Bombproof Project: Rigid vs. Suspension

February 26th, 2007 by Tim Grahl

(this post is part of our ongoing Blue Collar Bombproof Bike Project)

The current specs for the Blue Collar Bombproof Bike call for the Surly Instigator rigid forks. I’d say this is the component I keep going back and forth on the most.

As I mentioned in the SS vs gears post, we are trying to walk the line on the specs of having a generally accepted technology and providing the best overall ride quality for the average mountain biker while still spec’ing parts that will last the longest.

On the rigid side of the argument, this allows us to put a part on the bike that is obviously bombproof for the long term. There’s no maintenance to worry about. And a good rigid fork such as the Instigator will have a whole lot of miles on it before replacing is an necessity.

But is this against the “generally accepted technology” and will it take away from the overall ride quality enough that we should be spec’ing a suspension fork instead?

Is the added comfort and grace that comes with suspension enough to make it worth the lower “bombproofness” over a rigid fork?

This is seriously still up in the air on this end so leave your arguments for or against. And if you are for suspension, what’s the fork you would recommend for this project?

26 Responses to “Bombproof Project: Rigid vs. Suspension”

RSS & Trackback

1 nathan on Feb 26th, 2007 at 6:50 pm

i think it’s only sensible to have a suspension fork. this is an entry level bike, right? if you put a rigid fork on you are significantly raising the barrier to entry because a rigid fork takes a lot more bike handling skill to enjoy. (you have to pick lines, have your body english game going on, pay attention to lifting your wheel over more things, and just not ride some trails) not to mention that i don’t think an entry level mountain bike without a suspension fork will be taken seriously.

i’d guess that a vanilla or a black will in all probability outlast the drivetrain many times over and will need service less often to boot.
2 Steve on Feb 26th, 2007 at 8:03 pm

Are you kidding? Why would anyone riding serious singletrack use a rigid fork? Performance, safety and comfort all dictate a suspension fork. If you’re just riding smooth dirt roads and bike paths then it doesn’t matter.
3 Sajko on Feb 27th, 2007 at 10:05 am

You guys need to take your panties off and ride a rigid fork. I don’t know how old you are, but did we not all start with rigid bikes? My first and second mountain bikes were rigid. Only the most demanding technical downhills ask for suspension.

If we are talking bombproof I say rigid with a nice 2.5 in the front is plenty of suspension.

Can someone say fundamentals?
4 John G on Feb 27th, 2007 at 10:06 am

Keeping the stock instigator fork will keep costs nicely down, and with the right tires you won’t loose much on most trails. Contrary to Steve above, many riders ride “serious” singletrack with rigid forks, and do just fine. Heck, once upon a time everyone did. Some of us eventually tried suspension (dadburned new-fangled, grumble grumble), and decided against it. Others wouldn’t live without it. That said, maybe you want to have a base bike, with suggested upgrades, and put a sus-fork high on that list. Added comfort can be nice on those all day rides.
5 luke on Feb 27th, 2007 at 11:02 am

@Sajko:

“My first and second mountain bikes were rigid. Only the most demanding technical downhills ask for suspension.”

I would have probably said said before my wrist surgery. I started before suspension was available, and that wrecked my body. The surgeon mentioned that I had dramatically accelerated degeneration of the joints such that my wrists, at age21, were like a 60 year old’s. Not from falling mind you. From constant repetitive bumps on the trails.

Today I have less than 30% of the range of normal movement. Sign me older and wiser. Suspension
6 nathan on Feb 27th, 2007 at 11:19 am

riding a rigid fork is harder regardless of it being the tradition or not. why make it harder to get into the sport by speccing a trickier entry level bike? i don’t care if it’s hardcore or not, that’s not the point. as for the cost, if cost is the objective then it doesn’t make much sense to spec an instigator to begin with.
7 Larry in AK on Feb 27th, 2007 at 8:37 pm

I like others above are old school, riding rigid frames and forks, before there was even the thought of suspension. I believe you become a more skilled rider without the suspension. You end up with a simpler bike without the extra weight and maintenance; up to a couple of pounds can be lost with a rigid fork. Suspension is for soft asses.
8 nathan on Feb 27th, 2007 at 9:08 pm

weight’s obviously not the focus here, and while maintenance is certainly something to consider it’s hard to argue that suspension forks are too burdensome to maintain. glad to hear that you’re a hard ass larry, but not every beginner is.
9 jvw97 on Feb 28th, 2007 at 12:34 am

All you old hard asses crack me up. I just started riding 6 months ago and would never dream of riding without suspension. Call me a wus, I really don’t give a crap. I still have fun on my bike. Bombproof needs suspension!
10 mf'r on Feb 28th, 2007 at 4:27 pm

This whole suspension is for babies thing is such bull$hit. This bike is for people to get into the sport, not to make them hate it. If you’re new to the sport and you’re riding rigid, you’re going to be less comfortable…simple as that. I’d like to get my wife to ride offroad more and my brother too. I’d never even consider throwing them on a rigid cause I know they’d hate it and then hate the sport. If you start a group of people on rigid, there’s no doubt that those that stick with it end up with better skills…the problem is that only a tiny percentage would end up sticking with it. We all want more trails and we need this sport to grow if we’re going to get more trails, so let’s get over this “hardcore” hang up and just admit the obvious: suspension makes riding easier and more comfortable which is good for the rider and therefore good for the sport. If a rider wants to go rigid someday, then great, but let them make that call when they feel they have the skillz and the desire.
11 MIchael on Feb 28th, 2007 at 5:34 pm

Suspension: Get anything less than $400 and you get a non-tuneable, boing-boing, flexy piece of crap. $500 is the sweet spot for something that will last and won’t give you more problems in the long run.

Rigid: the term itself means it’ll beat you up. Experts go back to rigid to hone their skills. New riders can consider riding rigid “getting beat up” or “earning your turn” by learning to pick lines better. Rigid is lighter, it won’t cause maintenance issues. But you won’t experience high-speed thrills like suspension.

Trying to walk the line of bombproof, affordable and reasonably light is difficult.
It all goes back to the old montage: Strong, Light, Cheap: Pick Two.

My vote goes to rigid, but not that damn Instigator fork. Pick something that puts the rider a little lower. Suspension corrected means it’s riding at the top-end of the travel… who carves turns at the top end of their travel?

PLus, big tires act like cheap suspension. Upgrade to a shock when you’re ready for it.
12 Sajko on Mar 1st, 2007 at 10:29 am

Correct me if I am wrong, this mission is not to build a “beginner’s” bike, but to build a bombproof bike.

Rigid with big tires suckas…
13 nathan on Mar 1st, 2007 at 11:16 am

i thought it was both (both for beginners and to be bombproof), but looking back at the “mission statement” it just says “general cycling public” and not beginners per se. i remember talking about entry level bikes back in the beginning, but maybe that was just off topic.

anyways, if it’s not for beginners.. do we really need it? i’m doubting that your average expert rider gives a rat’s ass about this spec.

rigid’s fun and all, especially for all y’all that have really deep piles of leaves to ride through, but here on the east coast gnar you’re closing the doors on a lot of fun if you shit-can the suspension.

so i’m changing my position. if this is not a bike for beginners, i think it should be a rigid 29er. if it is, then a front suss 26er.
14 Tim Grahl on Mar 1st, 2007 at 12:03 pm

This project is geared towards entry level bikes. From what I see out on the trail a good bit the “general cycling public” is mostly your lower end bikes. Ask any major manufacturer and a huge part of their sales are the low end bikes. One of the main goals of this project is to step back and make sure we are offering the right bikes to people just getting into the sport.

That said… here’s the points that are ringing with me:

nathan: riding a rigid fork is harder regardless of it being the tradition or not. why make it harder to get into the sport by speccing a trickier entry level bike? i don’t care if it’s hardcore or not, that’s not the point.

mf’r: This bike is for people to get into the sport, not to make them hate it. If you’re new to the sport and you’re riding rigid, you’re going to be less comfortable…simple as that.

jvs97: I just started riding 6 months ago and would never dream of riding without suspension.

Since the idea of this is to put parts on a bike we think are better and then see how they last through some grueling riding… maybe putting some suspension on a bike and seeing if it can take the abuse is the way to go.

So what kind of fork should I be looking at? Looking at other entry level bikes they’re spec’d with forks that are around $200. If $500 is the sweet spot as Michael mentioned… what’s the right fork for the job?
15 MIchael on Mar 1st, 2007 at 12:09 pm

You won’t have access to the fork since it’s an OEM model, but Fox makes a bare-bones “R” model, meaning rebound only. Air or coil? Coil’s simpler, but you can’t adjust it. Air’s nice, but it involves a pump.

You could always go with a bare-bones RockShox Reba for a bill or two less, but the feel isn’t as good as a Fox.

And since the now-stated goal is to offer a bike for people just getting into the sport, shouldn’t you offer them something so smooth, so simple, so great, that they’ll want to ride it over and over and over?
16 nathan on Mar 1st, 2007 at 12:36 pm

does the reliability of coil sprung outweigh the relative difficult of picking the right spring? i dunno. i’d guess that coil sprung is the way to go. it’s tough to spec something because all after market forks are sold “on sale.” there don’t seem to be any fixed prices.

this would be reasonable, it’s air sprung:
http://www.nashbar.com/profile.cfm?category=86&subcategory=1183&brand=&sku=18403&storetype=&estoreid=&pagename=Shop%20by%20Subcat%3A%20ATB%20Forks
17 Paul on Mar 1st, 2007 at 8:04 pm

It sounds like some younger riders need to learn to pick a line. Suspension is great, but you’ll become a better rider if you don’t have it to rely on. I’m talkin’ general cross country riding here, not gonzo downhill.

The problem with suspension forks is that the cheaper ones are pretty worthless, especially if you are a clydesdale. The better ones add to the cost of the bike considerably.

People keep referring to this Bombproof bike as an entry level bike, but I don’t think that was the original idea. A bike that will last as long as possible, cutting weight where possible, but using strong, reliable, and easily serviceable components rather than the newest carbon fiber wunderpart.
18 jdb on Mar 1st, 2007 at 9:15 pm

Hmmm… seems like sus forks are the preferred choice. Guess that’s the way to go if you’re planning high speed downhill, or truly very rough trails. Gotta say, though, there’s an awful lot of singletrack out there that would be just fine in a rigid fork. I’ve spent time in NY/PA, WYO/UT, TX, OR/WA and now CA. Frankly, central PA cobbled trails are about the only place I felt I *needed* full suspension just to consider riding. Then again, most of my other singletrack adventures are not of the high speed type.

I’m very happy after regressing to a rigid fork last year. Reasons were to drop unnecessary (for me) weight and provide a set of low rider rack bosses for serious load hauling. I guess there are times though, when flying down washboard roads, where I think about getting old school 1/2″ thick foam grips for the occasional wrist abuse…
19 Guitar Ted on Mar 1st, 2007 at 9:45 pm

Hey guys, great discussion here. Here’s my take:

Old school guys, (I are one!) that say rigid forks are good enough, they make you a better rider, etc…while the points are all valid, the premise is disingenuous. Yes, because when you were just starting out, there wasn’t a choice. Rigid or go home. I think if we had a choice to enter our favorite pastime with a susser fork back in the 80’s, we would’ve jumped at the chance. More moto and less roadie. Brrraaaap!

As to the “blue collar/ bombproof” nature of the project, I can say that a rigid fork is probably a winner there. No maintenance, no set up, nothing to wear out. However; I have one reservation that sways me the other way, and it is the same reason I wouldn’t go with a single speed for this project.

That reason is the encouragement to ride. Anything that encourages riding a bike more outweighs anyting else in this experiment. My judgement is that gears, for all their inherent problems, are better for the encouragement of riding. In other words, the benefits outweigh the evils for almost all entry level and casual cyclists. Once they move on to being an enthusiast, they might develope different tastes. I think suspension does the same thing. For all of the drawbacks to it, the benefits to the people we’re aiming at: for the everyday, “average joe” types, I think the benefits are greater.

Keep in mind we’re talking about mountain biking here too. I think the evidence points to getting a susser fork. Preferably some sort of coil type with at least a pre-load and rebound adjuster.
20 slide on Mar 3rd, 2007 at 5:53 am

It seems to me that simply letting the air out of the tires would be the way to go with ridged forks. I’ve tried the newer things and went with a Specialized Rockhopper (much to my regret it’s only good for about five miles before becoming uncomfortable). I’m going with a K.M. with ridged fork.
21 Grant on Mar 4th, 2007 at 7:22 pm

“Keep in mind we’re talking about mountain biking here too. I think the evidence points to getting a susser fork. Preferably some sort of coil type with at least a pre-load and rebound adjuster.”

Rock Shox Dart. One model has rebound adjust, the other not. Both have lockout, are coil sprung, have preload adjust.

Manitou Axel. Again, coil and preload. Fluid based damping. The bottom level does not have adjustable damping, the Super (it’s in the name!!) has adjustable damping, rebound and travel.

Two pretty common choices. The Axel looks a lot like the Skareb I still use sucessfully on my singlespeed.
22 Slippery Pete on Apr 10th, 2007 at 4:59 pm

If you went with a low-to-mid range priced fork, I would nominate the Rock Shock Tora.
23 Kevin on Apr 19th, 2007 at 12:50 pm

I guess I might be whatcha call one o them “new riders”. I learned trail biking from a very good friend and co-worker on a front-sus bike and would never buy anything else, comfort factor aside…I can see the arguments for both sides of this debate and I surely don’t have enough knowledge of the sport to recommend any particular type or brand of hardware but would never ride with a rigid fork. Guess I’m just not good enough for that yet…
The safety factor is what I had in mind. There have been plenty of times when I didn’t have my line just right and a sus fork took up impacts that would have otherwise jammed my elbows straight through my shoulders, not to mention caused a classy wipe out!
If you guys are talking entry level then, absolutley, suspension fork.
I’ll be watching the info in these posts closely as I’m looking for a new ride. The one I learned on (D-back Sorrento) got ripped, damn-it! Oh well, upgrade, right? Anyone got a suggestion for now???
24 Stuart on May 20th, 2007 at 8:49 pm

Since the project is for a bombproof bluecollar Joe ride, I’d have to say that the Instigator fork is the best choice. It is relatively inexpensive and the rider can always upgrade in the future. To get a decent suspension fork is as much as the frame. The bucks would more wisely spent on good components, then the rider doesn’t have to upgrade these in the very near future.

Upgrading to a suspension fork is easy!
25 Ellydozer on May 28th, 2007 at 5:36 pm

If we are reffering to the ? of rigid vs. suss. fork for novice to intermediate riders, I have this to say: Consider the dynamic handling abilities on trail (turns and bumps), suss. forks not only absorb impact, but function as shocks on your car would function, they keep the tire on the road (or trail), during bumps and inconsistantsies in the road. The less contact you have with the ground, the less you can control braking and turning. Also, the inertia created when peddling forward at speed can push a rigid fork into the ground, and when turning can slide out due to the inability of the fork to absorb that forward motion. I have seen this in action on trail with a novice rider on a ridgid frame, and he had far more “slide outs” with his front wheel than we did having front suspension (we were novice too!) Imagine if Dirt Bikes (the motorized kind) had no suspension, they’d be hard to keep on the trail when its bumpy! So I would argue its less a question of comfort, but handling.
26 Nadruk na Kubku on Feb 23rd, 2012 at 7:05 pm

Hey There. I found your blog using msn. This is a really well written article. I will make sure to bookmark it and come back to read more of your useful info. Thanks for the post. I’ll definitely return.|

Bombproof Project: Rigid vs. Suspension

26 Responses to “Bombproof Project: Rigid vs. Suspension”

Leave a Reply

Bike Sites:

Bike Blogs: