Take the 2-minute tour ×
Bicycles Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people who build and repair bicycles, people who train cycling, or commute on bicycles. It's 100% free, no registration required.

This keeps me wondering. I normally see front and rear shocks on downhill bikes, but when it comes to touring, road, or mountain bikes, almost every one has only the front shock.

What is the reason for this?

share|improve this question
    
@ttarchala, @Neil Fein, @M. Werner, So you guys are saying that If I can afford and maintain a good rear shock, it does not hurt having a rear shock. –  Starx May 16 '11 at 7:00
1  
For what it's worth, touring and road bikes should never come with shocks. They're unnecessary, reduce your speed and efficiency, and add weight to the bike. –  Stephen Touset May 18 '11 at 16:46
    
@StephenTouset the exception being lockout and platform dampers. –  Octavian Damiean Oct 22 '12 at 19:35
add comment

3 Answers 3

up vote 14 down vote accepted
  1. Price - a suspended frame is much more complicated and expensive to make, and a good shock alone can cost more than a decent rigid frame.
  2. Maintenance - both shocks (due to gaskets/seals, lubrication, cleaning) and elements suspended frames (additional bearings) are relatively high-maintenance and short-lived, compared to rigid frames. This also translates into less reliability, especially important in touring/trekking trips.
  3. Cost-effectiveness and weight-effectiveness - especially in road biking or touring, it's not such a big deal. Much better to put wider tires or suspended saddle.
  4. Pedalling efficiency - even the best suspension systems rob some of the user's energy. In mountain biking, it's more than offset by less energy expended by the rider, who can spend less time out of the saddle on uneven terrain, but in road cycling it's absolutely unjustifiable.
share|improve this answer
    
No one mentioned "Control". Even on my downhill bike I prefer a rigid rear because I know exactly how it will respond in all situations. I have ridden rear suspension and I was able to get used to having it, but there is just something irreplaceable about having that rear-end stay put when you are torquing Gs on a turn and happen on a situation that you need to get out of NOW and don't have time to preload your shocks. –  BillyNair Jul 17 '12 at 9:17
1  
@BillyNair - Perhaps that is true for you, and for the particular type of biking you do (dual/4cross XC?). But in general - control is considered as one of full suspension's advantages, not disadvantages. The large majority of downhill races competitors use full suspension bikes, the bigger shocks, the better. Personally I also find that I can descend much faster on a FS bike. –  ttarchala Jul 17 '12 at 15:26
add comment

Efficiency: On a suspension bike, some of the energy from the rider's pedaling is translated into the bike bouncing up and down on the suspension, so that's a strike against it.

In addition, weight is a factor: Suspension makes a bike heavier, and this is a particular concern with road bikes.

It's much harder to fit racks on a bike with suspension. Although it is possible to do so, such frames are more expensive and can be somewhat finicky to attach: Do a search on any touring forum for "rack" and "suspension" and you'll find many threads asking how to do this.

Cost is also a factor. Good suspension systems are expensive, bad ones are cheap and ubiquitous.

Also, suspension is just one more thing that can break down. It would be difficult to repair a hydraulic suspension system at the side of a road or in a SAG wagon.

(Personally, I hate suspension with a passion because it makes it harder for me to "feel" the road. Ironically, one of the reasons steel is favored among touring cyclists is because it absorbs bumps better than Aluminum, which is said to be "stiffer" than steel, so a group that mostly avoids suspension favors a frame material that has some of the same qualities.)

share|improve this answer
add comment

Some pro racers have successfully campaigned full-suspension bikes. However, pro racers have big budgets and team mechanics to keep everything ship-shape. A good rear shock absorber can cost more than an entry-level bike...

For most off-road riders, they are simply not necessary; let your legs be the suspension.

share|improve this answer
3  
+1, I like legs as suspension part. –  Starx May 16 '11 at 6:55
1  
My legs can't pedal and absorb shocks simultaneously. –  z7sg Jul 29 '11 at 22:03
    
@z7sg, Better start learning that :P –  Starx Oct 23 '12 at 2:34
    
@Starx I have a fully and I love it. I wouldn't go back. For me, the ride quality more than makes up for the additional maintenance. –  z7sg Oct 23 '12 at 13:46
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.