy slog course will be better on ht. For dry gorrick race i would use a fs even if i didnt have back issues
Reply
#5
Good one Derek, that's far more technically useful than anything MBUK et al have ever done Smile
I'm well impressed with the consistency too.
Reply
#6
Really interesting Derek.  I'd have suspected the significantly lighter ht would have been quicker.  Its made me re-assess my race bike strategy as was all set on a ht but might keep the Whyte and lighten it up a bit...
Reply
#7
I've always thought FS was quicker. The only time a HT would be quicker is on tarmac (and the Olympic course) because the back wheel can track the ground and keep the power constant which it can't when you're on bumpy ground. I'd like to see the results of the same test on a short travel XC FS.

Also, were you running the same tyres on each bike? The amount of grip delivered from different tyres could also affect the results as above.
Reply
#8
HT more line critical and more affected by the various surface changes etc. I'd love a light HT but no point as my back won't take it.
Reply
#9
I have always suspected as such. When I got my Enduro it felt massively quicker up the Whites climb than the 456 despite it being a lot heavier, HT just can't track the ground as well as a full suss.
Reply
#10
You couldnt pay me to swap my 26.5lb FS for a <20lb HT. Nick considering your back issues even if fixed, I cant understand why you are even considering a HT at all.....get a 2012 Spark at most which you can lock on the smooth bits but I certainly wouldnt go for a HT
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)