Overbiking
Comments
-
pypdjl wrote:Only they can tell if they are overbiked though, your (or anyone elses) opinion is irrelevant.
Irrelevant to what? Is any of this relevant to anything? Everyone has an opinion, and its just interesting to see what other people think, and discuss ideas. We're not trying to pass a law here.
When I asked, does more travel make you faster, I meant - are you faster overbiked then suitably biked, on descents. Because I think we can all agree you will be slower uphill and on the flat, but I'm not too sure about descents.
So, sticking with my example, riding the descents at Afan on a suitable bike - a medium travel hardtail. Would I be faster, if I was ridiculously overbiked on a full DH bike? I think not.
But another example - In the Alps this year, we ended up doing a bit of road descent on our mountain bikes. Was great fun, discs brakes mean you don't have to brake until so late compared to road bikes (although I have horrible brakes on my road bike, might just be me). But I still reckon I was slower then if I'd done it on my road bike. And I reckon it would've been just as much fun (for anyone who's not a roadie - descending down a mountain road on a road bike is like flying...). 0 -
Lets face it RM you're over biked for where you live, you can probably get away with a road bike round by you
0 -
Yeah you're probably right, just stick some cyclocross tyres on and away I'd go. Probably be faster too. Definitely, actually. Wouldn't be too good for the weekend riding, when I do my best to get out do some decent areas.
Which is a good point - if I was more suitably biked, I'd be faster. And the bike would be easier to clean and service, and be lighter, which would ultimately mean I would have more fun, and get more out of the riding, and become a better rider..0 -
Would you be man enough to ride the steps though...0
-
Cyclocross? No. I'd be worried about the wheels collapsing, and I don't think the brakes would be good enough. Rigid SS MTB? Yes. Although it would be harder. But of course, more rewarding.0
-
well after 7 pages , 2 things are apparent
1. Regarding the OP, on being overbiked - if your not fortunate to have individual bikes for every MTB discipline (DH/XC/FR blah blah) having 1 bike to cover it all will mean your overbiked most of the time if you indulge in more than 1 discipline!
2. Seriously, who gives a toss what your riding and on what terrain? I'll talk to anyone riding anything, anywhere and judge them on what their like not how much armour/what kit/what bike etc etc they have.
Right off to do a towpath on my AM bike, sorry i only have the 1 , apologies if those of you who find "Overbikers" annoying get offended :roll:
Good discussion provoking post though RM
PS before some smarty points out i have 2 bikes in my sig, the hard tails gone.0 -
Overbiking is a state of mind and wallet. Reading what has been said I was reminded of a statment I read somewhere (a bike mag obviously!) that the ideal number of bikes is n+1, where n is the number of bikes that one currently has.
Overbiked is where somebody has too much cash and underbiked is one wishing they had more cash to spend on the latest full-springer! I know that I full into the latter category.0 -
SPIRO wrote:1. Regarding the OP, on being overbiked - if your not fortunate to have individual bikes for every MTB discipline (DH/XC/FR blah blah) having 1 bike to cover it all will mean your overbiked most of the time if you indulge in more than 1 discipline!
Yes, if your one bike is a big travel one. But what if its a rigid SS? Then you will be underbiked most of the time. Or what if its a long travel hardtail? Then you might be equally overbiked and underbiked.Swannster wrote:Overbiked is where somebody has too much cash and underbiked is one wishing they had more cash to spend on the latest full-springer! I know that I full into the latter category.
I don't think it is about cash. My mate has 6 or 7 SS rigid mountain bikes. Each of them are over £1.5k
They are beautiful, and he loves riding them. But you could hardly say he's underbiked almost everywhere he goes because of the state of his wallet.
I think its purely down to the "bigger is better" attitude, which is of course, completely wrong.0 -
I actually agree with RM in many ways. It doesn't matter of course but many many people go for big travel bikes with beefy forks and big brakes when they can't even do a proper flat pedal bunnyhop or drop off.
It's like surfers who are average but get a full on high performance board based on something pros use.
Or skiers who buy top line kit when all they can't even parallel turn properly.
It happens in every sport and it makes me laugh. Quietly. In the corner. With my like minded mates.
If a lot of big travel FS boys witnessed what "proper" 4X/DH riders do with their machines and discovered what they are actually made for, they'd probably feel a bit silly.
Again it doesn't matter but it's amusing and a major feature of a society that so desperately wants to be seen as "cool" and "extreme."0 -
Surf-Matt wrote:I actually agree with RM in many ways. It doesn't matter of course but many many people go for big travel bikes with beefy forks and big brakes when they can't even do a proper flat pedal bunnyhop or drop off.
It's like surfers who are average but get a full on high performance board based on something pros use.
Or skiers who buy top line kit when all they can't even parallel turn properly.
It happens in every sport and it makes me laugh. Quietly. In the corner. With my like minded mates.
If a lot of big travel FS boys witnessed what "proper" 4X/DH riders do with their machines and discovered what they are actually made for, they'd probably feel a bit silly.
Again it doesn't matter but it's amusing and a major feature of a society that so desperately wants to be seen as "cool" and "extreme."
but you're talking as if folk with longer travel need to pass some kind of cycling proficiency to be allowed to ride bikes and it all falls down to folk having opinions on what folk decide to buy and use (however well or badly) when its none of their business.
i dont see why anyone would be bothered in what other folk ride and why :?0 -
Again, we're not trying to pass a law here. We don't want cycling proficiency tests to make sure only people who are rad enough get a certain amount of travel.
We're just discussing the whole attitude, that lots of people think that a bigger bike, or a better surfboard or skis, etc. etc. makes you a better rider/surfer/skier/driver etc. etc.
When quite often, in reality, it makes you worse.Surf-Matt wrote:It happens in every sport and it makes me laugh. Quietly. In the corner. With my like minded mates.
Big +1. I also do badminton, and occasionally you get people with £140 rackets and such, who just are useless. And then you get people who turn up without a racket, borrow whatever they can, and thrash everyone. Same in boxing - you get people with the shorts and the shoes and all the glittery jackets and such, and then they back out after the first round.sheepsteeth wrote:RealMan wrote:I think its purely down to the "bigger is better" attitude, which is of course, completely wrong.
no its not.
You think bigger is better? I want to say lets avoid the sex jokes, but I feel it will be futile.0 -
No one really needs a Ferrari, Porsche or Aston Martin but if you could you would.
Everyone would "Overbike" (horrible term) if they could - however, what I think is sad is the "Pimp my Ride" merchants, who buy then "upgrade", solely to impress. Who cares if your tyre colours don't match your saddle or your pedals don't quite match the tone of your helmet.
Love your bike - whatever the cost.
DubzyLife's good
Boardman MTB Team0 -
Surf-Matt wrote:I actually agree with RM in many ways. It doesn't matter of course but many many people go for big travel bikes with beefy forks and big brakes when they can't even do a proper flat pedal bunnyhop or drop off.
It's like surfers who are average but get a full on high performance board based on something pros use.
Or skiers who buy top line kit when all they can't even parallel turn properly.
It happens in every sport and it makes me laugh. Quietly. In the corner. With my like minded mates.
If a lot of big travel FS boys witnessed what "proper" 4X/DH riders do with their machines and discovered what they are actually made for, they'd probably feel a bit silly.
Again it doesn't matter but it's amusing and a major feature of a society that so desperately wants to be seen as "cool" and "extreme."
Because they can afford the gear and want to learn the sport and the gear will then last them?
Is there some hidden rule that if you start a sport you have to buy budget gear from your local Tesco's?
Honestly, this thread is ridiculous and cant believe its still going.0 -
Dubzy wrote:No one really needs a Ferrari, Porsche or Aston Martin but if you could you would.
Everyone would "Overbike" (horrible term) if they could
No they wouldn't. I've met people who live and ride in the Alps and ride 100mm hardtails. There's that insanely good rider I showed a video of, who does all his DH on a hardtail with unbelievable speed and smoothness. There's my mate who rides everywhere on his 6+ rigid SS.
Some people want to get the most out of their riding.Briggo wrote:Because they can afford the gear and want to learn the sport and the gear will then last them?
Is there some hidden rule that if you start a sport you have to buy budget gear from your local Tesco's?
Honestly, this thread is ridiculous and cant believe its still going.
You've really got the wrong end of the stick. We're not talking about money, we're talking about amount of travel and strength of the kit. For example, someone riding an XC race with boxxers and full saint on a massive DH bike, is overbiked. Maybe re-read my original post?pypdjl wrote:Irrelevant as the only person who could possibly tell if they were overbiked is the individual in question.
I don't really understand where you're coming from. Are you saying some people might look at something very tame and say "oh that definitely needs 8 inches of travel", while other people would be saying "well that's just a gently rolling path, I'll grab the bmx.."? If so, then yes - some people may appear overbiked to others but not to themselves. But doesn't that just show a lack of skill?0 -
Not overbiked - just the wrong bike in my opinion. As the BMX might be.
As a former salesman, you take the customer through the options. Maybe more than one style of bike will suit. But if they want an 8 inch DH bike for bridle paths, and they are set on it, then there is little you can do but explain why it is not as efficient as a XC type bike.
And even if they did this I wouldn't laugh at them. Their choice.0 -
But he was still talking along the same lines as me.
If you're a beginner at skiing and you get some real high end skis, they probably won't suit you as beginner skis tend to be more forgiving, and not as responsive so you don't fall off constantly. Its the same idea of buying the best thinking that the your skill level and the intensity of activity you will be doing warrants it, when its not the case. You could easily spend the same money, but get something that would suit you better, and you would progress more, and get more out of it. You just wouldn't be riding the same bike as sam hill/steve peat/the cover guy on mbuk and that's what people can't handle.0 -
RealMan wrote:Dubzy wrote:No one really needs a Ferrari, Porsche or Aston Martin but if you could you would.
Everyone would "Overbike" (horrible term) if they could
No they wouldn't. I've met people who live and ride in the Alps and ride 100mm hardtails. There's that insanely good rider I showed a video of, who does all his DH on a hardtail with unbelievable speed and smoothness. There's my mate who rides everywhere on his 6+ rigid SS.
Some people want to get the most out of their riding.Briggo wrote:Because they can afford the gear and want to learn the sport and the gear will then last them?
Is there some hidden rule that if you start a sport you have to buy budget gear from your local Tesco's?
Honestly, this thread is ridiculous and cant believe its still going.
You've really got the wrong end of the stick. We're not talking about money, we're talking about amount of travel and strength of the kit. For example, someone riding an XC race with boxxers and full saint on a massive DH bike, is overbiked. Maybe re-read my original post?pypdjl wrote:Irrelevant as the only person who could possibly tell if they were overbiked is the individual in question.
I don't really understand where you're coming from. Are you saying some people might look at something very tame and say "oh that definitely needs 8 inches of travel", while other people would be saying "well that's just a gently rolling path, I'll grab the bmx.."? If so, then yes - some people may appear overbiked to others but not to themselves. But doesn't that just show a lack of skill?
I think he's saying that the only person who knows the individual reasons or circumstances for them having a particular bike is themselves - therefore, only they can truly judge whether they have the right bike to encompass all the things they might want to do with it.
Its easy to say that a particular bike may be overkill for a particular piece of terrain, but when you see that person with that bike at that moment in time, you are only seeing a snapshot of what they may be doing.0 -
Unless they make it clear to you that they aren't ever using the bike for anything else.0
-
realman, i do think bigger bikes are better than their shorter travel counterparts, i prefer them, its how i like my bikes. not necessarily for the travel, but mainly for the angles.0
-
RealMan wrote:Unless they make it clear to you that they aren't ever using the bike for anything else.
Then I'm not sure I understand what this thread is about - are you asking us what we would think of someone who was on a big travel bike but we knew from talking to them that they were only ever going to use it for going around their local woods?
That would be quite a specific question0 -
RealMan wrote:But he was still talking along the same lines as me.
If you're a beginner at skiing and you get some real high end skis, they probably won't suit you as beginner skis tend to be more forgiving, and not as responsive so you don't fall off constantly. Its the same idea of buying the best thinking that the your skill level and the intensity of activity you will be doing warrants it, when its not the case. You could easily spend the same money, but get something that would suit you better, and you would progress more, and get more out of it. You just wouldn't be riding the same bike as sam hill/steve peat/the cover guy on mbuk and that's what people can't handle.
Why would you progress more with "starter gear".
A year ago I had an Aggressor XC2, not bad but not great, certainly starter gear. My skill in terms of MTBing was (and still is) small, but I now have a Stumpy FSR.
I have learnt so much more on the stumpy, my times have improved and I feel a lot more confident on the bike as a whole and I've only been riding it a couple of months, but instantly as soon as I started riding it I noticed the difference.
Why should I have to wait to "out skill" the XC2 before I trade it in?
The Stumps capability is above mine but with time I'll learn to push myself to meet the bikes potential and everytime I get on it I feel I am.
If anything I felt the XC2 slowed me down, although I was still learning how to ride various situations on it as much as I am now.
You could also say that the Stump is way 'overbiked' for the majority of terrain I ride and the XC2 sufficed, but as above and also I visit other areas of the country where the bike isnt so 'overbiked' as you put it.0 -
briggo:
i agree.
i dont know who thinks its a good idea to start on a "starter bike", i appreciate in other sports, more advanced machines and equipment may be a hinderance but in mountain biking as far as i can tell, the better the sooner is the way to go.
i cant see why anyone who decided to ride dh couldnt learn on a superb bike, made by specialized seeing as the current world best rides one, i dont understand what you would learn by hurtling down a hill on a P.O.S :?0 -
Theres only one sport I can think of that "pro gear" might be a hinderance and thats motor racing.
Thats pretty much the only sport I can think of that might cause problems for a new boy, i.e. gokart experienced racer in a F1 car :P
But even then with time they'll learn to use the F1 car, Richard Hammond did in the Renault F1 car round the Top Gear test track. (never drove one before)
Constantly span and stalled, eventually got it round in a decent time.0 -
More expense buys lighter, stronger and usually superior performing bikes - simple as that. Though a cheap bike can be a good bike - and not necessarily be a 'starter' bike.0
-
rudedog wrote:RealMan wrote:Unless they make it clear to you that they aren't ever using the bike for anything else.
Then I'm not sure I understand what this thread is about - are you asking us what we would think of someone who was on a big travel bike but we knew from talking to them that they were only ever going to use it for going around their local woods?
That would be quite a specific question
+1
I thought this thread was about buying a bike you yourself know you'll probably never use to its full capacity. Like buying a supercar just to pop down to Tesco a couple of times a week. But 8 pages later and I'm feeling a little bit... lost.0 -
What a horrible term "overbiked" is.
Sounds like trail snobbery to me.
Too many people judging others on what they ride- who really gives a flying f**k!0
This discussion has been closed.
