Overbiking
Comments
-
Briggo wrote:I only have one girlfriend at the moment, clearly I'm underwomaned.
haha i like it! Clearly i am underwomaned too as i only have the one girlfriendConstantly trying to upgrade my parts.It is a long road ahead as things are so expensive for little gain. n+1 is always the principle in my mind.0 -
I'm underbeared.. i'm at work and have none
0 -
I SHAVED MY BEARD OFF LAST NIGHT
DAMN I FEEL SO UNDERBEARDED TODAY :oops:0 -
I'm overbearded. I have a nice full beard but I do little or no piracy.0
-
im also overbearded, but im just lazy to do anything about it, i think my afro needs a cut too
0 -
see below Cube Hanzz Pro FRSquarepants wrote:It's not that I'm over over biked, my bike is under personed...0
-
I'm overbored with people who still think this has anything to do about money or skill.. :roll:
My whole point is that the attitude that big is better is wrong. More travel doesn't make you faster. I don't care about the type of bike people ride - if they want to go slower just so they can have the same bike as the guy on the cover of MBUK, it doesn't affect me at all.
What does affect me is when people say silly things like you don't have enough travel to ride that, or you need a full sus for this, etc. etc.
You can ride anything on anything, but once you get to a point, more travel just makes you slower. And a lot of people don't seem to realize that.
When people turn up to one of our rides on some AM thing, it doesn't bother me in the slightest. Mostly cause he will usually be at the back the whole ride, so I wont even see him until the end. I'm not going to tell him that its going to slow him down, or that he doesn't need all that travel - so why do people think its ok to say the opposite - that you haven't got enough travel, or you're on a HT so be careful on this bit, etc. etc.
Underbiking provides a challenge. Overbiking just makes anything slightly technical easier. I'd rather ride something and think, "I rode that because I was good enough to" rather then "I rode that because I've got 160mm of travel both ends and it was just a root".
Sorry, but that's just me.
And not that I usually reply to silly insults from people who would rather go "you smell" then actually debate with someone, but I did like this one.Dobbs wrote:Realman?
Realboy maybe.
Witty. 0 -
i agree that being underbiked provides more of a challenge. I park in the yard which says 'you should learn on a nails bike and work up to something half descent'. But having an AM doesn't make you slower overall - only when you drop to a lower standard bike and realise you can't choose a descent line any more compared to people who have ridden hardtails because you become complacent to the trail.
But the measure is pleasure - if you have as much fun being slow on your am rig as someone going fast on a SS, then everyone is a winner. It wasn't a waste of money and overbiking isn't an issue.0 -
you can be over-cocked
:shock:0 -
I just had a 5 egg omlette
I feel really OVER OMLETTED! :oops: 0 -
If it doesn't bother you Realman- why the hell make a thread about it?! 0
-
Realman,
People are taking the micky out of you in this thread because you are not really debating. You just keep repeating the same statement that people have been knocking holes in for the last 15 pages... It's not debating.
You maybe faster on your hardtail, But round my local trails i am faster than 90% of people i see and i'm on a 5" full bounce. and i was hammered by people on SX trails and 160mm lappires on the weekend in Machen as the trails were steep and tough.
We don't all ride just trail centers and i was definately struggling on my 5" on the weekend a bigger bike would have helped and alowed me to go faster, and speed is fun!
Most bikers I know couldn't give a rats nuts who gets to the top first, though some are very very fit, its all about fun going down and doing silly things, and our big bikes work for this. If all your interested is a pure circuit time maybe thinking about road time trialsing more up your alley?
Let people ride there bikes with out comment because for all you know there bike may very well be serving there purpose far better than you could realise.
But I agree with you point people saying who sayyou need more travel are full of it, you can ride most things on anything, your more likely to be stopped by head tube angles than travel in itself.0 -
^^^ ThisThewaylander wrote:Most bikers I know couldn't give a rats nuts who gets to the top first, though some are very very fit, its all about fun going down and doing silly things, and our big bikes work for this.
I'd rather be last going up and have more fun going down tbhSpecialized Enduro SL Pro Carbon
Specialized Stumpy Evo Carbon
Canyon Aeroad Disc Di2
Specialized FSRxc - XC Race Bike0 -
My whole point is that the attitude that big is better is wrong. More travel doesn't make you faster. I don't care about the type of bike people ride - if they want to go slower just so they can have the same bike as the guy on the cover of MBUK, it doesn't affect me at all.
What does affect me is when people say silly things like you don't have enough travel to ride that, or you need a full sus for this, etc. etc.
You can ride anything on anything, but once you get to a point, more travel just makes you slower. And a lot of people don't seem to realize that.
How many times do we have to say? It is NOT always about pure speed! More travel can make some people faster however. It can give some people more fun.0 -
This thread is lols…
Right, my 2p worth:
I spend more money on my bikes than anything else. I have 5 bikes, each serves it’s own purpose:
1. Road bike – erm used for road riding, has been raced in the past. Pride and joy, lives in the bedroom at home, only taken out on nice sunny days.
2. Focus CX bike. Again, used primarily for road riding on the commute to and from work. You could argue that this is ‘over biking’ but having snapped the frame of a Claud Butler hybrid, I went for something that was a bit more robust.
3. Ribble TT bike. Definitely ‘over biked’ with this one as I bought it on the C2W scheme, (I honestly thought it wouldn’t be approved) and as such feel obliged to ride it to and from work. Quickly. That said, I have used it for the occasional TT and will use it in the summer for a Triathlon.
4. Kona Coiler Dee-Lux. 2004 edition, so it’s reasonably light (for a FR bike). So far, I’ve ridden DH, FR, XC (including racing enduro’s), Street, Park, Road (commuted on it a couple of times), trail centres, trekking etc. Just need to get it to Newport Velodrome and do a lap or two on the track to fully complete it’s portfolio. Now, I wouldn’t class this bike as ‘over biking’ on most of the MTB stuffs I do on it. I would class it as pretty versatile. Granted it’s not the lightest bike for racing, but it will handle it.
5. Giant NRS. Light, very light. Spend most of my money on this bike. It’s raced a dozen or so times a year. Overbiked? Only for some events, like HONC or D2D, where a hardtail would make sense. That said, as it only weights 24.5lbs, it’s not that much of an issue.
And, if I had the room and Mrs C didn’t notice, I’d definitely have another hardtail MTB and a track bike…
Oh and if we’re talking about cars, I also drive a rather nice estate car with nearly 300bhp under the bonnet, which doesn’t burn as Clarkson would say “The fuel of satan”. It can take 3 bikes on the back, 2 on the roof bars as well as a roof box, 5 riders and their gear inside. Overcar’d? Not really. Just practical for my needs. 0 -
Kona Coiler Dee-Lux
Pah, overbike and you know it. Hang your head in shame.0 -
supersonic wrote:Kona Coiler Dee-Lux
Pah, overbike and you know it. Hang your head in shame.
But I've made it soo much lighter than it was originally...
0 -
Being over biked is far more appealing than being biked over.0
-
supersonic wrote:How many times do we have to say? It is NOT always about pure speed! More travel can make some people faster however. It can give some people more fun.
I'm not just talking about speed, I'm also referring to wasted travel. Say you have a trail, and you ride that on a 120mm full sus, and don't bottom out at all. Would it be better if you rode it on a 140mm full sus? How about 160mm?
Or what about you ride a trail with 2.2 mountain kings, and you don't slip at all, and its plenty comfortable. Would it be better with 2.5 high rollers?
That's my point. Its the limit at which more travel, slacker angles, bigger tyres stops making it more fun, and just makes the riding slower and more easier.
Lots of mountain bikers aren't interested in climbing because that involves physical effort and fitness. Yet they still overbike, and make it even harder. Maybe that's another reason why people overbike, so they have an excuse why they're last to the top.. (I can tell you're all going to like that one.. ). 0 -
140mm is the holy grail imo, does everything well, wether it be a 140mm fs or a ht they can be built light or burly, for example a 2010 sworks stumpy can be built up as a 22lb race bike, but a bike like a zesty or attack trail can be used as a nega avalanche bike. a 160mm bike will never be a xc race bike and a 120mm bike will probably never be seen at the mega. as all round bikes 140mm is perfect, obviously some people will want less or more travel, because they think it suits them. at the end of the day as long as we all enjoy riding what we ride everyone is a winner 0
-
Say you have a trail, and you ride that on a 120mm full sus, and don't bottom out at all.
If you're bottoming out, them your suspension isn't set up right.
I use 90% of my 140mm at afan and cwmcarn. Could I ride it on a HT? Of course I can and sometimes do, but I enjoy it far more on the bouncer. Mountain biking is a pastime and I will do whatever I can to get the most enjoyment out of it.
Realboy, you seem to harp on about fitness a lot. If you can only manage level 17 on the bleep test you have a LOT of work to do.When people turn up to one of our rides on some AM thing, so I wont even see him until the end
when you catch up?0 -
Would you enjoy it more on a 160mm full sus?
Not personally but some probably do, and it's certainly not for me to tell others what to ride.
Having said that I'd love to rag an alpine 160 around for a day. With bikes the way they are nowadays, I don't think it would slow me up too much either. I ride a "trail" bike which some would catagorise as "AM", I've even had someone call it "freeride". So, the terminology is certainly open to interpretation.
I know I've been taking the p1ss a little mate but you are an 18 year old telling people older and wiser than you what type of bike they should ride. It's just not on.0 -
So you would feel overbiked on 160mm? How about 180mm?0
-
No he didn't say he would feel overbiked on a 160...
Read what the man has written he said he would prefer his bike, but prob would enjoy raggiing a 160 round all day.
Don't read what is written.0 -
Thewaylander wrote:No he didn't say he would feel overbiked on a 160...RealMan wrote:So you would feel overbiked on 160mm? How about 180mm?
One of these "?" implies the text before is a question, not a statement. I was asking him if he would feel overbiked, as he didn't say if he did or not.Thewaylander wrote:Read what the man has writtenThewaylander wrote:Don't read what is written.
ok.0 -
Here's a fresh angle on this whole thing.
Suppose tomorrow morning instead of meeting my mates on my Edison for a ride, I take my singlespeed Duster and find I am quicker on some bits, slower on others, but about the same on others still. Was I over, under, or correctly biked at any given stage?0
This discussion has been closed.
