Herzlos

That would cover almost everyone on almost every bike though, very few of us are using any of our bikes to the limits. An experienced rider could blow me away using my Shimano Tourney rigid 26'er.

Not that having front suspension, or better gearing, or a lighter frame etc don't make it a nicer experience

70sSanO

Except for the obvious wrong bike that is ill suited for the job, does anyone really think having more of a bike than needed doesn’t bring enjoyment to the rider.

Someone will buy one of Lemond’s flat bar e-bikes for $4500 and ride it along a flat MUP. They will probably be happier than a pig in... For that matter, I’ve never met an unhappy person on an e-bike.

I think being able to afford way more bike than needed would rarely be an issue to the person who owns it.

John

Kapusta

Being this was not posted in the Mountain Biking forum, I guess it should not surprise me that many people misunderstand what “over-biked” means in terms of mountain biking.

It has nothing to do with how expensive the bike is.

It refers to a bike being mis-matched to an application in a particular way.

70sSanO

I know it is about geometry and travel, but overbike doesn’t have to be a heavy downhill sled.

If someone is riding a $10k full suspension with 160mm travel on a fire road, are they really bored?

With enough money, overbike is not an issue as the OP has presented it.

John

rosefarts

I had the fortune/misfortune of learning to ride in the 90's. Even the full suspension of the day was practically road geometry. Riding was different and hard.

I don't know if the evolution is complete but I ride a 2016 middle of the line hardtail with a pretty average Rock Shox on it. Geometry, suspension, wheel size, tire size, dropper, and brakes. This basic bike blows anything available in 1995 away.

In that sense, we are currently all overbiked. All the technologies that improve riding off road have progressed really well.

So yeah, jumping on my gravel bike and ripping those trails is a lot harder. That's one of the reasons it's so fun. I get it.

I don't think road bikes have gone through quantum leaps in a long time. It's totally possible to jump on a road bike from the 80's and ride it fast. Maybe not race winning fast, but remarkably close to it.

Kapusta

A $10k 160mm FS bike will be heavier, slower and probably less fun on a fire road than a $10K gravel or XC bike.

Unless the fire road is rough and pointed downhill.

OTOH, if a 160mm bike is really what you most enjoy riding on a fire road... then you are not overbiked doing it.

70sSanO

I ride 90’s steel mtb’s. I’m not over or under, more in the un-biked category.

John

Happy Feet

I think there is a lot of confirmation bias and theoretical best practice comments in the discussion - in general. Under biking/over biking is a thing but, unless you have unlimited funds to buy the right niche bike for each activity, one usually rides what they got and thinks that's ok.

That said:

Go to Slickrock in Moab and try to ride it with an old school poorly geared mtb. Probably can be done but you won't make it up many of the hills and will wind up hike a biking - a lot. Under biked.

Try the Circle O in the Brands area of Moab on an old school rigid mtb. It can be done without suspension, but not a lot of fun. Under biked

Locally (British Columbia), I do many flow trails on my rigid SS mtb but there is a point in modern trail building, where that bike cannot do the routes (without a lot of bypassing). Under biked. It's not so much a rider skill thing (wink wink) as much as modern trail features being designed for the capability of full suspension or hard tail bikes. I sometimes ride with a friend who has a new FS mtb, using either my rigid fat bike or 26r. I can sort of keep up with him occasionally waiting and sometimes have to bail at certain points. He would be correctly matched while I am under biked but for the most part, can survive.

Most people, in my area, buy FS mtbs because the trails being built require them. At the same time, if they do easier trails that are non technical, they could be said to be over biked. But who (other than me) wants to buy a less capable bike, along with their more capable bike, just so they can pair bike to trail. Most people buy the more capable bike and use it even for less demanding rides.

If all you ever do is modern technical DH, there is no point in under biking. You would simply have the wrong tool for the job.

If all you ever do is graded rail trails there is also no point in over biking. The features of the bike would work against you.

But some/many? people do both and have to find a happy medium buy either buying multiple bikes or flexing what they have.

This is looking up route on Slickrock. You won't make it up with old gearing or like going down with canti brakes. After a while the rock desert will also rattle your teeth loose with a rigid.

Maelochs

Whenever I ride I pass so many unhappy riders who tell me, "I wish my bike sucked so i could enjoy riding it."

rosefarts

Me too. I still remember riding slick rock on a Trek 7000 in probably 1992. I was 14 and it was a blast. I think we (my dad and I) ride Porcupine that trip too.

Those old triples were arguably better up that sort of thing, when they were working right.

Happy Feet

Sorry. I'll just call BS. You may have actually done it, walking portions, but there's no way someone is going to do a route, or routes like that, and say riding some old school mtb is just as fun as using a modern mtb - and I ride old school mtbs and am pretty good at climbing. If you had a group with modern bikes, and one guy with an old mtb, that guy would be under biked.

It's like saying one used to do technical DH with a rigid mtb. Yeah.. sure. But these days people actually like being able to stop and not breaking their bikes on drops and riding over stuff instead of around it.

I once did a bike tour on a gas pipe 2x5 POS, and liked it, but there's no way I would compare it to riding my current touring bike.

Here's one of my old school mtbs retrofitted with a triple 42/32/22 11-40, lower geared than anything back when it was original. It can't climb better than a modern mtb. Most mtbs back in the day had a granny chain ring of 26, maybe 24 and a cassette lower gear of 34 maybe 36.



There is a place for under biking however. Riding a SS rigid makes these trails more enjoyable whereas choosing a FS DH configuration just for these might be over biking.

rosefarts

It's been a while but if I remember right, the hardest part about slick rock was dealing with the sand. Getting up those hills was no issue if the 7 speed 300LX didn't drop the chain off the Biopace rings.

Moab Rim seemed unrideable on a hardtail in my teens. It's probably a better example.

Wasn't there a photo of someone riding a road bike on slick rock? Not a modern phat drop bar but like a 700x23 road machine from the 90s?

I rode the White Rim on my Voodoo Wazoo a couple years ago. Canti brakes and 38c tires. 40x11-36 gearing meant I had to walk up the two major climbs unfortunately. Definitely under biked and grinning for the whole thing. I'll admit that I'd bring my hardtail mtb if I do it again.

Cyclist0108

I did exactly that. Twice.

But I strongly suspect that my bike wasn't the main problem.

billyymc

As I sit here waiting for a shiny new Ibis Ripmo to be manufactured and delivered to my house sometime in the next few months, I have to say that every successive mountain bike I've owned - from full rigid bikes (enjoy walking out with taco'd wheels) to spring cushioned front suspension, to early FS bikes, to pretty current FS bikes, has been better and more fun to ride than the one before it.

My current MTB is a 2014 Breezer Repack Expert with some upgrades (brakes, wheels, dropper post). It's been a great bike but it's kind of heavy and the suspension isn't really very tuneable. Mostly ride nearby trails that can get pretty technical, rooty, rocky, with some moderate climbs and descents. Have also taken it to local lift-served downhill riding and done just fine (although the young guys on real downhill rigs flew past me).

When I ordered the Ripmo I was quite close to going with the Ripley which is Ibis's xc bike. The Ripmo is probably perfect for 75-80% of my riding. So is the Ripley - just not the same 75 to 80%. Lots of overlap though. I chose the trail bike after reading and watching reviews and thinking about the parts of my riding where I need the most help from my bike.

Milton Keynes

What is this "riding too much" you speak of?

mack_turtle

where I live in central Texas, most riders will tell you that you NEED a 140mm travel FS bike with a massive gear range. I ride all of that stuff on a steel singlespeed hardtail with a 120mm fork. I know some rigid SS riders who do the same. the guys with more gears are a little faster on the flat sections, but I'm usually to the top of the climbs first while the others are spinning in their granny gear several hundred yards behind me. the bike itself never stops me from riding long distances on challenging terrain. I am sometimes tempted to pursue a FS frame or put gears on my hardtail, but I found the brief experiences that I had on that sort of setup were boring to me. personal preference: I like the challenge, simplicity, lower cost, and less maintenance of my particular bike, but I have nothing against other people's choice. adding gears and other complexities are superfluous to my riding experience.

If I lived near actual mountains, I might feel differently. the funny thing about discussions of cycling on the internet is that the experience for each rider differs greatly by region. "underbiking" is subjective to the rider and the region.

Kapusta

"Underbiked" does not mean that you CAN'T ride something. Or that you won't enjoy it. It just means that bigger bike would make the task easier and you would likely be faster.

Of course you can ride Slickrock and many other famous Moab trails on a rigid bike with cantis.....People have been riding those trails since that was all there was (or since the suspension forks were not any better than rigid). And of course they enjoyed it. Well, some of them, at least. And maybe some folks still would enjoy it.

And since there were no other options, the term "underbiked" did not really mean anything back then. But now there are other options, so the term could apply now.

FWIW, I don't think Slickrock Trail itself requires much in the way of suspension. It has been 15 years since I rode it, but as I recall, it was relatively smooth. It was just ridiculously steep in places. Like, I was hitting my knee on the topcap of my fork climbing some of it. Stuff like Porcupine rim and other sections of the Whole Enchilada... my body hurts thinking of doing that ride on a rigid bike with cantis. I'm too old for that.

CAT7RDR

My problem has never been the bike. It is always not enough motor to take advantage of the bike. I am still a WIP.

Cyclist0108

I am the same way.

I think that is what "over-biked" is supposed to mean.

Reflector Guy

This thread is kind of like the flipside to an earlier thread where they (or maybe it was just one guy) were arguing that taking a high-end road bike down the street for a couple blocks to the coffee shop or the library was the wrong use for that bike.

vespasianus

This thread is a great example of why I don't go on MTBR.com anymore...

N00b_Cyclist

I mean...I spent way more than I ever should have on my bike...if we're just using "skill" and riding experience as a gauge for how much you should spend on a bike. But why does it matter, and who cares? I will never understand people who are concerned about what others think regarding "money" and trying to "look cool" to others. Do what you want to, because YOU want to, and don't worry about anything or anyone else (I mean, outside of hurting others and doing things that are illegal of course).

Kapusta

Whenever I go to MTBR, I really miss all the arguments over disc brakes.

Happy Feet

I think this describes what I was getting at.

I used the Slickrock example because it is very well known and others might be able to visualize it. It isn't technical by nature (though there are some drops at the bottom of a few hills that would challenge a rigid frame) but it is about 10 miles of up and down steep inclines, some very steep. As noted, of course people have ridden this with older bikes. If you were there in 92 with a 92 mtb you were probably riding the cutting edge of technology. Today however, that technology would be considered under biked for some applications. The viewer can judge for themselves if this is something someone would ride a "road bike" on.


To put it into perspective.

If someone were planning a destination trip to Moab (which many people do) and was asking about what bike might be best to take full advantage of the trails in the surrounding area. No one would suggest an older, rigid or crap suspension, poorly geared, 26" mtb. Well, maybe someone would, seeing as this is BF, but that person would be shot down by most who would say a FS modern mtb would be the way to go. Suggesting the former would have people saying don't do it - you'll be under biked.


However, if what you really wanted to do was some easier flow trails and nothing that required modern technology, then a less capable bike would do. Here's a video of Maverick, in the Brands area of Moab. Gravity flow rides like this are some of my favorites and this sort of trail would be perfect for my 26" rigid SS mtb and if that were all I wanted to do, a modern FS bike would be over biked.


a longer West Coast flow trail that also suits rigid SS mtb can be seen here.

gene99

under-biked: methinks you are over-bored.