>>1171424If you're going to be riding pavement or groomed commuter trails >50% of the time, you don't need or want suspension. It's added weight and pedaling inefficiency. You'll be better off with a rigid bike and wider tires.
OP, look at something like a Specialized Sirrus or a Salsa Journeyman. Both perfectly good city-commute bikes with options under $1k.
>>1171484Also this. Cheap bikes are generally kinda mediocre, but there's nothing wrong with that. Cheap bikes with "suspension", on the other hand, are basically garbage.
>>1171563No one's saying suspension is bad on bikes that are actually taken onto rough terrain.
>>1171534Depends a hell of a lot on what your skill level and budget are, as well as what sort of terrain you want to ride. Does it need to climb well, or are you going to be doing shuttle runs at ski resorts? Are you going to be doing giant drops, or do you want to go fast on smoothish singletrack? All-day rides out remote trails, or afternoon rides at the local MTB park/playground?
Some bikes to look at:
Salsa Horsethief or Pony Rustler
Whyte T-130 or S-150
Kona Hei Hei or Process
Also FWIW I've heard great things about how Santa Cruz bikes ride, but I've also heard really bad things about them honoring their warrantee when shit goes sideways.
