Log in:  

Register

Hard Tail vs. Full-Spension

Whether it's cross country, marathon or gravity, post all your MTB chat here.

Moderator: Red Rick

Hard Tail vs. Full-Spension

11 Sep 2010 21:42

Assuming I had the means, would it be better to choose a hard-tail or full suspension bike, when my riding would consist mainly of not-very-technical single-track with elevation changes being primarily in the form of short, steep uphills and downhills. There are no Rocky Mtns. in Pennsylvania, and I'd primarily be riding in Allegheny County's South Park (map here).

UPDATE: Apparently I can no longer spell...that should have been, "Full-Suspension" in the title.
joepa

"All is ephemeral - fame and the famous as well."

* visit my Twitter
* read my Tweets
User avatar joe_papp
Member
 
Posts: 1,431
Joined: 13 May 2009 15:57
Location: Pittsburgh, PA, USA

12 Sep 2010 00:25

Riding in Maine with all sorts of rocks and roots, I wouldn't be caught dead without a full-suspension bike. I go with 5" travel fore and aft. That being said, the few times I rode a single-speed hardtail up here I really did enjoy the lighter feel of the bike although I did get beat up quite a bit. By "rocks and roots" I mean there is hardly a meter of smooth ground up here...it's very rough. If the trails you're riding are not super rough and not very technical, then a hardtail would probably be a fine choice and a money-saving one as well. A hardtail 29er would be even better.
Tom T.
Member
 
Posts: 556
Joined: 25 Oct 2009 21:04

12 Sep 2010 01:37

joe_papp wrote:Assuming I had the means, would it be better to choose a hard-tail or full suspension bike, [color="Red"]when my riding would consist mainly of not-very-technical single-track with elevation changes being primarily in the form of short, steep uphills and downhills[/color]. There are no Rocky Mtns. in Pennsylvania, and I'd primarily be riding in Allegheny County's South Park (map here).

UPDATE: Apparently I can no longer spell...that should have been, "Full-Suspension" in the title.


definitely a hardtail.

erader
Amgen Tour of California
http://erader.zenfolio.com/f561244030
User avatar erader
Member
 
Posts: 399
Joined: 29 Dec 2009 02:57
Location: silicon valley

Maintenance?

12 Sep 2010 17:24

Given finite resources, (time and money) I'd go further than hardtail and suggest a bike without a suspension fork. Now, you'll be a pretty rare bird among a flock of hardtail riders, but if the idea is to maximize ride time, go without suspension. You'll also maximize bike handling skills.

Finally, good (XT equipment or better) 26" hardtails are pretty easy to come by in my area on Craigslist. Buying used will save you quite a bit of money. Few of the bikes I've seen are used much. The average Craigslist bike sale is a case of too much money and too little time/interest.
User avatar DirtyWorks
Veteran
 
Posts: 8,059
Joined: 10 Feb 2010 17:01

12 Sep 2010 18:54

Thanks for the replies so far, guys.

This whole thing with 29 vs. 26-inch wheels has caught me by surprise, too. Should I get 29 or 26 if offered a choice?

Let me clarify and say that, were I to buy an MTB, I would most likely be able to get it at cost or even on an employee pro-deal. Money is an issue and always would be, but my purchasing power is greater than that of the normal retail client since I can avail myself of the bike shop connections.

I ride a Pinarello Prince on the road, which I love in large part because of how agile, stiff and responsive it is, and the local bike shop wrenches who I've talked to, who know me and my riding style and who are familiar with the terrain around here all encourage me to get a hard tail. I don't think I'd eschew a front suspension fork, since even back in 2001 when I had a sweet Merlin ti MTB, I ran a Rock Shox SID SL...

I haven't MTB'd in nine years, though! 90% of the trails I'd be riding are the same trails I was riding almost a decade ago, handling fine w/ a hard tail. The folks recommending to me a full suspension bike seem to do so with the belief that the "comfort" provided by the dual-system would be appreciated by me now, as if I've become some geriatric geezer who can't lift the front wheel over a log. Granted, my technical skills sucked nine years ago, but I don't even like going balls-out fast down ski slopes or crazy stuff like that. I like riding non-technical single track, and I hate riding through really rocky stuff.

In Western PA, there is a state park called Moraine, where an MTB race was once held. It was primarily a single-track course, but one that was bombarded with rocks - you basically rode from rock to rock to rock, seemingly only occasionally touching trail. On that course, even I know I'd want a bike with front a rear suspension if I was racing there. But I'm not going to be racing there. I wouldn't even choose to ride there if I had my druthers...I'd go somewhere with less rocks.

I don't doubt that I'd be able to recoup my investment in the bike if I had to sell it b/c I didn't like the set-up and wanted to go an alternative route, but I'd prefer to get the right bike from the start. Demo'ing bikes isn't an option as that opportunity just doesn't exist here in Pittsburgh. So I'm flying blind in a sense.

Let me ask this - who is the full-suspension trail bike really aimed for? And what kind of terrain? I just don't want to mess-up if I can avoid it (lol) and would hate to miss out on the chance to have full suspension if that's what would really make sense for out here given that I've got the body of a 35 year-old, and not the body of a 19 year-old (when I raced on a True Temper steel KHS w/ no suspension!).

Wow, I forgot I had a Salsa MTB, too, that Ross made custom for me. Geeze, how time flies.

Maybe I should get a full-suspension bike, like a Giant Anthem X Advanced SL 1? Or maybe a Specialized?

Shoot...too many options.

Seriously though, guys, please give me your unvarnished opinions and advice on what kind of bike to get. Hard-tail or full suspension...

thx, JP
joepa

"All is ephemeral - fame and the famous as well."

* visit my Twitter
* read my Tweets
User avatar joe_papp
Member
 
Posts: 1,431
Joined: 13 May 2009 15:57
Location: Pittsburgh, PA, USA

Salty old mtnbiker's opinion

12 Sep 2010 19:08

Full suspension unless you have less then about $1400 to spend (assuming you get wholesale prices or can find a good used deal). Growing up just south of Montreal, I would wager there is some really fun riding in PA that you would enjoy on a FS. Even if the vert is limited, the roots and rocks of the Eastern woods can be very technical. (I've never ridden in PA specifically). With that in mind an XC oriented FS will function just as well on less tech routes, and open up more adventures into the woods, that would otherwise be hike-a-bikes/crashes/overly heinous on the HT. It all just depends on how you approach mtn biking. I look at it as both the chance to go on really unique backcountry adventures and also a personal challenge to improve my riding skills on natural and man made terrain. Fitness and training are just side effects for me. The points about cost and maintenance being higher for FS are valid, so if you just plan on riding mtn as an occasional supplement to road then a HT would be recommended. I do like rigid 29ers for hammering buffed out twisty onetrack, but for me the utility is limited.

If you can, I would say demo various sample bikes from across the spectrum of mtn bike categories. Take them out on trails and see how they feel. The engineering and technology has come a really long way from when I started in the 90's, and the breadth of mtn bike categories is almost overwhelming.

Ok time for my weekly ride (down to one bike or ski day a week, commuting not included), so I gotta make it count!

EDIT: Just read your latest. Forget the HT. You NEED the Anthem X or any 4-6'' FS that weighs around 25 lbs. I'm a huge Giant fan personally: love the maestro suspension design, and really love the prices. At the very least your lower back will thank me.
User avatar Rip:30
Member
 
Posts: 1,036
Joined: 29 Apr 2010 05:39

more crazy recommendations

13 Sep 2010 04:15

Conventional choices are the Cannondale Scalpel and Giant product.

Dean makes a simplified FS bike for XC riding.
Another *really* simple FS is the Castellano. Despite the ancient pictures on his site, it's a modern bike in every sense. It's an elegant design that has a couple inches of travel to take the edge off.

Owning a FS is way more money up front. I own both and ride the FS the most. The comfort outweighs the weight penalty.
User avatar DirtyWorks
Veteran
 
Posts: 8,059
Joined: 10 Feb 2010 17:01

13 Sep 2010 10:38

joe_papp wrote:...Demo'ing bikes isn't an option as that opportunity just doesn't exist here in Pittsburgh. So I'm flying blind in a sense..

Seriously though, guys, please give me your unvarnished opinions and advice on what kind of bike to get. Hard-tail or full suspension...

thx, JP


It really is too bad you can't demo at least something...you mentioned Specialized, and they have a great demo bike program...unfortunate it's off the table.

My $.02 is that I've gone full circle...started on a rigid when MTB was first getting started, then HT, then only road for a while, then back on an FS rig (Specialized XC), then more of an FS rig (Spec Stumpy), then a Scott Spark FS carbon rig...

..and now I'm back to a steel SS HT with an 80mm fork...love it, ride it a lot, and even race it quite a bit in a local cup. (Although I find myself missing a geared rig at a few of the races here...)

With all that said there are some really killer "tweener bikes" nowadays that aren't XC hardtails, nor are they FS trail bikes. They are so light as to be competitive with the HT bikes in a race, and yet can still get you 120mm of travel front and rear and easily handle the occasional rock garden or drop off you face.

I know you said money was an issue but that you have "better buying power" or something, so I'd recommend you add the Scott Spark to your list to look at. The Spark 30, and maybe even the 40, comes with a carbon frame, 120mm travel front and rear and handle-bar remote for lock-out of suspension so the bike handles very much like a HT when you are on pavement and smooth stuff. They are quite light for an FS bike...
[SIZE="1"][/SIZE]"If the wings are traveling faster than the fuselage, it's probably a helicopter -- and therefore, unsafe."
User avatar flyor64
Member
 
Posts: 734
Joined: 18 Mar 2009 13:50
Location: Norway

13 Sep 2010 15:58

DirtyWorks wrote: ...comfort outweighs the weight penalty.



What he said. Get yourself a cross-country f/s with lockout and be done with it.

I raced hardtails for a long time, then got a santa cruz blur. I can't believe I waited so long to go to f/s.
[SIZE="1"][SIZE="1"][font="Impact"]The devil may tip but my Jesus got an open bar[/font][/SIZE].[/SIZE]
User avatar Black-Balled
Member
 
Posts: 616
Joined: 13 Mar 2009 14:18
Location: Arena Near You

14 Sep 2010 00:58

joe_papp wrote:Thanks for the replies so far, guys.

This whole thing with 29 vs. 26-inch wheels has caught me by surprise, too. Should I get 29 or 26 if offered a choice?

Let me ask this - who is the full-suspension trail bike really aimed for? And what kind of terrain? I just don't want to mess-up if I can avoid it (lol) and would hate to miss out on the chance to have full suspension if that's what would really make sense for out here given that I've got the body of a 35 year-old, and not the body of a 19 year-old (when I raced on a True Temper steel KHS w/ no suspension!).


Alright, a few thoughts to add.

1. 26 vs 29 is an interesting debate and a few factors can influence your choice. I race a fair bit of marathon stuff and often find myself down in PA (state college area mostly). A large portion of the racers are on 29er hardtails, at the Stoopid 50 this past year I'd say it was definitely over 60%. Even though I ride a 29er hardtail as my only bike, I am not convinced that everyone is the right person for one. How tall are you? Below a medium frame (17.5 inch) they get a little goofy with the long wheelbase that the larger wheels require. I have 2 customers on size small 29ers, and they love them, but the bikes just look funny to me. May just be an aesthetic bias though.

2. Full suspension is a huge category and spans everything from 9" dh rigs to 4" xc race bikes. Specialized makes their epic in the sworks trim at around 20 lbs and that bike is a full on rocketship for racing, but gives a bit more squish and traction due to the rear travel. You can go to a longer travel bike too, but with your road background and intended riding I would have a hard time seeing you on a bike that isnt considered a "race bike".

Last point - tires make a huge difference on mtbs, I like to run fat (2.25 inch) tires on my hardtail to give a little more suspension. You can get away with a smaller and lighter tire on a full suspension bike, but also sacrifice traction. Always a balancing act...

Looks like I wrote a book, sorry, salesmen mode got going.
Jukebox
Junior Member
 
Posts: 225
Joined: 30 Jun 2009 16:45
Location: CT, USA

The Giant Anthem X Advanced SL 1 represents the price point I'm considering

14 Sep 2010 15:06

Jukebox wrote:Alright, a few thoughts to add.

1. 26 vs 29 is an interesting debate and a few factors can influence your choice. I race a fair bit of marathon stuff and often find myself down in PA (state college area mostly). A large portion of the racers are on 29er hardtails, at the Stoopid 50 this past year I'd say it was definitely over 60%. Even though I ride a 29er hardtail as my only bike, I am not convinced that everyone is the right person for one. How tall are you? Below a medium frame (17.5 inch) they get a little goofy with the long wheelbase that the larger wheels require. I have 2 customers on size small 29ers, and they love them, but the bikes just look funny to me. May just be an aesthetic bias though.

2. Full suspension is a huge category and spans everything from 9" dh rigs to 4" xc race bikes. Specialized makes their epic in the sworks trim at around 20 lbs and that bike is a full on rocketship for racing, but gives a bit more squish and traction due to the rear travel. You can go to a longer travel bike too, but with your road background and intended riding I would have a hard time seeing you on a bike that isnt considered a "race bike".

Last point - tires make a huge difference on mtbs, I like to run fat (2.25 inch) tires on my hardtail to give a little more suspension. You can get away with a smaller and lighter tire on a full suspension bike, but also sacrifice traction. Always a balancing act...

Looks like I wrote a book, sorry, salesmen mode got going.


Thanks for the detail of your reply. This kind of feedback is what makes this Forum so great, and I really appreciate the chance not just to contribute, but also to benefit from the experience of others.

In answer to your question, I'm about 5'8" on a good day. I ride a 54cm Pinarello Prince w/ no spacers under a 12cm stem, 172.5mm cranks and 74.5cm c-top(of saddle) seat height - and find this set-up to be perfect.

I'm worried that in getting 29er, the bike would look silly. Aesthetic bias or not, I feel the same way as you, I think.

I looked at the geometry for Giant bikes and think I could ride a size medium from the Anthem range. Certainly nothing bigger. I believe I sat on a 2009 Anthem last year when I was at a friend's store and it seemed to offer the possibility of a good position. But that bike had 26" wheels and front and rear suspension.

This is the Giant I would be looking at: http://www.giant-bicycles.com/en-US/bikes/model/anthem.x.advanced.sl.1/7320/44085/ (Anthem X Advanced SL 1)

As for Specialized, I don't know. They have so many bikes in their line and I haven't had time to go through the range looking for something. That said, can anyone recommend a bike from them?

As always, thanks for the feedback, everyone.

Best,

JP
joepa

"All is ephemeral - fame and the famous as well."

* visit my Twitter
* read my Tweets
User avatar joe_papp
Member
 
Posts: 1,431
Joined: 13 May 2009 15:57
Location: Pittsburgh, PA, USA

14 Sep 2010 15:35

Medium should fit really well at your height/inseam. That anthem is exactly the kind of bike the specialized epic is, 4" travel race bike. Seems like a good match to your needs.

As an aside, a mtb willl feel a little weird coming from your very aggressive road position, but less drop and less reach will keep you from going over the bars in technical situations. As a reference, I run 8cm of drop on my road bike and 2.5cm on my mtb.
Jukebox
Junior Member
 
Posts: 225
Joined: 30 Jun 2009 16:45
Location: CT, USA

14 Sep 2010 15:42

Like you I am a road guy, and about 2" taller than you. I would have totally said go for a 29er HT, but I went out with a friend a few weeks back and rode a HD on the way in and his FS bike on the way out. What sold me on the FS bike was steep sections with roots and rocks, say around 4" ones not logs, I was able to ride down quite easily and up unless I lost traction. Those sections were beating me up quite a bit on the HT. As I said, I am a roadie - I have awful off-road technique, but a FS saved my hide. If I were going to go on trails, I would probably just stick wiht my cyclocross bike. If it gets too technical for that, I want FS.
TheDude
Member
 
Posts: 318
Joined: 16 Aug 2009 01:21
Location: Edge of the Pacific

14 Sep 2010 17:43

joe_papp wrote:Assuming I had the means, would it be better to choose a hard-tail or full suspension bike, when my riding would consist mainly of not-very-technical single-track with elevation changes being primarily in the form of short, steep uphills and downhills. There are no Rocky Mtns. in Pennsylvania, and I'd primarily be riding in Allegheny County's South Park (map here).

UPDATE: Apparently I can no longer spell...that should have been, "Full-Suspension" in the title.



Hardtail 29er
User avatar Boeing
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4,158
Joined: 17 Jul 2009 04:56
Location: SoCal

15 Sep 2010 07:17

joe_papp wrote:[color="silver"]Thanks for the detail of your reply. This kind of feedback is what makes this Forum so great, and I really appreciate the chance not just to contribute, but also to benefit from the experience of others.

In answer to your question, I'm about 5'8" on a good day. I ride a 54cm Pinarello Prince w/ no spacers under a 12cm stem, 172.5mm cranks and 74.5cm c-top(of saddle) seat height - and find this set-up to be perfect.

I'm worried that in getting 29er, the bike would look silly. Aesthetic bias or not, I feel the same way as you, I think.

I looked at the geometry for Giant bikes and think I could ride a size medium from the Anthem range. Certainly nothing bigger. I believe I sat on a 2009 Anthem last year when I was at a friend's store and it seemed to offer the possibility of a good position. But that bike had 26" wheels and front and rear suspension.

This is the Giant I would be looking at: http://www.giant-bicycles.com/en-US/bikes/model/anthem.x.advanced.sl.1/7320/44085/ (Anthem X Advanced SL 1)

[color="black"]As for Specialized[/color], I don't know. They have so many bikes in their line and I haven't had time to go through the range looking for something. That said, [color="Black"]can anyone recommend a bike from them? [/color][/color]
[color="Silver"]As always, thanks for the feedback, everyone.

Best,[/color]

[color="silver"]JP[/color]


Check out the Epic line. Thereabouts in your price range you mentioned would be the Epic Expert Carbon EVO R

The Epic also comes in a 29er now...

FWIW my buddy is 5'8", a former cat2 type, and absolutely rips it on a completely rigid Niner ONE9 29er single speed and carbon fork. The bike only weighs about 17 pounds. It's a bad *** bike...
[SIZE="1"][/SIZE]"If the wings are traveling faster than the fuselage, it's probably a helicopter -- and therefore, unsafe."
User avatar flyor64
Member
 
Posts: 734
Joined: 18 Mar 2009 13:50
Location: Norway

15 Sep 2010 13:07

These days FS race bikes are so efficient and climb so well that they give up very little to HTs except on very smooth terrain. OTOH there's something to be said about the simplicity of a HT, no futzing with a rear shock (don't listen to whoever suggested a fully rigid bike)etc. Overall, if I had to choose between having only one bike, I'd choose my FS over my HT with very little debate.

As to 26 vs 29, I tried several 29" wheeled bikes when I was shopping and was a bit underwhelmed. With all the hype from the niner crowd I was expecting some great leap forward but while they had some nice qualities, I thought they felt a bit tall and sluggish. Not what I want in a MTB. I went with the specialized 26" s-works epic and love it.
9000ft
Member
 
Posts: 524
Joined: 04 Feb 2010 19:56

15 Sep 2010 23:40

Go for a hardtail - that way you learn to ride well - and then see if you feel like changing to a fully at some stage in the future.

On a hard tail you are much more forced to pick lines and work the bike to get around obstacles and make the most out of riding it. This is the sensation that a lot of people describe as things like "harder to get over the climbs and drops on the trail" - and is probably the principal negative that is leveled against HT bikes. You do definitely have to work more to get a HT to work - but I believe that it is more fun and most of the people I know who have ridden HT bikes for any period agree that it makes you a better rider (and they say that irrespective of whether they came from a FS background or not).

Once you've "done your apprenticeship" on a HT bike, then start trying out FS bikes. You may be happy to stick on an HT or you may want to go fully. But I guarantee you that if you did go fully at that point, you'd be looking at a completely different bike to what you'd pick up now - just because of the riding experience that you'd have.

Also, don't be sucked into all this technical crap about fully bikes and things like "needing X inches of travel" and all that. There is so much bull**** talked and sold about that segment of the market - it's gear head heaven and the manufacturers know that they can exploit it to keep sales going. At the end of the day, unless you're after something really specialised (eg., big hit DH bikes), it's the rider and their skills that make the biggest difference. Also remember - when you're putting a bike in a rough environment and beating the crap out of it on a regular basis, less is more ... the more bits on the bike, the more that can break and the more that there is to maintain ...

(Oh, and in case anyone's wondering - I ride a thoroughly personalised Scalpel - love the simplicity of the design and the hard tail like feel ... But if I had my time again, I'd go for a good carbon hard tail.)

As for 29er - I'm with what I think is the majority here in not being a fan. I've tried about three different manufacturer's bikes on open fire road type trails and tight twisty stuff. I can understand their attraction on the former, but hated them on the twists - too slow and cumbersome for my liking. Made me think that there's a good reason why they haven't really caught on ...
kiwirider
Member
 
Posts: 341
Joined: 16 Jun 2009 15:00

16 Sep 2010 04:23

kiwirider wrote:Go for a hardtail - that way you learn to ride well - and then see if you feel like changing to a fully at some stage in the future.

On a hard tail you are much more forced to pick lines and work the bike to get around obstacles and make the most out of riding it. This is the sensation that a lot of people describe as things like "harder to get over the climbs and drops on the trail" - and is probably the principal negative that is leveled against HT bikes. You do definitely have to work more to get a HT to work - but I believe that it is more fun and most of the people I know who have ridden HT bikes for any period agree that it makes you a better rider (and they say that irrespective of whether they came from a FS background or not).

Once you've "done your apprenticeship" on a HT bike, then start trying out FS bikes. You may be happy to stick on an HT or you may want to go fully. But I guarantee you that if you did go fully at that point, you'd be looking at a completely different bike to what you'd pick up now - just because of the riding experience that you'd have.

Also, don't be sucked into all this technical crap about fully bikes and things like "needing X inches of travel" and all that. There is so much bull**** talked and sold about that segment of the market - it's gear head heaven and the manufacturers know that they can exploit it to keep sales going. At the end of the day, unless you're after something really specialised (eg., big hit DH bikes), it's the rider and their skills that make the biggest difference. Also remember - when you're putting a bike in a rough environment and beating the crap out of it on a regular basis, less is more ... the more bits on the bike, the more that can break and the more that there is to maintain ...

(Oh, and in case anyone's wondering - I ride a thoroughly personalised Scalpel - love the simplicity of the design and the hard tail like feel ... But if I had my time again, I'd go for a good carbon hard tail.)

As for 29er - I'm with what I think is the majority here in not being a fan. I've tried about three different manufacturer's bikes on open fire road type trails and tight twisty stuff. I can understand their attraction on the former, but hated them on the twists - too slow and cumbersome for my liking. Made me think that there's a good reason why they haven't really caught on ...


Do not agree. There is no requirement to learn how to ride a ht prior to learning how to ride a fs. You certainly can take that route (and hells yeah I did, 8 years of the full race circuit and massive all day onetrack rides), but I believe one can learn all the same skills exclusively on fs. Plus some of the specific ht skills need to reversed and relearned when you transition from ht to fs, it's not like you should be really picking the same lines on the full as on the hard and involves a whole different optimum body position in many cases of negotiating difficult terrain. Definitely agree ht is a great way to learn how to pick and follow a selected line, b/c you get punished hard for messing up, but it not like Joe's totally green to the riding of the bicycles...
User avatar Rip:30
Member
 
Posts: 1,036
Joined: 29 Apr 2010 05:39

16 Sep 2010 21:29

kiwirider wrote:Go for a hardtail - that way you learn to ride well - and then see if you feel like changing to a fully at some stage in the future.


I raced HT mountain bikes every fall from 1991 - 2000, so it's not so much a question of learning how to ride. It's more a question of determining, without being able to demo them, if the current crop of FS bikes would offer a better solution for my return to MTB'ing, should I decide to go that direction this fall. Thanks though for your input, and thanks to everyone who has thus far contributed.

I'm still reading each of these replies and synthesizing the info...

JP
joepa

"All is ephemeral - fame and the famous as well."

* visit my Twitter
* read my Tweets
User avatar joe_papp
Member
 
Posts: 1,431
Joined: 13 May 2009 15:57
Location: Pittsburgh, PA, USA

16 Sep 2010 23:14

joe_papp wrote:I raced HT mountain bikes every fall from 1991 - 2000, so it's not so much a question of learning how to ride. It's more a question of determining, without being able to demo them, if the current crop of FS bikes would offer a better solution for my return to MTB'ing, should I decide to go that direction this fall. Thanks though for your input, and thanks to everyone who has thus far contributed.

I'm still reading each of these replies and synthesizing the info...

JP


Apologies, didn't realise from your posts that you'd got a solid base in MTB - thought you were "just a roadie" who's seen the light! ;)

I still stand by the recommendation of HT though (your countryside sounds similar to the sort of stuff I was riding on up north of the 49th - and I felt that a fully wasn't really necessary there) - and also the follow up that if you go fully, keep it as simple (and therefore robust/reliable) as possible ... :)
kiwirider
Member
 
Posts: 341
Joined: 16 Jun 2009 15:00

Next

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

Back to top