# Are people these days buying too much bike?



## JerzyBoy (May 26, 2008)

I got out of mountain biking back in 08 due to moving, marriage, etc. I just had no time for it anymore. Flash forward to a few mos ago and I got back into it. Back then most people hit my local trails on 100-120 mm bikes. 120 was probably the sweet spot. The downhill guys who made runs to the bike park on the weekends ran 150-160 mm bikes. All of that made sense for the types of riding people in both classes were doing. The terms Enduro and All Mountain were out there but never really made sense to me because the bikes in that class still weren't robust enough to take to the bike park, and were way overkill for most singletrack and trails in my area. Nowadays I hit the same trail systems I used to ride at and I see people pedaling around heavier 150-170 mm bikes and I can't help but ask myself why. I'm on a hardtail currently and I'm not getting beat up in the least, although I do plan on buying another full suspension within the next 6 mos. 

I just can't understand why everyone seems to be riding these huge long travel bikes on flowy singletrack with long climbs, etc when they could get away all day every day with 130mm travel and a lighter bike. I guess it would make sense if they had one bike to do it all, but most have seperate bikes they take to do the downhill stuff. 

In my opinion the type of riding that most of us do is XC. Whether we choose to admit that or not is another thing I guess. Now we have to call it "Trail" because it's like saying XC is a bad thing or not cool enough maybe. Even before I got out of mountain biking 12 or so years ago people seemed to know that most of these new bike industry terms were just being used to sell bikes.

All this being said, am I the only one who thinks most people are pedaling around way more bike than they need, or is there a benefit to all this extra travel that everyone is buying to ride what 120 mm forks and shocks won't even come close to bottoming out on? 

Just curious what other riders take on this is as I navigate the different websites and see what different companies are offering as far as bikes go. I'm seeing cooler bikes out there like a Santa Cruz 5010 for example, and finding myself considering it because I see other local guys riding them and I'm like,well if they can make the climbs on that then so can I. Then I'll pull myself back and say wait a minute, the Tallboy would make more sense, or a Stumpjumper. Maybe I'm rambling but I'm just trying to figure out how much everyone's bike choices are influenced by marketing and just overall hype. I also wonder how many people probably bought the wrong bike and don't even realize that they'd be happier on a lower travel, slightly lighter rig.


----------



## MattiThundrrr (Jul 6, 2019)

It's all trends, heavily influenced by the bike companies. They need to keep making new things, it's the nature of capitalism. Trends are starting to swing back the other way, with companies putting out more short travel offerings. And "trail" isn't cool enough anymore either. Now it's "down country" which is so cool it's sickening. If you are happy with less, go with it.


----------



## BadgerOne (Jul 17, 2015)

I don't know about everyone else, but I did it once. Bought a highly rated 140mm 29er for a my all-rounder. There were some trails I got my mileage out of the configuration, but in some ways it was a barcalounger on wheels. Still didn't climb great especially compared to my hardtail (obviously) and was heavier and more maintenance work. In the end I'm just a hardtail guy and like the added challenge, but I probably would have loved a 120mm-ish playful bike.


----------



## jcavicchi (Aug 31, 2021)

Honestly, I think the term XC has evolved to mean very short travel, very light bikes meant for the short track, while the term Trail has come to mean what we thought of back in the day as XC (I have been mountain biking since the 1990s).

Also, bike geometry and suspension design have changed, meaning that a 140mm bike works pretty well on flowy, up and down singletrack.

Newer trail bikes also allow you to try drops, roll-offs, and jumps that would have you over the bars and into the woods on an old-fashioned XC bike. More local trails feature these sorts of things now because the bikes have changed.

Newer trail bikes tend to be heavier, yes, but people seem willing to pay that penalty for something they feel is a bit more fun.

Now, I do feel most bikes come with ridiculously aggressive, wide and heavy tires that slow things down unnecessarily (2.4 seems plenty wide to me, and would have been consider a tractor tire when I started mountain biking), but tires are easy to change and to each his own.


----------



## JerzyBoy (May 26, 2008)

jcavicchi said:


> Honestly, I think the term XC has evolved to mean very short travel, very light bikes meant for the short track, while the term Trail has come to mean what we thought of back in the day as XC (I have been mountain biking since the 1990s).
> 
> Also, bike geometry and suspension design have changed, meaning that a 140mm bike works pretty well on flowy, up and down singletrack.
> 
> ...


I'm with you on this. My bike came spec'd out with a 2.3 front and rear. Swapped for a grippier 2.3 rear and a 2.5 front because although my bike rolled fast, the rear didn't hook up too well. Paying the price now because my bike rolls terribly now on anything but the downs.


----------



## JerzyBoy (May 26, 2008)

BadgerOne said:


> I don't know about everyone else, but I did it once. Bought a highly rated 140mm 29er for a my all-rounder. There were some trails I got my mileage out of the configuration, but in some ways it was a barcalounger on wheels. Still didn't climb great especially compared to my hardtail (obviously) and was heavier and more maintenance work. In the end I'm just a hardtail guy and like the added challenge, but I probably would have loved a 120mm-ish playful bike.


I think most people would agree with this 100 percent but would never admit it. I think 130 is gonna be the sweet spot for me.


----------



## JerzyBoy (May 26, 2008)

MattiThundrrr said:


> It's all trends, heavily influenced by the bike companies. They need to keep making new things, it's the nature of capitalism. Trends are starting to swing back the other way, with companies putting out more short travel offerings. And "trail" isn't cool enough anymore either. Now it's "down country" which is so cool it's sickening. If you are happy with less, go with it.


Down Country. I havent heard this one yet but I'm sure I will. Another term that if you ask 50 people what it means you will probably get 50 different answers.


----------



## Rev Bubba (Jan 16, 2004)

JerzyBoy said:


> I got out of mountain biking back in 08 due to moving, marriage, etc. I just had no time for it anymore. Flash forward to a few mos ago and I got back into it. Back then most people hit my local trails on 100-120 mm bikes. 120 was probably the sweet spot. The downhill guys who made runs to the bike park on the weekends ran 150-160 mm bikes. All of that made sense for the types of riding people in both classes were doing. The terms Enduro and All Mountain were out there but never really made sense to me because the bikes in that class still weren't robust enough to take to the bike park, and were way overkill for most singletrack and trails in my area. Nowadays I hit the same trail systems I used to ride at and I see people pedaling around heavier 150-170 mm bikes and I can't help but ask myself why. I'm on a hardtail currently and I'm not getting beat up in the least, although I do plan on buying another full suspension within the next 6 mos.
> 
> I just can't understand why everyone seems to be riding these huge long travel bikes on flowy singletrack with long climbs, etc when they could get away all day every day with 130mm travel and a lighter bike. I guess it would make sense if they had one bike to do it all, but most have seperate bikes they take to do the downhill stuff.
> 
> ...


I freely admit I have more bike then I need but I can afford it and enjoy it so I'm not going back. I could have saved quite a bit of money going with an aluminum frame and lesser components. Referring to travel, I've settled into 130/120 and it works great for me. 

Though i usually ride solo, the people I do ride with seem to have decided 130/120 or something close is plenty of bike but none of us are doing DH anymore.

I own a 2021 SC Tallboy and will be riding my son's 2015 SC 5010 today while my riding buddy in NorCal (I live in the Northeast) has not graduated from a 29" hardtail and he'll be lending me another HT when I visit in the spring.


----------



## *OneSpeed* (Oct 18, 2013)

JerzyBoy said:


> Maybe I'm rambling but I'm just trying to figure out how much everyone's bike choices are influenced by marketing and just overall hype?


They totally got me. "Get a steel singlespeed" they said. "It will be fun" they said. 

Turns out they were right, now I have 6


----------



## JerzyBoy (May 26, 2008)

Rev Bubba said:


> I freely admit I have more bike then I need but I can afford it and enjoy it so I'm not going back. I could have saved quite a bit of money going with an aluminum frame and lesser components. Referring to travel, I've settled into 130/120 and it works great for me.
> 
> Though i usually ride solo, the people I do ride with seem to have decided 130/120 or something close is plenty of bike but none of us are doing DH anymore.
> 
> I own a 2021 SC Tallboy and will be riding my son's 2015 SC 5010 today while my riding buddy in NorCal (I live in the Northeast) has not graduated from a 29" hardtail and he'll be lending me another HT when I visit in the spring.


My question is more about the travel though. Moneywise, all nice bikes now are expensive. Thats another whole topic. I have no problem spending the money on a nice bike especially with the lifetime frame warranties now. I just dropped 2700 on a hardtail. If you told me 12 years ago that in 2021 I'd do that I'd have called you crazy. I think the travel on most bikes is just way overkill and peoole would probably have more fun on 130mm than they realize. Thats really what I was getting at. I'm already budgeting around 5k give or take for my next bike. I just wanna tey and find the seeet spot of having a capable bike that dosen't have all this extra weight and travel that I will never need.


----------



## JerzyBoy (May 26, 2008)

*OneSpeed* said:


> They totally got me. "Get a steel singlespeed" they said. "It will be fun" they said.
> 
> Turns out they were right, now I have 6


I have a feeling that even when I buy a full suspension I will end up riding my hardtail just as much.


----------



## Amt0571 (May 22, 2014)

Yes.

People buy whatever is trending at the moment and make stupid buying decisions.
If I look around me, it's full of carbon bikes with Recon forks and low-end brakes around the 2000€ mark. Why do people buy this when they could get a Fox 34 and decent brakes with an alu frame for less than that and with a dropper to boot? because carbon is trendy.

Oh yes... carbon is also more comfy. And rigid. They claim a 30% increase in rigidity every year. If that was true, current bike frames would be like Rocco Siffredi on viagra when he was 20.

Don't forget that 29ers are faster, 1x is better and don't miss on the opportunity to buy a motorbik... I mean an ebike.


IMHO, there have been only 3 meaningful innovations in mountain bike since they were invented:

Hydraulic discs.
Suspension forks.
Dropper posts.

The rest is full of crap.


----------



## jay_paradox (Oct 21, 2020)

I have to agree with this post. My buddy bought a bike that has way more travel than he had before and the bike is much heavier as a result. On our ride yesterday it was clearly hurting his climbing ability.

I couldn’t help but think he would’ve been better off buying something less burly.

20+ years ago I had an Intense Uzzi SLX which was kind of a tank back in the day but back then Freeride was the cool thing. It had a coil shock and can’t remember how much travel it had. Probably way more than I needed. I now ride a V1 Pivot Switchblade and it suits me well. It has 135mm of rear travel and the fork has 160mm. Compared to the Uzzi it feels like a feather. The Pivot was the first bike I bought since re-joining the sport and after having that intense for so many years. When the time comes to buy a new bike again I could see myself going with something with less travel upfront and maybe a bit more in the back just to balance it out. Just have to see where I’m at and what bikes appeal to me then.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Koogs (Mar 25, 2016)

I think some people think more is better.... obviously its not unless you need it for your terrain.
I think a bunch of people buy bikes for what they think they want to do, not what they actually do. They buy the bike to take to teh bike park, that they have done twice in the last 5 years, instead of for the trail they do every other week that is 30 minutes from their house.

I'm not expert, and I was out of the sport a while, but it seems XC no longer means what it used to mean. It now is basically race XC bikes and everything else is trail. Downcountry is marketing obviously, but it seems an effort to make short travel cool again and differentiate from the weight weenie race machines. Despite feeling like its manufactured marketing, that is the sweet spot in biking for my area. You could ride a hardtail, but a 120/130 trail bike is really where its at, and 150 is too much unless you travel.


----------



## OldMike (Apr 30, 2020)

For me I went from a 2003 DS @ 125mm/125mm to a 2021 DS @ 130mm/140mm so not too much more travel. The differences in Geo and tech improvements are noticed, but overall
I'd say I'm not overbiked. Ride/buy/use what you feel is required for most of your riding terrain and don't worry about what the others are using.


----------



## CannondaleF9 (Nov 17, 2012)

I'm not really a fan of "overbiking". For me all you need to make a bike more capable are some meaty tires, a solid suspension fork, four piston brakes, a dropper, and a wide bar. More suspension only makes it so you can ride faster on rougher terrain.

Last fall my full sus bike (160/155) was in the shop for more than a month and I only had my hardtail, a 130mm/67.6* HA trail bike. Before then I never really realized how much extra energy I had to exert to climb some of my local trails, and the lighter weight of the hardtail made some descents easier as well. After having almost as much fun on some double black trails as on my full sus, I realized that my main mountain bike is simply too long legged for how I like to ride pedal access trails. Since then I've decided that going back to a 130mm full sus bike for my "trail" bike would help me enjoy XC riding again and balance out my trips to the bike park. 

I think that the sweet spot of full suspension bike travel is around 140mm, for most people who even need a full suspension bike. Now if you want something different, that's totally fair, but given frame design and suspension technology, that's a big enough platform to tackle all the XC tech you'd want, can still have a great time on jump/flow trails at the bike park, and not be too much to handle on a climb.
From there, go for a bike with less travel if you prefer climbing, and more travel if you want to hit harder lines, bigger features, or race enduro/DH.


----------



## jay_paradox (Oct 21, 2020)

I think the main thing is just to be realistic with yourself and the terrain that you’re riding otherwise you’re lugging way more uphill than necessary.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## JerzyBoy (May 26, 2008)

Amt0571 said:


> Yes.
> 
> People buy whatever is trending at the moment and make stupid buying decisions.
> If I look around me, it's full of carbon bikes with Recon forks and low-end brakes around the 2000€ mark. Why do people buy this when they could get a Fox 34 and decent brakes with an alu frame for less than that and with a dropper to boot? because carbon is trendy.
> ...


I remeber when I swore I'd never buy a full suspension. Ended up buying one and realizing what all the hype was about. Definitely made riding enjoyable for me, but I think people are going way too far when choosing how much travel they really need. As far as carbon goes, I wouldn't even consider it unless aluminum bikes disappear altogether.


----------



## JerzyBoy (May 26, 2008)

jay_paradox said:


> I have to agree with this post. My buddy bought a bike that has way more travel than he had before and the bike is much heavier as a result. On our ride yesterday it was clearly hurting his climbing ability.
> 
> I couldn’t help but think he would’ve been better off buying something less burly.
> 
> ...


This is definitely what I was getting at. Now your friend can post about how much travel his cool new bike has, and show up at the trails woth this monster of a bike, meanwhile the actual riding he is doing suffers because of it. He bought into the marketing and hype, which is easy to do these days, and it sounds like he would be so much happier on something else and he may not even realize it. It's what I'm trying to avoid when choosing my next rig.


----------



## JerzyBoy (May 26, 2008)

Koogs said:


> I think some people think more is better.... obviously its not unless you need it for your terrain.
> I think a bunch of people buy bikes for what they think they want to do, not what they actually do. They buy the bike to take to teh bike park, that they have done twice in the last 5 years, instead of for the trail they do every other week that is 30 minutes from their house.
> 
> I'm not expert, and I was out of the sport a while, but it seems XC no longer means what it used to mean. It now is basically race XC bikes and everything else is trail. Downcountry is marketing obviously, but it seems an effort to make short travel cool again and differentiate from the weight weenie race machines. Despite feeling like its manufactured marketing, that is the sweet spot in biking for my area. You could ride a hardtail, but a 120/130 trail bike is really where its at, and 150 is too much unless you travel.


The first 2 lines of this comment literally sum up my whole entire post. So much truth in what you said.


----------



## Ktse (Jul 12, 2008)

The answer is it really depends on the trails in your area. I live in Ontario Canada, it doesn't have mountains, we have hills and some bike parks, and a lot of rocks. In general all mountain/enduro/long travel bikes are overkill for the trails here. 

For the last decade I regularly rode an all mountain bike with 150 mm rear and 160 mm travel. It worked great in the bike park and rough terrain but not that agile for xc compared to hardtails or shorter travel bikes. However, the main thing for me was that it was a huge confidence booster; rock gardens at speed, steep drop ins, accidental casings, it didn't really matter, the bike shrugged it off and it was fun and allowed me to safely push my comfort zone and improve my skills. If i wanted efficiency, I would ride my hardtail, but slower on the technical bits. 

Nowadays, I regularly ride a mid travel 29" trail bike and it is just as capable as my all mountain bike but it has the agility and efficiency and find that it's perfectly suited for the riding I do. 

To bring it back to the OP's question, I regularly see a lot of riders on enduro/all mountain/long travel bikes and would agree that it's likely too much bike. That being said, with the evolution of bike geometry, suspension, and dropper posts, they aren't giving up as much in terms efficiency. Most of these riders aren't racers or trying to KOM their local leader boards, they are just regular riders who want a little bit more travel just in case. As long as they are out there enjoying the ride, that's all that really matters.


----------



## JerzyBoy (May 26, 2008)

jay_paradox said:


> I think the main thing is just to be realistic with yourself and the terrain that you’re riding otherwise you’re lugging way more uphill than necessary.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Couldn't agree more. And as someone else mentioned, to kinda sum it up, most people are buying these long travel bikes based on what they are telling themselves they are gonna do with their bike, then never actually riding it like that. As a result, their riding will actually suffer because of it.


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

around my parts you really could not over bike yourself. but I see a ton of under biking.

and its more about geometery than about travel.


----------



## Amt0571 (May 22, 2014)

JerzyBoy said:


> I remeber when I swore I'd never buy a full suspension. Ended up buying one and realizing what all the hype was about. Definitely made riding enjoyable for me, but I think people are going way too far when choosing how much travel they really need. As far as carbon goes, I wouldn't even consider it unless aluminum bikes disappear altogether.


Hey , I also bought things I sweared I wouldn't buy. A bike with 1x, for example.

I still don't like it, but there's no option if you want a decent bike. By decent I mean it has a fork/transmission/frame/wheels that will not self destruct after 1 year of riding, I'm not asking much more of it.

To be honest, I hate the bike industry. They reinvent the wheel and make a huge marketing pressure to make people buy new things, but are totally incapable to make something that's not crap.

I think my opinion is unpopular, but I find most manufacturers are unable to build basic frames or components with a decent quality. Especially considering what they make us pay for it. You know:


Creaking bottom brackets due to out of tolerance frames: CHECK.
Paint that chips if you look wrong at it: CHECK.
SX derailleurs that break in half: CHECK.
Ultegra cranks that separate in two: CHECK.
SRAM levers that stick when it's hot: CHECK.
Shimano brifters that break cables like there's no tomorrow: CHECK.
Forks that come dry or with badly adjusted bushings from the factory: CHECK.

And I could go on and on... if the car industry had this record, people would set them on fire. But we keep buying the POS they produce because: "29ers are faster", "tapered steerers are more rigid", "carbon is stronger" and whatever crap they come up with.

BTW, I don't get why Shimano is not sitting in a court for the Ultegra cranks separation issue. That's the stuff that scares the **** out of me. If I had a road bike with them I'd replace them ASAP.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

Sure but it's not like newer riders are more susceptible to marketing than the people in this thread.

A few counter points though... 1) Most of the riders I know running long travel bikes on the local XC trails also travel to a bike park 3 hours away to ride proper downhill bike terrain. 2) Bikes are more efficient than they were in '08. 150mm bike probably pedals as well or better than most '08 120mm bikes. 3) the terrain hasn't changed but the 8ft drops and jump lines are new.


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

Yes, people overbike, just like people over-car and over-cell phone. It's what keeps the industry profitable and it even benefits those who don't overbike because the technology trickles down. The only thing that bothers me about overbiking is when people neglect the additional maintenance required. I personally don't even buy used bikes anymore because about 95% of the people I know with fancy bikes never service their suspension. Sometimes they will service dropper posts when they get stuck. But shitty suspension performance is undetectable to 95% of consumers.


----------



## gocat (Feb 27, 2012)

I think most riders dont mind the up hills as long as they have fun on the down hills. I have 2 bikes, one is 150mm frt/130mm rear and one that has 160mm frt/ 150mm rear. Both 29ers. For me its just easier on the joints since im in my 50s. The shorter travel bike is more nimble, but the long travel is more forgiving.


----------



## jay_paradox (Oct 21, 2020)

gocat said:


> I think most riders dont mind the up hills as long as they have fun on the down hills. I have 2 bikes, one is 150mm frt/130mm rear and one that has 160mm frt/ 150mm rear. Both 29ers. For me its just easier on the joints since im in my 50s. The shorter travel bike is more nimble, but the long travel is more forgiving.


Yeah age and joint protection is a big factor also. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## CannondaleF9 (Nov 17, 2012)

Koogs said:


> I think some people think more is better.... obviously its not unless you need it for your terrain.
> I think a bunch of people buy bikes for what they think they want to do, not what they actually do. They buy the bike to take to teh bike park, that they have done twice in the last 5 years, instead of for the trail they do every other week that is 30 minutes from their house.
> 
> I'm not expert, and I was out of the sport a while, but it seems XC no longer means what it used to mean. It now is basically race XC bikes and everything else is trail. Downcountry is marketing obviously, but it seems an effort to make short travel cool again and differentiate from the weight weenie race machines. Despite feeling like its manufactured marketing, that is the sweet spot in biking for my area. You could ride a hardtail, but a 120/130 trail bike is really where its at, and 150 is too much unless you travel.


I went the route of longer travel (160) because my 130 trail bike wasn't cutting it at the bike park that was closer to my house than any pedal access trail network. I know I'm in the minority here, but that's why I went that route. I figured a 160 would manage both areas decently well, and then bought the hardtail for the few places where climbing was more important. 

Then there's my dad who bought a 180mm bike for the bike park, and hates climbing regardless of what he is on. "It doesn't matter what the bike is, I won't climb well on it." So I guess there are some people whose climbing style is more of a "if I can't sit and spin in first gear I might as well just push".



Amt0571 said:


> Yes.
> 
> People buy whatever is trending at the moment and make stupid buying decisions.
> If I look around me, it's full of carbon bikes with Recon forks and low-end brakes around the 2000€ mark. Why do people buy this when they could get a Fox 34 and decent brakes with an alu frame for less than that and with a dropper to boot? because carbon is trendy.
> ...



I agree that some bike builds you can buy are wrong in most every way. Carbon frames built with low end components make no sense, but I must say that 29ers and full suspension do have merits. Game changing? Maybe not, but they really suit every aspect of MTB and allow for faster, longer, and better riding if you're used to it. 1x drivetrains are also great because they lower cost, increase simplicity, and look/feel better. I've even put a 1x on my gravel bike. 

After owning a dozen aluminum bikes, I am going to try carbon on my next trail (120/130) bike. I want to see if the extra weight savings helps with how the bike feels compared to my hardtail, and if weight or geometry matters more when it comes to that aspect my burly Enduro rig struggles with. 
Your point about price is also valid, I bought a full XT/Factory build on an Alloy frame for the price of a lower end SLX/Fox Performance build carbon bike, and I don't regret it one bit. 

People spend more money on "nicer" things because they can afford it, and to me that might be irritating if they don't really use them properly, but I see a bigger issue with people buying into marketing narratives that everyone needs a 180mm e bike on every trail they ride- because of course a motor will compensate for the extra 15 pounds and extra suspension that will make every climb a slog.


----------



## kitsilanobob (Nov 18, 2005)

With bikes costing so much these days and replacement parts being scarce my approach is to own a bike that is well suited for my local terrain (a mix but nothing really aggressive) and to rent if and when I do go to bike parks. I'd rather let a rental take the use/abuse of a park and then hand it back at the end of the day. Also I don't think it's possible for a single bike to be optimal for all types of terrain.


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

jay_paradox said:


> Yeah age and joint protection is a big factor also.


I'm suspicious about the joint protection argument. Lots of older runners out there too and that is far harder on the joints and back than cycling. In fact, I can go on an epic ride and still workout the next day. If I do a 1.5 hour jog, I'm toast the next day. I also don't get back soreness from cycling but if I go on a fast paced 5k run, my back feels it for days. 

I'm pretty sure the human body can acclimate over time to the "pounding" that mountain biking delivers, which is really not that much. Sure, when you first start out, it will suck. But give it a year, and your body will acclimate.


----------



## gocat (Feb 27, 2012)

tick_magnet said:


> I'm suspicious about the joint protection argument. Lots of older runners out there too and that is far harder on the joints and back than cycling. In fact, I can go on an epic ride and still workout the next day. If I do a 1.5 hour jog, I'm toast the next day. I also don't get back soreness from cycling but if I go on a fast paced 5k run, my back feels it for days.
> 
> I'm pretty sure the human body can acclimate over time to the "pounding" that mountain biking delivers, which is really not that much. Sure, when you first start out, it will suck. But give it a year, and your body will acclimate.




Sounds like your young. But I dont exercise much during the week. Riding once a weekend is my fun time/ exercise.


----------



## BadgerOne (Jul 17, 2015)

Amt0571 said:


> BTW, I don't get why Shimano is not sitting in a court for the Ultegra cranks separation issue. That's the stuff that scares the **** out of me. If I had a road bike with them I'd replace them ASAP.


Which series? I've got a roadie with 6800s on it.


----------



## JerzyBoy (May 26, 2008)

CannondaleF9 said:


> I went the route of longer travel (160) because my 130 trail bike wasn't cutting it at the bike park that was closer to my house than any pedal access trail network. I know I'm in the minority here, but that's why I went that route. I figured a 160 would manage both areas decently well, and then bought the hardtail for the few places where climbing was more important.
> 
> Then there's my dad who bought a 180mm bike for the bike park, and hates climbing regardless of what he is on. "It doesn't matter what the bike is, I won't climb well on it." So I guess there are some people whose climbing style is more of a "if I can't sit and spin in first gear I might as well just push".
> 
> ...


The money aspect isn't really what I was getting at. My budget is big for my next bike, but that being said I'm not gonna buy more travel than I need and have my enjoyment on rides go down the hill because I'm pedaling around way more weight than I really need to. I just see guys/girls riding around 160+ mm travel bikes around on the same trails I used to run on a Specialized Epic w 100mm or my RM Etsx that had 130 mm and never even came close to bottoming out on. I think they tell themselves they will hit all these big drops, and go all these wonderful places in the mountains with these bikes, and then never do. They end up riding the same stretches singletrack that could be done on lesser travel bikes with ease and more comfort.


----------



## BuzzinHornets (Sep 17, 2005)

Are people these days too concerned with what equipment other people are using? Seriously why would anyone care how much travel someone else is riding?


----------



## jay_paradox (Oct 21, 2020)

tick_magnet said:


> I'm suspicious about the joint protection argument. Lots of older runners out there too and that is far harder on the joints and back than cycling. In fact, I can go on an epic ride and still workout the next day. If I do a 1.5 hour jog, I'm toast the next day. I also don't get back soreness from cycling but if I go on a fast paced 5k run, my back feels it for days.
> 
> I'm pretty sure the human body can acclimate over time to the "pounding" that mountain biking delivers, which is really not that much. Sure, when you first start out, it will suck. But give it a year, and your body will acclimate.


Yeah I’m 42 and I hope to still be riding technical downhill, hitting modest jumps and drops for a long time. At least long enough for my younger boys to see what their dad can do! 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

BuzzinHornets said:


> Are people these days too concerned with what equipment other people are using? Seriously why would anyone care how much travel someone else is riding?


THANK YOU


----------



## spaightlabs (Dec 3, 2011)

Like Mom always said - "you've got enough to worry about with you, don't worry about anyone else."

ride what ya want, don't worry about whether someone else is running too much bike, and smile, this is supposed to be fun.


----------



## the-one1 (Aug 2, 2008)

We need a poll. Someone get on it STAT!


----------



## BadgerOne (Jul 17, 2015)

Ktse said:


> For the last decade I regularly rode an all mountain bike with 150 mm rear and 160 mm travel. It worked great in the bike park and rough terrain but not that agile for xc compared to hardtails or shorter travel bikes. However, the main thing for me was that it was a huge confidence booster; rock gardens at speed, steep drop ins, accidental casings, it didn't really matter, the bike shrugged it off and it was fun and allowed me to safely push my comfort zone and improve my skills.


In some ways this a contradiction in terms. Making things easier doesn't improve the skill set, outside of high speed bike handling. It just makes things safer so long as you're not going mach chicken and improves confidence. Can be fun though as you mentioned.


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

I see people riding full suspension bikes in trails I ride a hardtail on, and friends ride rigids on.  

Do I care? Meh, not so much. Then again, I've also taken my 150/160 bike on those same trails, just because it was new and I felt like riding it. Who cares.


----------



## kpdemello (May 3, 2010)

I think it's because most people have only one bike. With modern bikes there is almost no penalty to going from 120mm of travel to 150mm of travel in terms of pedaling performance. But if you find yourself in a situation where you need that extra travel, it's nice to have it.

It's also just plain easier to ride with more travel. More travel can save you if you make a mistake or don't have great riding form, and most of the newcomers to this sport aren't really interested in paying the price of crashing to increase their skills.

Being underbiked can be fun but not everybody wants to be the fully-rigid guy sending the DH line.


----------



## NWA_Tre (Sep 30, 2021)

Here in NWA overbiking is a huge thing. We don't have any true downhill here. Sure, there's tech, and if you go fast over it, maybe you'll want more travel. But largely what we have here is modern XC courses. As mentioned, I know XC is a dirty word that means smooth, groomed trails with mostly climbing and flowy descents. That doesn't describe our trails at all. Quick punchy climbs, rocks, roots, drops, loose gravel...it's very bench-cut/handcut into the side of rock. I would say it's XC meets All Mountain, in a way. Still, none of that begs for 150+MM of travel, nor is it punishing unless you find those super chunky trails and exclusively ride them (which some may do). 

Same with the jump parks/runs. Some really are into those more than anything. Some even own specific bikes for that. But most seem to have a do-it-all bike that's in that 150-160 travel range, mostly ride the XC type trails that ALL of NWA is full of, and only occasionally venture beyond that. 

I do think it's marketing: I'll ride faster and more comfortable on this bike (except the climbs, flats, etc.). And yes, some of it is the need for a do-it-all bike. But if you're not racing downhill for time, and it's only 20% of your riding...I'd argue a 130 would do you just fine.

The other thing to consider as Steve from HTP mentions is that a ton of travel means your geo is changing dramatically as you actually use that travel. You go from 63* HTA to 71* HTA in a hurry. This requires a much higher level of reaction/adjustment from the body...


----------



## spaightlabs (Dec 3, 2011)

the-one1 said:


> We need a poll. Someone get on it STAT!


May I suggest a title?

Is Dirt Jumper running too much bike?


----------



## Tinshield (Aug 1, 2007)

I think this is true for quite a bit of people out there. A lot of it has to do with the industry and others telling them what they should buy instead of an honest evaluation of what they need. Many people buy a bike for the worst case scenario and defaulting to a "more capable" bike. Here's the reality though, if you're a trail rider and ride mostly XC, the more capable bike is only more capable a small amount of time and a lot LESS capable climbing. The rest is pushing against a lot more weight and suspension. I'm 52 and have two bikes:

2021 Specialized Stumpjumper S-works
2021 Devinci Troy
The Troy is 4 lbs heavier than the Stumpy. 27.5 lbs vs 31.5 lbs. The frame is heavier and less forgiving and the wheels are a bit more too. But, here's the thing, the Stumpy rides the same stuff the Troy does, just sometimes a hair slower on the descents. There are times that the Troy is more capable but it's no game changer for me unless I go to the bike park. Everywhere else the Stumpy performs as well and better in most conditions. On long rides I'm quite a bit more fresh on the lighter bike. I'm not slow but at my age but I don't need to go faster at this point. I do not get up as easily after falls anymore.

I see guys on 35 lb enduro bikes on local XC all the time. They ride with other guys on the same stuff so it's not a big deal. If you're of equal ability as your friends and you're on an enduro bike and they are on light trail bikes you'll see a large difference over long rides.


----------



## Amt0571 (May 22, 2014)

BadgerOne said:


> Which series? I've got a roadie with 6800s on it.


It's that one. Look for "ultegra crank failure" on Google. There have been a couple of serious accidents at least, and lots of road rash because of them.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

BadgerOne said:


> Making things easier doesn't improve the skill set, outside of high speed bike handling.


There's a sweet spot for learning between too easy and too difficult. That's why racers primarily train with the type of bike appropriate for the type of racing they do (not including fitness training).


----------



## CannondaleF9 (Nov 17, 2012)

BuzzinHornets said:


> Are people these days too concerned with what equipment other people are using? Seriously why would anyone care how much travel someone else is riding?


It's the same reason why people wonder why some buy trucks and suvs to drive their kids to school and do grocery runs with. Marketing trends convince people that certain things are cool, therefore they need to buy them.
One may argue that it's their own money and their decision, so people shouldn't care. The flipside is fabricated marketing trends lead to real purchasing trends, which result in what's unpopular being slowly phased out.

Let's say, if e-bikes make up 60% of the market share in the future, then 75% of all bikes produced the following year will be e-bikes to accomodate for the rapid growth in interest. Great for e-bikers, but that means 15% of pedal bike models will be phased out in the name of making more room for e-bike production. 

Same with cars; rapid growth of SUV interest has closed/replaced factories making sedans and wagons, and it's becoming harder to find cars that aren't sitting on stilts and big tires. 

So, while it comes off as snobby and nitpicky to wonder why people overbike, it's the long lasting market trends that might affect everyone in a few years.


----------



## Amt0571 (May 22, 2014)

tick_magnet said:


> I personally don't even buy used bikes anymore because about 95% of the people I know with fancy bikes never service their suspension. Sometimes they will service dropper posts when they get stuck. But shitty suspension performance is undetectable to 95% of consumers.


I also see this. Couple of grand bikes with worn stanchions everywhere. It's also true of drive trains. Most people don't replace the chain until the transmission is completely trashed. And don't get me started on cup & cone bearings... 

I suppose they buy the bike but don't factor the cost of servicing it. In time, or money.

The only bike I bought used was a fully rigid hybrid I use to ride around town and to carry my son in a child seat. Even then, I had to overhaul the whole bike to make it work.


----------



## Tinshield (Aug 1, 2007)

kpdemello said:


> I think it's because most people have only one bike. With modern bikes there is almost no penalty to going from 120mm of travel to 150mm of travel in terms of pedaling performance. But if you find yourself in a situation where you need that extra travel, it's nice to have it.
> 
> It's also just plain easier to ride with more travel. More travel can save you if you make a mistake or don't have great riding form, and most of the newcomers to this sport aren't really interested in paying the price of crashing to increase their skills.
> 
> Being underbiked can be fun but not everybody wants to be the fully-rigid guy sending the DH line.


150 bikes generally have a large bump in weight over a 120mm bike and often come with heavier wheelsets. There's definitely a penalty. All of our trails here are roots, rocks and punchy ups and downs. There's elevation but mostly not all at once so the bigger bikes don't play to their strengths that much other than to require more effort.

The comment about it being easier to ride more travel is interesting because I often forget how I started on fully rigid hardtails before we even had suspension forks. We learned to ride without all that shuff so my perspective is often framed around that reality.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

NWA_Tre said:


> The other thing to consider as Steve from HTP mentions is that a ton of travel means your geo is changing dramatically as you actually use that travel. You go from 63* HTA to 71* HTA in a hurry. This requires a much higher level of reaction/adjustment from the body...


That's mostly for hardtails though. If you're bottoming out your rear shock then you're using a decent amount of fork travel too. If you're using most of your fork travel without much rear shock then **** went wrong anyway and you'll be glad to have the travel.


----------



## dllawson819 (Feb 22, 2019)

Amt0571 said:


> Yes.
> 
> People buy whatever is trending at the moment and make stupid buying decisions.
> If I look around me, it's full of carbon bikes with Recon forks and low-end brakes around the 2000€ mark. Why do people buy this when they could get a Fox 34 and decent brakes with an alu frame for less than that and with a dropper to boot? because carbon is trendy.
> ...


Tubeless tires


----------



## kpdemello (May 3, 2010)

Tinshield said:


> 150 bikes generally have a large bump in weight over a 120mm bike and often come with heavier wheelsets. There's definitely a penalty.


Maybe a bit of a weight penalty based on the component spec, but in terms of pedaling performance, there really isn't any. The current trend is heavier, more capable bikes. Most newcomers don't care about an extra couple of pounds on the frame. Heavier bikes can also be easier to ride downhill because they add stability.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

I have an enduro type bike with 170/161 travel that's 36#. I also have a 150/140 trail bike that's 28#. Despite the relatively large weight difference, I'll grab the heavier enduro bike 99% of the time for a trail ride because it handles better (geometry) and the suspension is of higher quality so it feels better. Although most of our trail network is what people would consider mellow xc there are sections of more demanding terrain and the bigger bike lets me have more control for the trickier lines and bigger jumps/drops.

Also, I often travel to other places to ride so the bigger bike is more versatile for whatever terrain I might encounter. Someone on my home turf might look at my bike and think "that's way too much bike for here" but they're seeing only one brief moment in time when they make that judgement.


----------



## d365 (Jun 13, 2006)

Ride what you want. I prefer riding my 140/130mm bike to my 120/100mm - up, down, all around. There are lots of places within a 2 hr drive that I would prefer to have even more travel, if I went regularly.


----------



## dllawson819 (Feb 22, 2019)

NWA_Tre said:


> I would say it's XC meets All Mountain, in a way.


CrossMountain coming soon!!!


----------



## brex17 (Jan 31, 2019)

Just make sure you get a bike with a dropper post. If you don't, you're a terrible person and will always be a terrible rider that can't even ride perfectly groomed trails in the north east.


----------



## prj71 (Dec 29, 2014)

JerzyBoy said:


> I just can't understand why everyone seems to be riding these huge long travel bikes on flowy singletrack with long climbs, etc when they could get away all day every day with 130mm travel and a lighter bike. I guess it would make sense if they had one bike to do it all, but most have seperate bikes they take to do the downhill stuff.


Where are you seeing this?

Where I live in the midwest everyone that I ride with and see, including myself, are in the 115 - 130 mm range.


----------



## old_er (Dec 27, 2020)

brex17 said:


> Just make sure you get a bike with a dropper post. If you don't, you're a terrible person and will always be a terrible rider that can't even ride perfectly groomed trails in the north east.


Where are these perfectly groomed trails in the northeast?


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

Some people are over-biked, some people have a bike that suits other ride spots or bike trips, some people just feel more secure on extra travel. Who cares?

I know this: a lot of really good riders choose to be under-biked and I don't complain about it. I know that many people are perfectly capable of riding a double black on a no suspension single speed, I've seen it done and at a fast pace too.


----------



## MattMay (Dec 24, 2013)

brex17 said:


> Just make sure you get a bike with a dropper post. If you don't, you're a terrible person and will always be a terrible rider that can't even ride perfectly groomed trails in the north east.


LOL, wouldn’t happen to be a reference to the shenanigans going on in the “Can You Spot the Difference” thread by the OP there would it? Wackiest thread ever. But entertaining.


----------



## stripes (Sep 6, 2016)

JerzyBoy said:


> I got out of mountain biking back in 08 due to moving, marriage, etc. I just had no time for it anymore. Flash forward to a few mos ago and I got back into it. Back then most people hit my local trails on 100-120 mm bikes. 120 was probably the sweet spot. The downhill guys who made runs to the bike park on the weekends ran 150-160 mm bikes. All of that made sense for the types of riding people in both classes were doing. The terms Enduro and All Mountain were out there but never really made sense to me because the bikes in that class still weren't robust enough to take to the bike park, and were way overkill for most singletrack and trails in my area. Nowadays I hit the same trail systems I used to ride at and I see people pedaling around heavier 150-170 mm bikes and I can't help but ask myself why. I'm on a hardtail currently and I'm not getting beat up in the least, although I do plan on buying another full suspension within the next 6 mos.
> 
> I just can't understand why everyone seems to be riding these huge long travel bikes on flowy singletrack with long climbs, etc when they could get away all day every day with 130mm travel and a lighter bike. I guess it would make sense if they had one bike to do it all, but most have seperate bikes they take to do the downhill stuff.
> 
> ...


Ride what you like.

I ride in CO, and I see everything from single speed to full on enduro bikes on trails here. At the same time, I see the same thing at bike parks here. People are happy with whatever they decide.

Personally, unless I like being overbiked--it makes me want to challenge myself and ride harder stuff. I spent my early days (early to late 90s) riding hardtail 26in bikes with 60mm of travel on technical stuff in toe clips. I loved it, except the toe clips part.

Today (25-30 years later), I ride a 170mm travel bike on just about everything. I have two other bikes (one with plus tires and shorter travel for more XC type rides that are smoother, and a DH bike for park riding). So what if I'm overbiked? I'm having a good time. Would I ride a shorter travel bike for most things? Sure, but it's hard to find a shorter travel bike with 27.5 wheels that really gets my attention (I don't like carbon either, so that tends to limit my options), and most 27.5 bikes these days are "enduro." I'm also not a fan of 29er wheels, being short and liking playful bikes. So again, thanks to the industry, my options are limited.

So my bikes are all 27.5, including the one plus bike (which is a 29er frame that fits 27.5+). Back to ride what you like.


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

old_er said:


> Where are these perfectly groomed trails in the northeast?


We have lots of them in northern Vermont. but we also have lots that are not perfectly groomed as well.


----------



## old_er (Dec 27, 2020)

BushwackerinPA said:


> We have lots of them in northern Vermont. but we also have lots that are not perfectly groomed as well.


When I hear the term perfectly groomed my mind assumes smooth flow trail. I live and ride in the NY/NJ area and most trails are predominantly covered with rock and roots.
My Tallboy is my only mtb and 75% of the time it is all I need.


----------



## Tinshield (Aug 1, 2007)

BushwackerinPA said:


> We have lots of them in northern Vermont. but we also have lots that are not perfectly groomed as well.


When I go to KT sometimes I feel I'm overbiked with my Stumpy. 😄 It's definitely pretty smooth. Went to Ascutney this Summer too. Hate that place LOL.


----------



## Hardrake (Apr 25, 2015)

What many people don't realize is that if you spend $9,000 or more on a long travel 29er, such as a 160/140 enduro/trail bike; you will potentially have a bike that weighs about the same or lighter than most 130/120 trail bikes. In comparison to a shorter travel bike, you achieve roughly the same weight and get more travel. That's much better, in my opinion. You can make a longer travel bike climb better but you can't make a shorter travel bike descend better!


----------



## Whiterabbitt (May 16, 2020)

I think most of you are over-car’d for your grocery getter and commuter.

CoO is much lower on a geo metro and just as fast on legal streets.


----------



## DeoreDX (Jul 28, 2007)

Suspension kinematics can be tuned to ride however you want. Want a stable pedaling platform that accelerates strong when you pedal? Or would you rather have a more active suspension? Total travel doesn't matter, that type of suspension kinematics can be designed in and tuned into the suspension. I don't like to think of it as over biking or under biking. I like to think that the amount of travel equates to how much I want to de-feature a trail. The bigger the travel the bigger the feature your suspension can absorb. Defeaturing a trail can make make the ride more comfortable and makes it easier to go fast. But is can also make certain trails feel boring if your bike can roll over every feature without consequence. The less travel you have the more "stuff' you have to pay attention to. New gnarly trail I've never ridden before? I love 150/140 29rs. Gnarly trail that I ride a lot? I love the 130/120 bike as keeps me a little more engaged in a trail and is a good compromise between comfort, speed, and defeaturing. Somewhat tame trails that I ride a lot? Single speed is where it's at. If I only had a 140mm+ bike I would probably have to seek out bigger and steeper trail system to really challenge myself to get that feeling of being engaged on the trail. Different people have different goals on the trail. A lot of the initial focus tends to be on going downhill fast as that's what's in all the videos and ads and that what sells bikes. New bikers tend to buy into that mind set and look at those big travel trail bikes as they don't really understand the trails around them and think it's better to have too much travel than not enough. As they get experience they tend to branch one of two ways, either veer towards the more travel bigger jumps bigger features faster and faster bro crowd or take the other brand towards less travel less about speed and big features and more towards being engaged and connected to the trails around them.


----------



## Tinshield (Aug 1, 2007)

Hardrake said:


> What many people don't realize is that if you spend $9,000 or more on a long travel 29er, such as a 160/140 enduro/trail bike; you will potentially have a bike that weighs about the same or lighter than most 130/120 trail bikes. In comparison to a shorter travel bike, you achieve roughly the same weight and get more travel. That's much better, in my opinion. You can make a longer travel bike climb better but you can't make a shorter travel bike descend better,


What do you consider as "roughly the same weight"? I do agree that you can get a longer travel bike in the ball park but the issue is that the longer the travel is often speced with heavier wheels and suspension. All things being equal, once you venture into 140mm frames the weight has to usually increase as there is more stress on it.


----------



## NWA_Tre (Sep 30, 2021)

jeremy3220 said:


> That's mostly for hardtails though. If you're bottoming out your rear shock then you're using a decent amount of fork travel too. If you're using most of your fork travel without much rear shock then **** went wrong anyway and you'll be glad to have the travel.


I guess I didn't consider this thread specific to Full Sus, but the clarification of my statement is warranted.


----------



## NWA_Tre (Sep 30, 2021)

dllawson819 said:


> CrossMountain coming soon!!!


Ha! From a marketing perspective, probably. What I meant by that was the flow of the trail, the overall elevation gain/loss is more akin to XC...but the terrain, the surfaces you're riding are definitely raw and often sketchy.


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

If you run the same wheels/ tires on your XC bike or enduro bike, there is very little difference. 75% of the difference is in the wheels/ tires anyways.

My SJ Evo suspension kinematics are better than my Spur by a large margin. The Spur is just built to a much lighter spec making it pedal considerably better.


----------



## NWA_Tre (Sep 30, 2021)

Suns_PSD said:


> If you run the same wheels/ tires on your XC bike or enduro bike, there is very little difference. 75% of the difference is in the wheels/ tires anyways.
> 
> My SJ Evo suspension kinematics are better than my Spur by a large margin. The Spur is just built to a much lighter spec making it pedal considerably better.


I agree with this, too. Carbon frames often are only 1lb. lighter than their aluminum counterparts. The BB/Cranks, Cassette, Wheelset, etc. make more of a difference in the overall weight. Many crappy spec'd Carbon bikes weigh as much as well-spec'd aluminum.


----------



## Tinshield (Aug 1, 2007)

Suns_PSD said:


> If you run the same wheels/ tires on your XC bike or enduro bike, there is very little difference. 75% of the difference is in the wheels/ tires anyways.
> 
> My SJ Evo suspension kinematics are better than my Spur by a large margin. The Spur is just built to a much lighter spec making it pedal considerably better.


Yeah I think that's mostly true. Compare an EVO to a regular SJ and I believe the frame weight is only about 1/2 lb different. Add another 1/2 lbs for the larger fork. The rest can be the same. It's a good point because many folks like the comfort of more travel and don't need the rest of the "enduro" spec. You'll need to build your own to get there though.


----------



## Tinshield (Aug 1, 2007)

NWA_Tre said:


> I agree with this, too. Carbon frames often are only 1lb. lighter than their aluminum counterparts. The BB/Cranks, Cassette, Wheelset, etc. make more of a difference in the overall weight. Many crappy spec'd Carbon bikes weigh as much as well-spec'd aluminum.


Actually, I've been doing some comparisons lately and the difference is closer to 2 lbs.


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

gocat said:


> Sounds like your young. But I dont exercise much during the week. Riding once a weekend is my fun time/ exercise.


Just to clarify, I'm not saying there are no circumstances for which a full suspension bikes won't help with health issues. If you need it, then you know who you are. I'm sympathetic toward people with genuine health issues or circumstances that prevent their bodies from acclimating.

I'm just suspicious of the general statement that "older riders need full suspension bikes." I don't buy it anymore than I buy the idea that everyone needs a wheelchair when they are >50.


----------



## NWA_Tre (Sep 30, 2021)

Tinshield said:


> Actually, I've been doing some comparisons lately and the difference is closer to 2 lbs.


Right, and you can makeup that much and more with better components. Sure, if your goal is ultimately lowest weight possible, lighter frame is the way to go. If you're good in a 2lb. range, components can get you there. Carbon being more expensive, often harsher, and arguably more fragile is a factor to some.


----------



## Rod (Oct 17, 2007)

This is a prime example of marketing departments doing their jobs extremely well. I'm just glad to see folks out there on bikes.


----------



## abeckstead (Feb 29, 2012)

To answer your original question, yes generally I believe people buy too much bike. However it does provide a safety margin for beginners as the bike can get them out of trouble. Imo a 130-140mm bike is a pretty good all rounder. It’s best at good ol trail riding, can jump and can be raced without too much penalty. The engine (legs) and rider skills are still more important than the bike. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

@Tinshield 


see I have hardtail and a 160/150 and every time I go to KTA on my hardtail I am reminded about how many roots there are at speed. When I go on my 160/150 Its kind of big and not as poppy as my hardtail, so I end up on Burke smashing down Moose alley or J bar. 

Ideal KTA bike is 120 bike that can jump well IMO. 

You have to understand that KTA is pretty rare in northern vermont. Its natural hand built flow trail with some machine built trail. Most places in Northern Vermont are either more technical or machine built. Hand built flow trail is something that only really exist at KTA, and a place called Cady Falls Nursery. Every place else is either fairly rooty/rocky. Or literally devoid of all roots and rocks


----------



## dundundata (May 15, 2009)

Even if frame weight was only 1lb lighter for carbon it would be worth it for the weight conscious.

I do find my bigger bike too much for some riding which is why I have more than 1. If only 1 bike 130mm would be good.


----------



## Tinshield (Aug 1, 2007)

BushwackerinPA said:


> @Tinshield
> 
> 
> see I have hardtail and a 160/150 and every time I go to KTA on my hardtail I am reminded about how many roots there are at speed. When I go on my 160/150 Its kind of big and not as poppy as my hardtail, so I end up on Burke smashing down Moose alley or J bar.
> ...


No doubt. It's a nice change from the MA/NH crag. The dirt up there seems pretty amazing too. I had been worried about losing the three T's but damn, that new stuff is amazing! Black Bear is unreal.


----------



## Rod (Oct 17, 2007)

tick_magnet said:


> I'm suspicious about the joint protection argument. Lots of older runners out there too and that is far harder on the joints and back than cycling. In fact, I can go on an epic ride and still workout the next day. If I do a 1.5 hour jog, I'm toast the next day. I also don't get back soreness from cycling but if I go on a fast paced 5k run, my back feels it for days.
> 
> I'm pretty sure the human body can acclimate over time to the "pounding" that mountain biking delivers, which is really not that much. Sure, when you first start out, it will suck. But give it a year, and your body will acclimate.



I'm not old, but I did a 6 hour race and I felt beat up the next day. There are a lot of variables at play. The harshness of the trail system, length of the ride, speed you're hitting the obstacles, tire pressure, tire width, fork, etc.


----------



## CannondaleF9 (Nov 17, 2012)

Tinshield said:


> When I go to KT sometimes I feel I'm overbiked with my Stumpy. 😄 It's definitely pretty smooth. Went to Ascutney this Summer too. Hate that place LOL.


I rode KT with my Dad last month. He was on his 180mm Slayer and I was on my hardtail. We were with a group with family and younger riders so it was slow riding and he still had as much fun as the rest of us, though I reckon it was harder for him on such a big bike. 



Hardrake said:


> What many people don't realize is that if you spend $9,000 or more on a long travel 29er, such as a 160/140 enduro/trail bike; you will potentially have a bike that weighs about the same or lighter than most 130/120 trail bikes. In comparison to a shorter travel bike, you achieve roughly the same weight and get more travel. That's much better, in my opinion. You can make a longer travel bike climb better but you can't make a shorter travel bike descend better!


You can buy a lightweight bike around 140mm, I'm not sure about much more than that. Once you get coil shocks, or oversized air shocks, more than a 34 fork, and strong wheels/tires, the weight starts to add up. 

I think you can make a shorter travel bike descend better by adding wider bars, a dropper, stronger wheels, better brakes and tires, etc, etc. A long travel bike will climb worse because of the slacker angles and more plush suspension, unless you have a (weaker) superlight frame, carbon wheels, and full lockouts. 

There certainly is a happy medium, but I would feel much more comfortable sending double black tech trails on a 130mm alloy trail bike than a fully carbon fiber lightweight "enduro" bike.


----------



## Amt0571 (May 22, 2014)

dllawson819 said:


> Tubeless tires


I disagree on this one.


----------



## sfr4dr (Dec 24, 2004)

All depends on where you ride. My "backyard" trails are perfectly matched to my Ripmo AF and I ride it right up to the limit of what it's capable of. Just need to get the right tool for to match the majority of your rides. There's some trail bikes like the Ripley and light enduro bikes like the Ripmo that are very efficient and light for what they can do. They're much more efficient than a 170/160 coil rear Fox 38 sled that only really belongs on jump trails, bike parks and shuttle laps.


----------



## xcandrew (Dec 30, 2007)

Hardrake said:


> What many people don't realize is that if you spend $9,000 or more on a long travel 29er, such as a 160/140 enduro/trail bike; you will potentially have a bike that weighs about the same or lighter than most 130/120 trail bikes. In comparison to a shorter travel bike, you achieve roughly the same weight and get more travel. That's much better, in my opinion. You can make a longer travel bike climb better but you can't make a shorter travel bike descend better!


What's considered light? EWS Pros' bikes seem to weigh 31-33.x lbs.

My '90s steel hardtail with an anchor-like (1960g/4.32lb) 65mm travel Z2 Bomber fork, a nice 2x front defaileur (that I just put on recently) and no weight weenie parts is only 26.0 lbs. Many here would say my entire bike isn't worth even $300, yet I get to ride around a bike 5-8 lbs lighter than many people I see on trails that I'm not under biked on. Not to say those people are overbiked - there are a few trails that I don't do here, and a bike park a short ride away.

Video: How Much Do the EWS Pros' Bikes Weigh? - Pinkbike


----------



## blkdout (Oct 3, 2021)

I went from a 100mm hardtail to a 150mm full suspension. Ultimately, I "over biked" on purpose because I wanted a big boaty machine to plow over all the features without hesitation... and it does just that. My bike is also a carbon frame without top of the line components, oh my! If any of that bothers you, you're the one not having a good time.


----------



## JerzyBoy (May 26, 2008)

BuzzinHornets said:


> Are people these days too concerned with what equipment other people are using? Seriously why would anyone care how much travel someone else is riding?


I question it because after being out of the sport so long, maybe I'm missing something and there's a reason people are opting to go this route.


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

The rear suspension design plays into this. My lithium (currently running 150 rear, 160 front) pedals better than any full suspension bike I rode in the 2000s. By huge amounts. That's without hitting the climb switch on the x2 I'm running on it. Leaving me with a bike that's not intolerable on trails where I'm not using the suspension much, leaving weight as the primary penalty. Would I race XC with it? Nope, but it does things well enough that it's ridable everywhere.

I also have a hardtail running a 140 fork, so.. you know, options.


----------



## plummet (Jul 8, 2005)

I run a 165-180mm slayer as my daily ride and love the hell out of it. I can ride literally anything with it from dh tracks, rediculious steep goat track to all day back country epics to easy as rides with the kids and everything in between. 

I cant do all of those things on a 130mm bike. That bike will have an upper limited of gnar that is lower than what I want to ride..... Why have a bike that I cant or dont want to ride some features on? 

For me the one bike to rule them all is a big hitting enduro bike built to about the same weight as a 130mm bike.........

I can see that for dudes not riding track above the level of what a 130mm bike can easily handle a 130mm bike makes sense. For me the 130mm trail bike is dead. All hail the mighty 160/180mm stormer.


----------



## BadgerOne (Jul 17, 2015)

dysfunction said:


> The rear suspension design plays into this. My lithium (currently running 150 rear, 160 front) pedals better than any full suspension bike I rode in the 2000s. By huge amounts. That's without hitting the climb switch on the x2 I'm running on it. Leaving me with a bike that's not intolerable on trails where I'm not using the suspension much, leaving weight as the primary penalty. Would I race XC with it? Nope, but it does things well enough that it's ridable everywhere.
> 
> I also have a hardtail running a 140 fork, so.. you know, options.


CBF, and its real world behavior compared to a refined DW link like Ibis, has me intrigued. I think one of the reasons I never loved my Escarpe was because I didn't love the suspension when climbing.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

dysfunction said:


> The rear suspension design plays into this. My lithium (currently running 150 rear, 160 front) pedals better than any full suspension bike I rode in the 2000s. By huge amounts. That's without hitting the climb switch on the x2 I'm running on it. Leaving me with a bike that's not intolerable on trails where I'm not using the suspension much, leaving weight as the primary penalty. Would I race XC with it? Nope, but it does things well enough that it's ridable everywhere.
> 
> I also have a hardtail running a 140 fork, so.. you know, options.


Facts. My 170/161 bike pedals better than nearly all of my previous FS bikes. It's also a lot heavier but I stopped focusing on gram shaving a long time ago. The only competition I'd be interested in signing up for any more are DH races, but even then it's _maybe_ one event per year, mostly for the camaraderie.


----------



## CannondaleF9 (Nov 17, 2012)

blkdout said:


> I went from a 100mm hardtail to a 150mm full suspension. Ultimately, I "over biked" on purpose because I wanted a big boaty machine to plow over all the features without hesitation... and it does just that. My bike is also a carbon frame without top of the line components, oh my! If any of that bothers you, you're the one not having a good time.


That's fair too, it all comes down to preference. I like how there are different brackets you can choose from, and there are different bikes for every kind of rider and riding style.


----------



## ocnLogan (Aug 15, 2018)

One topic I haven't seen as much mention of yet. The safety/confidence factor of more travel helps enable more progression, particularly for newer riders. That same benefit may not be as apparent for more established riders who can already ride all the things they want.

I've not been riding for all that long compared to most here (~3 years now). I started on a 100mm travel XC bike with 26in wheels and a 3x10 drivetrain. I enjoyed riding enough to buy a full squish (Kona Process 153). The move to full suspension (and better geo/etc) helped me unlock some "moves"/features on the local trails I rode with the XC bike. So same trails, but with more jumps/drops/etc. Same thing happened when I went to my first Demo day event. I demo'd a bike with 160mm travel rear, 180mm travel front, and while I was on that bike, I sent some additional features I'd never attempted.

And yet, when I go back and ride the same trails again (even on my hardtail), I now do many of the same features that used to scare me. As now I have an understanding of how "bad it actually is", and know how to ride the feature (the speed/line, etc).

So, put another way, if you're riding above your paygrade, the travel helps both mentally ("I've got all the travel, lets try THIS"), and physically (more travel to soak up a bad case/weird drop/whatever). But, once you've done some of the stuff, you can more easily walk it back on the travel.


----------



## Tinshield (Aug 1, 2007)

plummet said:


> I run a 165-180mm slayer as my daily ride and love the hell out of it. I can ride literally anything with it from dh tracks, rediculious steep goat track to all day back country epics to easy as rides with the kids and everything in between.
> 
> I cant do all of those things on a 130mm bike. That bike will have an upper limited of gnar that is lower than what I want to ride..... Why have a bike that I cant or dont want to ride some features on?
> 
> ...


You're not overbiked for the stuff you're riding so this doesn't pertain to you.


----------



## Tinshield (Aug 1, 2007)

ocnLogan said:


> One topic I haven't seen as much mention of yet. The safety/confidence factor of more travel helps enable more progression, particularly for newer riders. That same benefit may not be as apparent for more established riders who can already ride all the things they want.
> 
> I've not been riding for all that long compared to most here (~3 years now). I started on a 100mm travel XC bike with 26in wheels and a 3x10 drivetrain. I enjoyed riding enough to buy a full squish (Kona Process 153). The move to full suspension (and better geo/etc) helped me unlock some "moves"/features on the local trails I rode with the XC bike. So same trails, but with more jumps/drops/etc. Same thing happened when I went to my first Demo day event. I demo'd a bike with 160mm travel rear, 180mm travel front, and while I was on that bike, I sent some additional features I'd never attempted.
> 
> ...


I'd argue that it can do the opposite as well. Over confidence and more speed isn't safer either.


----------



## NWA_Tre (Sep 30, 2021)

ocnLogan said:


> One topic I haven't seen as much mention of yet. The safety/confidence factor of more travel helps enable more progression, particularly for newer riders. That same benefit may not be as apparent for more established riders who can already ride all the things they want.
> 
> I've not been riding for all that long compared to most here (~3 years now). I started on a 100mm travel XC bike with 26in wheels and a 3x10 drivetrain. I enjoyed riding enough to buy a full squish (Kona Process 153). The move to full suspension (and better geo/etc) helped me unlock some "moves"/features on the local trails I rode with the XC bike. So same trails, but with more jumps/drops/etc. Same thing happened when I went to my first Demo day event. I demo'd a bike with 160mm travel rear, 180mm travel front, and while I was on that bike, I sent some additional features I'd never attempted.
> 
> ...


I didn't think I was going to agree with this post as much as I do (and I haven't taken the same path, yet...)


----------



## NWA_Tre (Sep 30, 2021)

plummet said:


> I run a 165-180mm slayer as my daily ride and love the hell out of it. I can ride literally anything with it from dh tracks, rediculious steep goat track to all day back country epics to easy as rides with the kids and everything in between.
> 
> I cant do all of those things on a 130mm bike. That bike will have an upper limited of gnar that is lower than what I want to ride..... Why have a bike that I cant or dont want to ride some features on?
> 
> ...


As mentioned, you're not overbiked for what you do. Now, if your riding buddies were constantly beating you up the hill or you were getting dog tired and having to quit before you've had enough fun due to the cumbersome extra weight you're toting...then it would be a consideration. Doesn't sound like either are true, and for what/where you ride, you have your weapon.


----------



## kpdemello (May 3, 2010)

I hate this term "overbiked" because it's so vague. You can take a 120mm travel bike and put a piggyback shock on it with a 140mm fox 36 up front and DH casing tires on DH rims. That set up could be heavier than a 150/150 with no piggyback shock and a pike up front with light tires and rims. Which one's overbiked?

Frankly, the whole concept of "overbiked" is pedantic. People will and should ride whatever components they feel are fun without judgment. The next time you think someone else is overbiked think about the guy that's slaying your favorite downhill run on a fully rigid, because you know someone out there is slaying your trails with less bike than you (unless you're that fully rigid guy).


----------



## cassieno (Apr 28, 2011)

MattiThundrrr said:


> It's all trends, heavily influenced by the bike companies. They need to keep making new things, it's the nature of capitalism. Trends are starting to swing back the other way, with companies putting out more short travel offerings. And "trail" isn't cool enough anymore either. Now it's "down country" which is so cool it's sickening. If you are happy with less, go with it.


When I was looking to buy a FS bike three years ago (to replace my VP free). I was told by the bike shop to "just ride faster" when I told them I was concerned that a high tower was probably too much bike. Jokes on them - now I have no full suspensions (hardtails) and ride faster.


----------



## stripes (Sep 6, 2016)

dysfunction said:


> The rear suspension design plays into this. My lithium (currently running 150 rear, 160 front) pedals better than any full suspension bike I rode in the 2000s. By huge amounts. That's without hitting the climb switch on the x2 I'm running on it. Leaving me with a bike that's not intolerable on trails where I'm not using the suspension much, leaving weight as the primary penalty. Would I race XC with it? Nope, but it does things well enough that it's ridable everywhere.
> 
> I also have a hardtail running a 140 fork, so.. you know, options.


Facts. I can climb anything better on my Balance (170mm front and rear) than i could on my Ibis or my GGs with less travel. The suspension makes all the difference.


----------



## Whiterabbitt (May 16, 2020)

kpdemello said:


> Frankly, the whole concept of "overbiked" is pedantic.


This. Why do people have such a boner over what other people ride, and whether they are using that hardware to its full potential?

Other hobbies don't have this problem.


----------



## bingemtbr (Apr 1, 2004)

20 years ago, I was over-biked. I purchased a frame based on brand only--it had a cult following at the time and was the sh*t (figuratively and literally). I outfitted it with a Marz Jr T and at some point a MonsterT and custom tuned Romic rear coil shock. The cranks were "North Shore" versions of a standard RF offering. Tires were Gazzaloddis. The bike's weight at its lightest was 38lbs but really closer to 40+ lbs. Up until this point, I'd been riding stock bikes with a factory spec. 

Today, lessons learned from close to 3 1/2 decades of mountain biking, I have one rule: *the bike you are currently riding should always be the best bike you've ever owned*. Regardless of brand, wheel size, color, components, new or used (new to you)--the bike you will ride later today/this week, should be the culmination of every experience and every ounce of knowledge gleaned while pedaling. Some riders choose to cheat the experience and research period. These riders prefer to empty their wallets and blow their budget on what they perceive as: the more I spend, the better the experience. In some situations, this is true. In other situations, these dream bikes get resold to the benefit of other riders. 

Is 150-170mm travel bike the right bike for the Midwest? Is a 120mm bike the right bike for a bike park in the Rockies? Can you still race DH on a hardtail? My reply: who cares. You do you, I'm fine being me. 

My current mtb was determined by research (warranty & customer service) and by a test ride. I was fortunate I could afford an XT or XO level bike with carbon rims. However, the bikes I test rode were all different: SantaCruz Megatower, SC Hightower, SantaCruz 5010, and the SantaCruz Tallboy. I rode the in that order. When I first rode the MegaTower, I was sure this was the best bike ever created. Then I rode the HighTower, WOW! Then the HighTower was in first place, then the 5010...until the TB. The other bikes I rode a single 3mi loop with dry trails. The Tallboy, 3 laps, same loop, but it was pouring rain (FYI-the demo day was on private land with the full support of the land owner and local mtb club). I went back to the MegaTower and Hightower, still nowhere near the enjoyment level of the Tallboy. 

So what's changed in 20yrs? I have. And I'll change again. Next bike may be a big hit dh bike or a radical internally geared duallie. Not really sure. I do know it will be the best bike I've ever owned though.


----------



## ocnLogan (Aug 15, 2018)

Tinshield said:


> I'd argue that it can do the opposite as well. Over confidence and more speed isn't safer either.


Of course, it can, and does cut both ways.

But, again, my new-ish rider perspective (all my riding buddies have the same, or less time riding than I do) has a lot to do with this. And perhaps it is just my group of 4-5 guys and our age group/mentality, but I wouldn't say any of us have ever had what I'd call "overconfidence".

Instead, we all seem to have the reverse, where we're maybe a bit under-confident in our abilities, and are trying not to get hurt. Meaning, there are many obstacles that are pretty clearly within our skill set, but that the mental game of "do I try it or not" is a fair hurdle. And I guarantee that some of the features that we ride regularly now, wouldn't have been attempted on a hardtail, or 120mm travel bike. Even though I have now ridden those same lines, on hardtails.

Meaning, for my local trails, now that I'm more experienced, I'd probably consider the option of a bike with less travel. But me 2 years ago? No, I wouldn't have.


----------



## EatsDirt (Jan 20, 2014)

JerzyBoy said:


> I question it because after being out of the sport so long, maybe I'm missing something and there's a reason people are opting to go this route.


You clearly came into this with a bias.

If you are badass enough to smash down steep double black chunk on an HT, props... but some of us buy a bike suited for the trails they have the most fun on, at the cost of a little climbing efficiency. I'm _WAY_ over biked on many of my rides, but I have the right tool for the job when things get good.

If people choose to have a bike much more capable then their abilities with the intent to progress descending... more power to 'em.


----------



## stripes (Sep 6, 2016)

Whiterabbitt said:


> This. Why do people have such a boner over what other people ride, and whether they are using that hardware to its full potential?
> 
> Other hobbies don't have this problem.


+1000. 

I get thIs a lot, especially as a female rider, and as someone who rides coil bikes. It’s absolutely infuriates that people have nothing better to do than feel the need to say they’re better than you because they have dumb preconceived notions in their head.


----------



## *OneSpeed* (Oct 18, 2013)

Only one can be correct. Place your vote. 

1. Short travel bikes are more capable than ever. A modern 120mm bike is like an old 150mm. 

2. Longer travel bikes are more efficient than ever before so riders pay a smaller penalty for having extra travel. 



Okay so it's a trick question, they're both correct. (It's a good time to be a mountain biker  )

Ride what you like. I personally would rather be under biked than over biked though.


----------



## Whiterabbitt (May 16, 2020)

EatsDirt said:


> If you are badass enough to smash down steep double black chunk on an HT, props... but some of us buy a bike suited for the trails they have the most fun on, at the cost of a little climbing efficiency. I'm _WAY_ over biked on many of my rides, but I have the right tool for the job when things get good.
> 
> If people choose to have a bike much more capable then their abilities with the intent to progress descending... more power to 'em.


By the way, since I only own a couple bikes....

When my wife wants to ride her e-bike to the store, I sometimes go with her. Since I can't keep up with a 28 MPH e-bike uphills or flats or anywhere on a pedal bike, I take my Kenevo.

To the store.

To buy a gallon of milk.

And then ride home.

you BETTER BELIEVE I'm overbiked for that ride!






.....you know, other than my wife leaving me in the dust when I clock out at 20 mph....


----------



## Rev Bubba (Jan 16, 2004)

JerzyBoy said:


> My question is more about the travel though. Moneywise, all nice bikes now are expensive. Thats another whole topic. I have no problem spending the money on a nice bike especially with the lifetime frame warranties now. I just dropped 2700 on a hardtail. If you told me 12 years ago that in 2021 I'd do that I'd have called you crazy. I think the travel on most bikes is just way overkill and peoole would probably have more fun on 130mm than they realize. Thats really what I was getting at. I'm already budgeting around 5k give or take for my next bike. I just wanna tey and find the seeet spot of having a capable bike that dosen't have all this extra weight and travel that I will never need.


I think I did answer the travel question when I said me and many I ride with have honed in on 130/120 as the sweet spot for a trail bike. Back when demo's were available, I tried many different travel bikes and it always came back that the 130/120 combo was the best. 

Are people buying more suspension then they need? Definitely but I think its an age thing. Younger riders think they can conquer the world on long travel. Old riders know you can't. Just a thought. How does age and experience fit in with your question? Long travel is no substitute for skill.


----------



## EatsDirt (Jan 20, 2014)

Rev Bubba said:


> Younger riders think they can conquer the world on long travel.


I was towed down A-line for my first time by an 12yr old kid. Pretty sure they are conquering the world.


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

EatsDirt said:


> I was towed down A-line for my first time by an 12yr old kid. Pretty sure they are conquering the world.


That's how it works... although I'm 50 and have a long travel bike.. so maybe I'm just stupid, or something.


----------



## a_double (Apr 14, 2013)

Constant change supports constant revenue streams. The industry being industry.


----------



## JerzyBoy (May 26, 2008)

EatsDirt said:


> You clearly came into this with a bias.
> 
> If you are badass enough to smash down steep double black chunk on an HT, props... but some of us buy a bike suited for the trails they have the most fun on, at the cost of a little climbing efficiency. I'm _WAY_ over biked on many of my rides, but I have the right tool for the job when things get good.
> 
> If people choose to have a bike much more capable then their abilities with the intent to progress descending... more power to 'em.


Or…..I posted this wondering why 160mm used to be what a freeride/dh rider used to bring to the chair assisted stuff, and now people are riding them up the hill instead of down it.


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

JerzyBoy said:


> Or…..I posted this wondering why 160mm used to be what a freeride/dh rider used to bring to the chair assisted stuff, and now people are riding them up the hill instead of down it.


Because, unlike two decades ago, you really can


----------



## norcalbike (Dec 17, 2004)

JerzyBoy said:


> Or…..I posted this wondering why 160mm used to be what a freeride/dh rider used to bring to the chair assisted stuff, and now people are riding them up the hill instead of down it.


I rode a Santa Cruz VP-Free with 215mm rear travel back then for lift days. Most others were in a similar ballpark. It was really bikes like the Nomad that started to change that dynamic around 07-08 I think.


----------



## JerzyBoy (May 26, 2008)

stripes said:


> +1000.
> 
> I get thIs a lot, especially as a female rider, and as someone who rides coil bikes. It’s absolutely infuriates that people have nothing better to do than feel the need to say they’re better than you because they have dumb preconceived notions in their head.


You have a lot bigger issues than what bike you are riding if you feel that in any way this post was meant in any type of condescending way.


----------



## JerzyBoy (May 26, 2008)

dysfunction said:


> Because, unlike two decades ago, you really can


Thats kinda why I posted this. I was really looking for some clarification on what seems like a shift in what people are riding on these days.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

jay_paradox said:


> I think the main thing is just to be realistic with yourself and the terrain that you’re riding otherwise you’re lugging way more uphill than necessary.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Unfortunately for my climbing, a lot of my local terrain does require a lot of suspension. Many of the new trails are quite steep and rugged.


----------



## EatsDirt (Jan 20, 2014)

dysfunction said:


> That's how it works... although I'm 50 and have a long travel bike.. so maybe I'm just stupid, or something.


Some people are old well before 50... so maybe the stupidity (with long travel enabling) keeps us young.


----------



## fuzz_muffin (Dec 24, 2017)

OP should perhaps find something more productive to do then judge other riders on their local. Getting some real born again "hey guys you'll never guess what I figured out!!!!" vibes. 

I don't make much money. 
I do all the maintenance: house, bikes, car etc. 
I frequently ride tracks that are way more fun on big rigs. I'm not about to sink even more money keeping two bikes on the go just to optimise for pedally trails, don't strava, don't care. 
MTBs are stupidly expensive as is. 

So I 180/180 everywhere on outdated small wheels with DH tyres. It goes just fine. Rode other bikes at one point or another on the boring local trails too, hardtail, dj, trail bike, even a road bike one day, all different and all were fun. 

I love seeing the variety out there riding the same trails! Ebikes, xc rigs, enduhro, bmx, whatever. It's not an optimization problem, it's recreation for the purpose of enjoyment. 

Actually, I'd rather see no-one on the trails but that's another matter.


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

People, just because somebody asks you a question about why you ride a certain bike does not mean they are judging you or trying to offend you. I also ask underbiked people why they ride rigid forks, singlespeeds, etc because I might learn something about equipment that I didn't know before. For example, I learned about the importance of chainline from a singlespeeder. I asked him why he rides single speeds and it evolved into a discussion about efficiency etc. But it seems that if I ask an overbiked person about the equipment these days, it's like I am insulting their moms or ripping into their politics.


----------



## JerzyBoy (May 26, 2008)

fuzz_muffin said:


> OP should perhaps find something more productive to do then judge other riders on their local. Getting some real born again "hey guys you'll never guess what I figured out!!!!" vibes.
> 
> I don't make much money.
> I do all the maintenance: house, bikes, car etc.
> ...


Wasn’t judging. I asked a question. The industry has obviously shifted in a different direction. I don’t think it makes me a bad guy to want to know why.


----------



## JerzyBoy (May 26, 2008)

tick_magnet said:


> People, just because somebody asks you a question about why you ride a certain bike does not mean they are judging you or trying to offend you. I also ask underbiked people why they ride rigid forks, singlespeeds, etc because I might learn something about equipment that I didn't know before. For example, I learned about the importance of chainline from a singlespeeder. I asked him why he rides single speeds and it evolved into a discussion about efficiency etc. But it seems that if I ask an overbiked person about the equipment these days, it's like I am insulting their moms or ripping into their politics.


Thanks for getting it.


----------



## blackfly (May 1, 2005)

I ride old school Shore tech...not into groomed trails at all. My bike for 20 years has been a big bike.....8 inches front and rear. When you do steep hard tech all the time you come to appreciate the cush....and bailing you out. Yes, it is a Knolly Podium with 26 inch tires and I don't think (as I have the bike set up, I do a lot of esoteric things) that a new bike could better it as a full suspension. It does pedal uphill; not well, but it does. It is not the bike but the rider. This is lost on most today. You think a better bike makes you a better rider....I have seen riders on hardtails with 3 inch forks nail the toughest lines I can think of. When younger I used to do Dales' Rock on such a bike. Wouldn't think of it today on the same bike (and there is the geo, long stem and short bars to boot) There is more comfort in todays bikes but they won't teach you the skill. 

My other bike is a Knolly Ty Ti. Just moved from a Chromag Rootdown Ti and I love the hardtail. Especially as I started out on one and going back to "the roots" makes you appreciate everything. Yes, the Podium is nicer but I feel sometimes like it is cheating. Some lines are no challenge that a hardtail finds edgy. Both are fun. I found lately the hardtail gets the love because as I get older I realize I can't do this forever.

The real problem is the riders and trails. Trails today are smooth and lack a lot of challenge (at least where I am) and the riders seek them out as they are less challenging and require less skill. You can go down most of these trails on minimal bikes no problem but let's not forget marketing. There are a few whom still love the chunk but it is not the majority. And people today seem less "committed" in the sense they are not willing to accept risk as a part of riding (but will happily go way above the speed limit when driving etc...). Times have changed. 

I hope one day it will come back but I doubt it. For the smooth trails that are popular here you could easily get away with a hardtail and 100mm up front, but whom makes such a bike? Gotta push those kilobuck bikes somehow.


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

I keep seeing people ***** that every trail is an overly smoothed out, fully banked trail.. but I don't see it. There's a whopping one here, and it's a NICA race track.

Even so, doesn't really matter. People love to complain.


----------



## fuzz_muffin (Dec 24, 2017)

JerzyBoy said:


> Wasn’t judging. I asked a question. The industry has obviously shifted in a different direction. I don’t think it makes me a bad guy to want to know why.


Hmmm. Well honestly I think It's because we now can. It was simply not a thing to a have a bike with 160+ suspension that pedals well and wasn't a tank back in the oughts and early tens. It's just that now, all bikes barring XC weigh the same 

In that way I'd rather have one bike that lets me ride all the things than two highly optimised bikes that I could never decide between. Well that's a lie, with infinite money and space to store I'd have all the bikes.


----------



## NWA_Tre (Sep 30, 2021)

Here in NWA most of our NICA kids (I am one of the coaches) are definitely overbiked for the races. I get it though, because even though this is Bentonvill$, not all of them can afford two bikes, and they're kids...so they love to ride all the jump lines and enduro type trails they can...so of course they want more travel. The ones who do have two bikes usually bring the more XC oriented bike to the race events. Our race courses are incredibly flat, the occasional root or rock, but thus far have been dusty and relatively smooth. They honestly are green trails.


----------



## BrianU (Feb 4, 2004)

ocnLogan said:


> And yet, when I go back and ride the same trails again (even on my hardtail), I now do many of the same features that used to scare me. As now I have an understanding of how "bad it actually is", and know how to ride the feature (the speed/line, etc).


Two years ago I built up a Kona Honzo with gears and suspension after riding only a rigid SS for 13 years and experienced a similar situation. The confidence I gained on tackling certain features on my Honzo has allowed me to now do things on my rigid SS that I previously would not have attempted.


----------



## jay_paradox (Oct 21, 2020)

My bike from a few decades ago











Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## shadowsports (May 10, 2009)

More isn't necessarily better. That said, I do love my longer travel bike. Its super plush and comfortable to ride. In some 30 years of riding (starting with a Giant HT of course) I've ridden / owned bikes at every level of travel. 80, 100, 120, 130 >... now 170. This has been a progression. Even with a proper tune, I bottomed out the rear suspension on my front 120 and 130 travel bikes a few times. Rear travel was always the limiting factor. Most of us know the sound and feel the frame makes when you've taken the suspension past is capability. Rare, but 2 or 3 times is enough when your shopping for that "next" bike. 

More travel can also be a little more forgiving. Bad form, bad landing. More squish doesn't make you a better rider. I'm fine with my 32lb bike. Could it be lighter, faster, probably so. I could get by with less, but wanted to try a longer travel bike.


----------



## plummet (Jul 8, 2005)

Tinshield said:


> You're not overbiked for the stuff you're riding so this doesn't pertain to you.


True!

But if I rode past op on an easy 130mm trail he would think i'm overbiked based my riding of that day.......


----------



## Blatant (Apr 13, 2005)

Just a thought: Instead of posing the question to a bunch of random riders who live in various places — many of which likely require more travel — why not just ask the riders in your area riding these bikes you’re so confused by.

If you’re cool about it, maybe someone will trade bikes with you so you can learn firsthand.


----------



## blkdout (Oct 3, 2021)

I posted a sarcastic thread about being bothered by what other people are riding earlier... it got locked immediately lol. I've seen some horrible stuff posted here, personal attacks, etc. in my short time but I guess I went too far with the sarcasm...? I don't know haha.

Either way, my point was just to not worry about it. People are just different. You don't know if they're from out of state, if that bike landed in their lap or maybe they know nothing about bikes and just purchased what they liked at their local shop. So many variables as to why people ride what they ride. My philosophy, "You do you, but leave others alone while you do it."

Maybe just me but I can't imagine going up to someone and asking why they're riding what they're riding. Might as well ask why they chose the color while you're at it.


----------



## NWA_Tre (Sep 30, 2021)

Everyone is wrong. And everyone is right.


----------



## JerzyBoy (May 26, 2008)

Blatant said:


> Just a thought: Instead of posing the question to a bunch of random riders who live in various places — many of which likely require more travel — why not just ask the riders in your area riding these bikes you’re so confused by.
> 
> If you’re cool about it, maybe someone will trade bikes with you so you can learn firsthand.


None of this is confusing to me except your comment. It’s a good thing I read it though. My next question was gonna be about tires. Maybe some local riders will be willing to swap tires with me at the trailhead. They really should develop some kind of online platform where people can ask questions. Surprised no one ever thought of that.


----------



## Blatant (Apr 13, 2005)

Ah, now I see. You’re a dick and can’t actually speak to other humans. Carry on, then , while I update my ignore list.


----------



## JerzyBoy (May 26, 2008)

Blatant said:


> Ah, now I see. You’re a dick and can’t actually speak to other humans. Carry on, then , while I update my ignore list.


I appreciate you saving me the trouble. Have a great evening.


----------



## jay_paradox (Oct 21, 2020)

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Dirtfiend (May 5, 2010)

Yes most people are riding too much bike these days, but the real question is, why wouldn't they? Back in the 90's most MTB riders were on hardtails with cantilever brakes and horrid front suspension forks, 26" 1.8" wide wheels, and frame geometry that was more like a road bike. Sure that was "enough" to ride most XC trails back then. But if you only need to pay a 2 or 3 pound weight penalty over even a modern hardtail to get at least 140mm full squish travel, dropper posts, much more stable geometry, burly hydro disc brakes, tubeless 2.1" inch wide tires minimum in 27.5" or 29", I think the bigger question is why WOULDN'T you "ride too much bike?" Let's face it, even back in the heyday of "hardcore XC riding" the vast majority of riders were not weight weenie racer types. Being more comfortable on the bike and feeling safer is the way to go for the vast majority of riders and there isn't a thing wrong with that.


----------



## blammo585 (Apr 24, 2012)

JerzyBoy said:


> I got out of mountain biking back in 08 due to moving, marriage, etc. I just had no time for it anymore. Flash forward to a few mos ago and I got back into it. Back then most people hit my local trails on 100-120 mm bikes. 120 was probably the sweet spot. The downhill guys who made runs to the bike park on the weekends ran 150-160 mm bikes. All of that made sense for the types of riding people in both classes were doing. The terms Enduro and All Mountain were out there but never really made sense to me because the bikes in that class still weren't robust enough to take to the bike park, and were way overkill for most singletrack and trails in my area. Nowadays I hit the same trail systems I used to ride at and I see people pedaling around heavier 150-170 mm bikes and I can't help but ask myself why. I'm on a hardtail currently and I'm not getting beat up in the least, although I do plan on buying another full suspension within the next 6 mos.
> 
> I just can't understand why everyone seems to be riding these huge long travel bikes on flowy singletrack with long climbs, etc when they could get away all day every day with 130mm travel and a lighter bike. I guess it would make sense if they had one bike to do it all, but most have seperate bikes they take to do the downhill stuff.
> 
> ...


I'm in the process now of trying to figure out how much bike I need. I, too, started out wanting something kind of long travel like 170 or 160 up front and 160 or 150 in back. Now I'm trying to decide if the 140/130 Trek I like is enough. I've watched YouTube videos of some of the longer travel bikes I like, and they make comments that it "still climbs well". But does it really? Or does it just climb well for a long travel bike?


----------



## BadgerOne (Jul 17, 2015)

blammo585 said:


> I'm in the process now of trying to figure out how much bike I need. I, too, started out wanting something kind of long travel like 170 or 160 up front and 160 or 150 in back. Now I'm trying to decide if the 140/130 Trek I like is enough. I've watched YouTube videos of some of the longer travel bikes I like, and they make comments that it "still climbs well". But does it really? Or does it just climb well for a long travel bike?


There is absolutely no doubt that bikes are far better now than they have ever been, and better multi-taskers. But I am firm in my belief that there is no free lunch. Everything is a compromise somewhere, somehow. If it wasn't, bike companies wouldn't have spent the last 20 years convincing us every single season that they finally created a bike that descends like a downhill bike and climbs like a hardtail and can now leap buildings in a single bound. In fact, they haven't stopped yet. They just come up with flowery new language every year, put a 1% rider on it and post a video, and say is the new hot shite.


----------



## blkdout (Oct 3, 2021)

Dirtfiend said:


> Yes most people are riding too much bike these days, but the real question is, why wouldn't they? Back in the 90's most MTB riders were on hardtails with cantilever brakes and horrid front suspension forks, 26" 1.8" wide wheels, and frame geometry that was more like a road bike. Sure that was "enough" to ride most XC trails back then. But if you only need to pay a 2 or 3 pound weight penalty over even a modern hardtail to get at least 140mm full squish travel, dropper posts, much more stable geometry, burly hydro disc brakes, tubeless 2.1" inch wide tires minimum in 27.5" or 29", I think the bigger question is why WOULDN'T you "ride too much bike?" Let's face it, even back in the heyday of "hardcore XC riding" the vast majority of riders were not weight weenie racer types. Being more comfortable on the bike and feeling safer is the way to go for the vast majority of riders and there isn't a thing wrong with that.


This is a good take. Most people don't intend to race. Why buy a race bike?



blammo585 said:


> I'm in the process now of trying to figure out how much bike I need. I, too, started out wanting something kind of long travel like 170 or 160 up front and 160 or 150 in back. Now I'm trying to decide if the 140/130 Trek I like is enough. I've watched YouTube videos of some of the longer travel bikes I like, and they make comments that it "still climbs well". But does it really? Or does it just climb well for a long travel bike?


When I was ready, I googled "mountain bike types". I mostly focused on travel and geometry. Ultimately buying what I thought would work for me, looked great and was actually in stock. I looked at brand names last.


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

blammo585 said:


> I'm in the process now of trying to figure out how much bike I need. I, too, started out wanting something kind of long travel like 170 or 160 up front and 160 or 150 in back. Now I'm trying to decide if the 140/130 Trek I like is enough. I've watched YouTube videos of some of the longer travel bikes I like, and they make comments that it "still climbs well". But does it really? Or does it just climb well for a long travel bike?


Honestly a lot of longer travel modern bike climb better on steep stuff than anything old, even old XC bikes, its mostly due to the seat tube angle my 2021 Sentinel climbs better than my 2011 Anthem X, the Ripmo I rode was an amazing climber but I like the sentinel better all around. 

One thing to keep in mind is that most long travel bikes do not weight much more than their mid or short travel stable mates. 

I kind of look at travel now as how I want the bike to ride on the down, since most moderns climb so well that until you get to the true light weight rocket ships 140 to 160 will really not matter. Basically if I want the bike to smash though everything 160ish, if I want a poppy bike 120 or less or hardtail. 

but honestly I really would not be worried how most high end modern bikes climb, the new geometry is way easier to climb up stuff on and the weight does not matter that much.


----------



## JerzyBoy (May 26, 2008)

blammo585 said:


> I'm in the process now of trying to figure out how much bike I need. I, too, started out wanting something kind of long travel like 170 or 160 up front and 160 or 150 in back. Now I'm trying to decide if the 140/130 Trek I like is enough. I've watched YouTube videos of some of the longer travel bikes I like, and they make comments that it "still climbs well". But does it really? Or does it just climb well for a long travel bike?


Definitely do your research. Especially now with the bike market being what it is. Shops may try and steer you towards what they have in stock. For myself and where I ride 130 is optimal.


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

Blatant said:


> Just a thought: Instead of posing the question to a bunch of random riders who live in various places — many of which likely require more travel — why not just ask the riders in your area riding these bikes you’re so confused by.
> 
> If you’re cool about it, maybe someone will trade bikes with you so you can learn firsthand.


Bike swaps are fun!


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

blkdout said:


> I posted a sarcastic thread about being bothered by what other people are riding earlier... it got locked immediately lol. I've seen some horrible stuff posted here, personal attacks, etc. in my short time but I guess I went too far with the sarcasm...? I don't know haha.
> 
> Either way, my point was just to not worry about it. People are just different. You don't know if they're from out of state, if that bike landed in their lap or maybe they know nothing about bikes and just purchased what they liked at their local shop. So many variables as to why people ride what they ride. My philosophy, "You do you, but leave others alone while you do it."
> 
> Maybe just me but I can't imagine going up to someone and asking why they're riding what they're riding. Might as well ask why they chose the color while you're at it.


Good point. I was overbiked for the far-away trails I was riding weekend before last. I didn't realize that my hardtail would have been better until I got there.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

BushwackerinPA said:


> Honestly a lot of longer travel modern bike climb better on steep stuff than anything old, even old XC bikes, its mostly due to the seat tube angle my 2021 Sentinel climbs better than my 2011 Anthem X, the Ripmo I rode was an amazing climber but I like the sentinel better all around.
> 
> One thing to keep in mind is that most long travel bikes do not weight much more than their mid or short travel stable mates.
> 
> ...


I do think that shorter-travel bikes likely climb a bit better. I also think they can be more fun on the descents given the right trails. A big-travel bike can be somewhat ho-hum on less chunky and steep terrain.


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

Curveball said:


> I do think that shorter-travel bikes likely climb a bit better. I also think they can be more fun on the descents given the right trails. A big-travel bike can be somewhat ho-hum on less chunky and steep terrain.


Agreed. If I get a 3rd bike it will be some like a Epic EVO. 

my two new bike are SS hardtail and a Sentinel. If I had only one bike though I would probably choose the Sentinel as its just boring to ride on easier trails, where as on really rough stuff the N9 can be a real chore.


----------



## blkdout (Oct 3, 2021)

I'm not a collector so I like having an open spectrum between only two bikes. There are days when I just want to crush terrain and days when I want to stop and photograph the wildlife. I'm not _in it to win it_ but if I start racing, I'll buy whatever bike this thread suggests lol.


----------



## plummet (Jul 8, 2005)

Dirtfiend said:


> Yes most people are riding too much bike these days.


If most people are riding too much bike then most people are not riding too much bike..........!

That bike is now the new normal. 

Anyone riding less is underbiked!


----------



## MatLax00 (Jun 13, 2020)

Got back into it, bought an 8 years old bike (2012 Trek Superfly 100 AL) and the same model for my girlfriend (2013), mine will be upgraded with 120mm at the front, my girlfriend's will receive more modern suspension but same travel, I do rougher stuff with my friend (who's on a 100mm hard tail) but still want to be able to ride softer trails with her, even then, it's probably more bike than we'll ever need!


----------



## JerzyBoy (May 26, 2008)

plummet said:


> If most people are riding too much bike then most people are not riding too much bike..........!
> 
> That bike is now the new normal.
> 
> Anyone riding less is underbiked!


There are still a few 120 or 130 mm travel bikes out there. You can find them scattered around your local trails using about 2/3's of their max travel on any given day.


----------



## NWA_Tre (Sep 30, 2021)

I've been riding around on 100mm of bad spring fork...it can be done, despite obvious drawbacks. Thinking of upgrading to 300mm...


----------



## EatsDirt (Jan 20, 2014)

JerzyBoy said:


> There are still a few 120 or 130 mm travel bikes out there. You can find them scattered around your local trails using about 2/3's of their max travel on any given day.


And here you claim to have no bias, and this is an innocent thread posing a question... 

Right.


----------



## JerzyBoy (May 26, 2008)

NWA_Tre said:


> I've been riding around on 100mm of bad spring fork...it can be done, despite obvious drawbacks. Thinking of upgrading to 300mm...


300 is gonna be so 2022. You're better off going with 400 so you will still be current in 2023.


----------



## JerzyBoy (May 26, 2008)

EatsDirt said:


> And here you claim to have no bias, and this is an innocent thread posing a question...
> 
> Right.


Bias? No. I have an opinion however. My opinion is that the trend seems to be people buying more bike than they need. The purpose of this thread was to try and get some insight into why. Thats what forums are for. Discussions. By you're response I'm guessing that you must run the local fire roads on about 160mm.


----------



## peterk123 (Oct 10, 2005)

blammo585 said:


> I'm in the process now of trying to figure out how much bike I need. I, too, started out wanting something kind of long travel like 170 or 160 up front and 160 or 150 in back. Now I'm trying to decide if the 140/130 Trek I like is enough. I've watched YouTube videos of some of the longer travel bikes I like, and they make comments that it "still climbs well". But does it really? Or does it just climb well for a long travel bike?


My Norco Sight A1 is hands down better at everything than my 2014 stumpjumper. It is probably a heavier bike but I cannot believe how well it climbs. My legs give out before the bike does when it gets too steep. Front end never gets sketchy and the rear tire just digs in. Downhill.... well it is just stupid fun. I do not race, I'm old and I am just in it for the fun. These bikes have really changed a lot, at least since 2014. I am riding better than when I was 30. It's not me, it's the bike.

As for too much the travel. I think for every ten years after the age of twenty you need to add 10mm of travel to a 120MM bike. I'm between 150 and 160mm. I settled for 160mm because I do not want to have to buy a new bike in a few years


----------



## blammo585 (Apr 24, 2012)

peterk123 said:


> My Norco Sight A1 is hands down better at everything than my 2014 stumpjumper. It is probably a heavier bike but I cannot believe how well it climbs. My legs give out before the bike does when it gets too steep. Front end never gets sketchy and the rear tire just digs in. Downhill.... well it is just stupid fun. I do not race, I'm old and I am just in it for the fun. These bikes have really changed a lot, at least since 2014. I am riding better than when I was 30. It's not me, it's the bike.
> 
> As for too much the travel. I think for every ten years after the age of twenty you need to add 10mm of travel to a 120MM bike. I'm between 150 and 160mm. I settled for 160mm because I do not want to have to buy a new bike in a few years


I've been eyeing the Sight A3, but availability is the issue.


----------



## ocnLogan (Aug 15, 2018)

JerzyBoy said:


> There are still a few 120 or 130 mm travel bikes out there. You can find them scattered around your local trails using about 2/3's of their max travel on any given day.


You can’t really compare amount of travel used like that. A short travel bike having 1/3 of its travel left doesn’t mean that a long travel bike would have had 1/2 or 2/3 of its travel left for the same trail/feature.

Most people setup their suspension so they occasionally/somewhat rarely use up all the travel. No matter how many MM they have available.

Riding the same features/trails, a shorter travel bike would just need a stiffer spring rate than a longer travel bike. If you setup the short travel bike with the same softer spring rate as the bigger travel bike, you would probably bottom out more though.


----------



## blkdout (Oct 3, 2021)

"Need" is the word that gets me the most. Am I the first to say, "No one _needs_ a mountain bike" ? Who cares what's on it other than _you._


----------



## blkdout (Oct 3, 2021)

The question is; How much do you care about other people's bikes?


----------



## NWA_Tre (Sep 30, 2021)

JerzyBoy said:


> 300 is gonna be so 2022. You're better off going with 400 so you will still be current in 2023.


We'll have to start putting the seat beneath the Top Tube, and the bike itself will be 6' tall...but we'll adjust with "new riding techniques"


----------



## JerzyBoy (May 26, 2008)

blkdout said:


> The question is; How much do you care about other people's bikes?


Does the same hold true when someone comes on here and asks a question about tire choice, brake choice, pedals? Obviously I struck a nerve here by posting this thread.


----------



## NWA_Tre (Sep 30, 2021)

JerzyBoy said:


> Does the same hold true when someone comes on here and asks a question about tire choice, brake choice, pedals? Obviously I struck a nerve here by posting this thread.


Dude you started a 9pg (at time of this comment) thread. Pat yourself on the back, bucko.


----------



## JerzyBoy (May 26, 2008)

NWA_Tre said:


> We'll have to start putting the seat beneath the Top Tube, and the bike itself will be 6' tall...but we'll adjust with "new riding techniques"


As long as we market it properly, it'll catch on. Just a matter of convincing the masses that they NEED the seat beneath their top tubes. 5 years from now the world will never understand how we rode bikes that had a seat mounted any other way.


----------



## JerzyBoy (May 26, 2008)

NWA_Tre said:


> Dude you started a 9pg (at time of this comment) thread. Pat yourself on the back, bucko.


Thanks!! Listen.....we all have an expensive hobby here. The minute you even begin to hint to people that their 5k might have been spent on a rig more suited to their actual riding conditions, your gonna breach into double digit page counts.


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

If someone thinks another bought too much bike, they must have paid the invoice!


----------



## jay_paradox (Oct 21, 2020)

This thread is on  


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## blkdout (Oct 3, 2021)

JerzyBoy said:


> Does the same hold true when someone comes on here and asks a question about tire choice, brake choice, pedals? Obviously I struck a nerve here by posting this thread.


Yes, absolutely. User feedback is more important than marketing.


----------



## EatsDirt (Jan 20, 2014)

JerzyBoy said:


> Bias? No. I have an opinion however. My opinion is that the trend seems to be people buying more bike than they need. The purpose of this thread was to try and get some insight into why. Thats what forums are for. Discussions. By you're response I'm guessing that you must run the local fire roads on about 160mm.


Pahleez. It’s apparent you’re here for confirmation bias with a side of d!ck swinging.

I already basically told you I ride fire roads on my 170 bike. I also ride the things that, very likely, you want no part of.

This thread is a joke.


----------



## NWA_Tre (Sep 30, 2021)

EatsDirt said:


> This thread is a joke.


it very well may be...but a damn good one at that...


----------



## dundundata (May 15, 2009)

ocnLogan said:


> One topic I haven't seen as much mention of yet. The safety/confidence factor of more travel helps enable more progression, particularly for newer riders. That same benefit may not be as apparent for more established riders who can already ride all the things they want.
> 
> I've not been riding for all that long compared to most here (~3 years now). I started on a 100mm travel XC bike with 26in wheels and a 3x10 drivetrain. I enjoyed riding enough to buy a full squish (Kona Process 153). The move to full suspension (and better geo/etc) helped me unlock some "moves"/features on the local trails I rode with the XC bike. So same trails, but with more jumps/drops/etc. Same thing happened when I went to my first Demo day event. I demo'd a bike with 160mm travel rear, 180mm travel front, and while I was on that bike, I sent some additional features I'd never attempted.
> 
> ...


have a similar experience coming from old 100mm HT to a 140mm modern FS. I do things on the new bike I wasn't brave or skilled enough on the old one. The extra fork travel has saved me going OTB a few times on stunts above my pay grade.


----------



## Dan Zulu (Jul 5, 2008)

I do think many people buy too much bike. However I would not try to discourage them from pedaling whichever bicycle they have fun on. If that is their flavor then more power to them. I’ve graduated to the old people 40+ club and have a lot of fun on my fully rigid Yo Eddy. I do not do any extreme riding due to medical limitations but I can handle some rough trails easily with weight distribution and 29” tires, smiling the whole time.


----------



## lucifuge (Jul 1, 2011)

Not sure I'm really getting this argument. 

1. First of all, when people get into the weight considerations they invariably refer to bike A vs bike B. A bike doesn't ride itself. It's bike+ rider if you are going to do it properly. A 100kg rider on a 13kg (trail/XC) bike versus the same 100kg rider on a 16kg (enduro) bike is 113kg vs 116kg, that's a teeny 2.7% increase in the latter.

2. Any slight differences in bike weights will only be felt during period of accelerations, not velocities. If you're not racing, does it even matter?

I would flip the argument around and say my "overbiked" 13kg 150mm travel all-mountain bike allows me to do everything; climbing, descending, gnar, not gnar, fire-roads etc etc.

I am not arguing 130mm may be the sweet spot, but,...... there's not much in it.

anyway, just my 2c


----------



## dundundata (May 15, 2009)

lucifuge said:


> Not sure I'm really getting this argument.
> 
> 1. First of all, when people get into the weight considerations they invariably refer to bike A vs bike B. A bike doesn't ride itself. It's bike+ rider if you are going to do it properly. A 100kg rider on a 13kg (trail/XC) bike versus the same 100kg rider on a 16kg (enduro) bike is 113kg vs 116kg, that's a teeny 2.7% increase in the latter.
> 
> ...


There may well be a difference of adding 6lb to your body vs adding it to the bike....mythbusters?

My XC bike certainly feels faster/more efficient than the bigger trail bike. It's more fun for me on smoother terrain. If it was my only bike though it would hold me back from hitting the bigger features.


----------



## robloff (Sep 3, 2012)

I'll tell you this, at 57 I'm getting faster (downhill) every new bike I buy starting from 100mm suspension in the way back days to 170 front and back on my Spec Enduro. I'm more concerned about not breaking my face going down than my speed going up. Every new bike through the years has been a huge jump in confidence descending and I've never hurt myself going uphill. Admittingly, I'm probably a pretty mediocre downhill rider and was always a good climber. I'll give up speed uphill for lack of crashes downhill anytime. My stable is one bike; sometimes I change my helmet.


----------



## plummet (Jul 8, 2005)

JerzyBoy said:


> 300 is gonna be so 2022. You're better off going with 400 so you will still be current in 2023.


Actually now that I think of it. In 2004 I was rolling 200mm front, 250mm rear travel....

So I have actually down tuned my travel to a teny tiny 160-180mm.


----------



## Ailuropoda (Dec 15, 2010)

JerzyBoy said:


> I got out of mountain biking back in 08 due to moving, marriage, etc. I just had no time for it anymore. Flash forward to a few mos ago and I got back into it. Back then most people hit my local trails on 100-120 mm bikes. 120 was probably the sweet spot. The downhill guys who made runs to the bike park on the weekends ran 150-160 mm bikes. All of that made sense for the types of riding people in both classes were doing. The terms Enduro and All Mountain were out there but never really made sense to me because the bikes in that class still weren't robust enough to take to the bike park, and were way overkill for most singletrack and trails in my area. Nowadays I hit the same trail systems I used to ride at and I see people pedaling around heavier 150-170 mm bikes and I can't help but ask myself why. I'm on a hardtail currently and I'm not getting beat up in the least, although I do plan on buying another full suspension within the next 6 mos.
> 
> I just can't understand why everyone seems to be riding these huge long travel bikes on flowy singletrack with long climbs, etc when they could get away all day every day with 130mm travel and a lighter bike. I guess it would make sense if they had one bike to do it all, but most have seperate bikes they take to do the downhill stuff.
> 
> ...



I recently moved to Arizona. For the trails here I am definitely under-biked and am currently working on building an Enduro bike with at least 160mm in the back and 170mm in the front. I'm probably going to order a Specialized Enduro frame and pair it with a Lyric fork or a Fox Float 38. And I aim to run 29 x 2.6 tires front and back. Then I'll have enough bike. I currently ride a Specialized Stumpjumper Carbon Comp with a Float 34. It works fine on most of these trails but I'd like to be able to take some bigger hits without bottoming the shocks.


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

Plummet, that thing is a dirt couch...


----------



## NWA_Tre (Sep 30, 2021)

BansheeRune said:


> Plummet, that thing is a dirt couch...


Lol the HTA at full compression was probably like 92* (but I’m sure you still shredded)


----------



## milehi (Nov 2, 1997)

Every dual suspension trail bike I've owned since 1998 has been 140 rear and 150 front, except one.


----------



## natas1321 (Nov 4, 2017)

For myself I prefer about 130mm of travel as it works for me, some places I could use less others I could use more. It works for me just like 27.5's do more so than 29's so I guess you just need to find what works for you. 

Sent from my moto g(7) supra using Tapatalk


----------



## JerzyBoy (May 26, 2008)

EatsDirt said:


> Pahleez. It’s apparent you’re here for confirmation bias with a side of d!ck swinging.
> 
> I already basically told you I ride fire roads on my 170 bike. I also ride the things that, very likely, you want no part of.
> 
> This thread is a joke.


All because I asked a question? The industry has shifted alot in the last 10-12 years. I'm not sure why it hurts you so badly that I was curious about why today people are riding bikes with much larger travel. I ride the same trails today that I stopped riding in 08. Back then the biggest fork you'd see there was 140. Flash forward to today it seems like 160 is the norm with larger travel than that mixed in as well. Is it really that weird that I would wonder why? Since I havent purchased a fs bike yet, I'm Not quite sure what you think I need confirmation on. That being said, when I see how angry you're getting at this thread, that tells me more than any marketing ad will about why people today are choosing the bikes that they are. Sounds to me like you're the one doing the dick swinging.


----------



## JerzyBoy (May 26, 2008)

natas1321 said:


> For myself I prefer about 130mm of travel as it works for me, some places I could use less others I could use more. It works for me just like 27.5's do more so than 29's so I guess you just need to find what works for you.
> 
> Sent from my moto g(7) supra using Tapatalk


I totally agree.


----------



## fuzz_muffin (Dec 24, 2017)

JerzyBoy said:


> All because I asked a question? The industry has shifted alot in the last 10-12 years. I'm not sure why it hurts you so badly that I was curious about why today people are riding bikes with much larger travel. I ride the same trails today that I stopped riding in 08. Back then the biggest fork you'd see there was 140. Flash forward to today it seems like 160 is the norm with larger travel than that mixed in as well. Is it really that weird that I would wonder why? Since I havent purchased a fs bike yet, I'm Not quite sure what you think I need confirmation on. That being said, when I see how angry you're getting at this thread, that tells me more than any marketing ad will about why people today are choosing the bikes that they are. Sounds to me like you're the one doing the dick swinging.


Hang on, you don't even currently ride a dually and you're going on about how much other people *need*? Riiiiiiight. 

Maybe just chill mate? People have told you why. **** is different now. No that doesn't make you super mega hardcore 5000 cos you rode the same stuff 20 years ago at 0.3x the pace. 

Go buy whatever you want and be happy!


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

This sport and its participants have quite the history of shaming riders for being 'over- biked' & wearing protective gear. 
When I first began riding on my first used 150 trail bike and in an old MX helmet I would hear something about my bike/ gear usually multiple times per ride. Mostly statements that indicated that I wasn't 'good enough' for either. 

Sent from my SM-G715A using Tapatalk


----------



## JerzyBoy (May 26, 2008)

fuzz_muffin said:


> Hang on, you don't even currently ride a dually and you're going on about how much other people *need*? Riiiiiiight.
> 
> Maybe just chill mate? People have told you why. **** is different now. No that doesn't make you super mega hardcore 5000 cos you rode the same stuff 20 years ago at 0.3x the pace.
> 
> Go buy whatever you want and be happy!


Well.....since I don't currently own a dually but am in the market to buy one, I figured it might make sense to find out why some people these days are choosing longer travel bikes on the same trails that others run lesser travel bikes. I fully admit that I'm outta the loop as far as the industry goes now. Not sure what your issue is with me wanting to get other peoples perspectives and make an informed decision.


----------



## JerzyBoy (May 26, 2008)

Suns_PSD said:


> This sport and its participants have quite the history of shaming riders for being 'over- biked' & wearing protective gear.
> When I first began riding on my first used 150 trail bike and in an old MX helmet I would hear something about my bike/ gear usually multiple times per ride. Mostly statements that indicated that I wasn't 'good enough' for either.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G715A using Tapatalk


Definitely not about shaming. Im currently on a hardtail and wear knee and elbow pads. The market is flooded with all sorts of bikes now. The lines are blurred between what to use and where to use it. All these different categories, trail, enduro, all mountain, etc. I go back to the early 2000's when everyone told me the Specialized SX Trail was too much bike for the local singletrack. Now I see people riding way heavier, longer travel bikes there. I dont know how the heck me asking this question turned into people taking it as a personal attack. I can assure you though that whatever bike I buy, I'll be happy enough with it that if I read some stupid thread on the internet I don't get sensitive about it.


----------



## dietz31684 (Mar 30, 2010)

People have been buying too much bike since fox 36s have been around.


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

At the end of the day, it's a hobby and sometimes piling on the bling is not a bad thing even if "you don't need it." I don't care if strangers are overbiked. I don't care if my wealthy friends are overbiked. I somewhat care if my friends who can barely afford the sport overbike and then regret it later and can't buy the bike that really suits the local conditions. I also somewhat care when I see local NICA kids I know overbike and get destroyed by 10 minutes in local XC races and wish they had different bikes.


----------



## Koogs (Mar 25, 2016)

Whiterabbitt said:


> This. Why do people have such a boner over what other people ride, and whether they are using that hardware to its full potential?
> 
> Other hobbies don't have this problem.


not sure i'd say other hobbies don't have this problem....
There are plenty of people with $5K camera set ups taht can't take great pictures
The guy running 35s, a big lift and plenty of armor on his jeep and only has taken it on his dirt driveway.

There are plenty of other examples of people who go overboard on their equipment to ridiculousness and don't use any of the potential. I can point to any Ford Raptor that is in my area, there are no uses for them besides looking "cool", there are no deserts to race within 1000+ Miles.

Although our sport doesn't always applaud big travel compared to the above where bigger is always better. We can spend silly money and bling a short travel ride.

Listen, if a guy wants to ride a 170mm travel bike on a green trail around a lake, more power to him, but its the wrong tool for the job. He might be doing it b/c he normally needs that travel where he rides and just was out for the day. I dunno. I sometimes ride my full sus bike around the neighborhood with the kids.... is it ridiculous if that was why I had my bike, yah, but sometimes i feel like it rather than taking my BMX style 29er.

The safety argument only holds water to an extent. Want to go up in size of travel from what conditions dictate? sure. Riding a heavy duty enduro rig in a flat area that really is calling for something with 100- 120mm doesn't have a justification if that is where you're primarily biking, its just silly.

I'm certainly not going to stop you and tell you your bike is silly, thats what the internet is for.

I do get sick of hearing people spout advice about needing XYZ to go biking. They can't seem to get out of their own headspace and see things from others point of view.
That goes for the idiots who need 170mm to ride a 12 inch drop and the jerks on 100mm forked hardtails who say they don't understand why anyone needs a full sus bike, they can go on whistler's jumpline with their bike.

I'll throw in all the people who think you need a $2K hardtail to ride on anything more than a paved trail


----------



## xcandrew (Dec 30, 2007)

tick_magnet said:


> At the end of the day, it's a hobby and sometimes piling on the bling is not a bad thing even if "you don't need it." I don't care if strangers are overbiked. I don't care if my wealthy friends are overbiked. I somewhat care if my friends who can barely afford the sport overbike and then regret it later and can't buy the bike that really suits the local conditions. I also somewhat care when I see local NICA kids I know overbike and get destroyed by 10 minutes in local XC races and wish they had different bikes.


This. I'll add that biking obviously has a rep for being a rich person's sport. Many of the responses when a beginner asks about a cheaper bike or old bike are cringe in my opinion, and probably turn those people away from the sport. Whereas if they asked the same thing in the reddit xbiking, they'd be that's rad you fixed up an old bike, and be more likely to get those people riding, even if it's easier trails.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

xcandrew said:


> I'll add that biking obviously has a rep for being a rich person's sport.


When I started mountain biking it had a rep for being a dirtbag's sport. Somewhere along the way something happened.


----------



## klatekin (Oct 13, 2017)

Same way I feel about squeaky clean suited up Jeeps or trucks or race car on city streets, your money do whatever you want.


----------



## Koogs (Mar 25, 2016)

Nat said:


> When I started mountain biking it had a rep for being a dirtbag's sport. Somewhere along the way something happened.


is it now a rich dirtbag's sport ?


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

Koogs said:


> I do get sick of hearing people spout advice about needing XYZ to go biking. They can't seem to get out of their own headspace and see things from others point of view.


I feel similarly about the arguments that hinge on what's needed to 'ride the terrain'. On my local trails there are a lot of people riding the same 'terrain' but certainly not in the same way. One rider might be tearing tires off the he rim in the same berm another rider has no issues in. Not everyone is hitting the same features/lines or with the same aggressiveness. One rider may say 110mm of travel is perfect for the terrain but then you find out they also can't jump and ride like a retired roadie. Or maybe someone says 160mm is best if you're going to shred all the local 'freeride' stuff but then you find out they're talking about 3 foot drops or something. 

I'm not arguing for long travel or being over biked but I know that often (always?) the advice people give is colored by their personal experience and unless you know that person and how they ride you don't know the context of what they're saying.


----------



## JerzyBoy (May 26, 2008)

This thread definitely had nothing to do with money when I posted it.


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

JerzyBoy said:


> This thread definitely had nothing to do with money when I posted it.


I only mentioned money because it's a real constraint for some people. Regretting a choice means a lot less when you can afford to correct it.


----------



## old_er (Dec 27, 2020)

Champion_Monster said:


> Hmmmm... What do you drive?


I think "someone" altered that quote. I didn't post any of what you have me quoted as saying.

This is what I posted...
"When I hear the term perfectly groomed my mind assumes smooth flow trail. I live and ride in the NY/NJ area and most trails are predominantly covered with rock and roots.
My Tallboy is my only mtb and 75% of the time it is all I need. "


----------



## Champion_Monster (Nov 30, 2014)

old_er said:


> I think "someone" altered that quote. I didn't post any of what you have me quoted as saying.
> 
> This is what I posted...
> "When I hear the term perfectly groomed my mind assumes smooth flow trail. I live and ride in the NY/NJ area and most trails are predominantly covered with rock and roots.
> My Tallboy is my only mtb and 75% of the time it is all I need. "


Yep, sorry my fault, was a different poster. Reposted below



Whiterabbitt said:


> I think most of you are over-car’d for your grocery getter and commuter.
> 
> CoO is much lower on a geo metro and just as fast on legal streets.


Hmmm... What do you drive?


----------



## blammo585 (Apr 24, 2012)

tick_magnet said:


> I only mentioned money because it's a real constraint for some people. Regretting a choice means a lot less when you can afford to correct it.


On the other hand, if you only have X amount to spend and you spend that amount on something that gets you riding, there's also a sense of relief knowing you're on something that that's the best you could do.

Those of us in the middle probably have a harder time. We can afford a liberal amount if this is what we choose to do with it, but if you make that mistake you speak of, we're not likely to afford to correct it, as you put it. But we have that sense of regret knowing we chose wrong.


----------



## ocnLogan (Aug 15, 2018)

JerzyBoy said:


> Well.....since I don't currently own a dually but am in the market to buy one, I figured it might make sense to find out why some people these days are choosing longer travel bikes on the same trails that others run lesser travel bikes. I fully admit that I'm outta the loop as far as the industry goes now. Not sure what your issue is with me wanting to get other peoples perspectives and make an informed decision.


This was mentioned earlier in the thread, but it bears repeating.

Currently the "penalty" of riding a longer travel bike is much lower than it once was. So you're seeing bikes in all genres gain more suspension travel.

Bike designers have figured out how to make bikes with long travel not pedal like you're riding a soggy box spring and mattress up the mountain 
This is a combination of 
Minimal, if any pedal bob due to greatly increased anti-squat values in the rear suspension design
shorter offset forks, and steeper seat tube angles placing your weight farther forward on the bike while climbing, leading to less wheel flop.


Bike weight doesn't move up dramatically between certain steps in travel.
IE, a Rockshox Lyrik can run at 140mm, all the way up to 180mm. So the fork weighs almost the same at 140mm, as it does at 180mm (technically the air spring is a different weight, but we're talking single digit grams due to 40mm of alumnium tubing that is maybe 3/8in OD).
The real difference is between products. 
IE, if you can get away with only the SID Ultimate fork instead of a Lyrik you do save like a pound of weight. But that is only available in a small travel range.


Same thing with Shocks. A 205x57.5mm, 205x60 and 205x65mm shock are often all the same shock, simply with a travel reduction spacer put into the smaller ones to limit its stroke. And those shocks can be found on bikes that are ~130-170mm of rear travel... yet they weigh just grams different.
Brake rotor size might change, but thats pretty inconsequential (like what, 20-40g per rotor, per size larger/smaller)
Drivetrain doesn't change weight at all, as most bikes from XC to Enduro run some variation of wide range 1x12 drivetrain.
Tires can change the weight of the bike substantially, but most of the time the riding conditions, and speed you ride dictate the tires that you need (ie, even XC racers run mud spikes if they race in the mud).
Most bikes have dropper seatposts these days. So again, a short travel bike doesn't really have an advantage in this area.


So, thats why you see a lot of people riding bikes with more travel than they used to. Simply... because it doesn't suck as much as it once did. I mean, if you were choosing between a <insert travel> bike, or a <+10 or 20mm of travel> bike that weighs the same (or very nearly), pedal exactly (or very nearly) the same, and have similar geo. Wouldn't you at least be considering the one the one that lets you more easily travel to the nearest lift accessed bike park without having to rent a bike/enables you to try out those bigger trails in your area you've been thinking of riding? Or at least understand why someone would make that tradeoff, especially if they can only have one bike?

The caveat is that once you go between multiple genres, it becomes more obvious. Which I think is why "downcountry" bikes are becoming pretty popular. As they're really just lightweight trail bikes at this point.

One of the more extreme cases, is when you compare something like the Transition Spur at 120mm of travel, and like 24-26lbs is an honest 5-10lbs lighter than the Transition Sentinel(150mm) or Spire (170mm). But the difference from the Transition Scout (130/140mm travel) to the Sentinel or spire isn't nearly the same jump. More like 1lb or so. The same story plays out across most other brands lineups (Santa Cruz Tallboy, Hightower, Megatower, etc).


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

Plus, more and more people are buying E-bikes and when you are riding an E-bike, why wouldn't you want more travel when you don't have to work as hard for it?


----------



## sgltrak (Feb 19, 2005)

ocnLogan said:


> So, thats why you see a lot of people riding bikes with more travel than they used to. Simply... because it doesn't suck as much as it once did.


 / thread


----------



## Lenny7 (Sep 1, 2008)

Koogs said:


> I think some people think more is better.... obviously its not unless you need it for your terrain.
> I think a bunch of people buy bikes for what they think they want to do, not what they actually do. They buy the bike to take to teh bike park, that they have done twice in the last 5 years, instead of for the trail they do every other week that is 30 minutes from their house.


I came here to say this ^.


----------



## NWA_Tre (Sep 30, 2021)

Lenny7 said:


> I came here to say this ^.


Yup, if everyone is just truly honest with themselves, gets their pride out of it, and is open to adjusting...INCLUDING admitting a previous choice may have been a mistake...the World would be a better place.


----------



## Ailuropoda (Dec 15, 2010)

Whiterabbitt said:


> This. Why do people have such a boner over what other people ride, and whether they are using that hardware to its full potential?
> 
> Other hobbies don't have this problem.


Every hobby has this problem. It's irrational.


----------



## Loll (May 2, 2006)

Longer travel bikes can be as light as a trail bike. Mine is set up like that. I have a Funn Mamba pedal that is cleat one side and flat the other.

During the weekdays, I take advantage of the light weight, clip into the spd, and do uphill intervals. On weekend, I put on 5/10s and go full sent on the longer trails going downhill.

Is definitely overbike for the uphills. But the weight is reasonable, and better than me forking out another few grands for a down country bike. The longer travel bikes are so capable climbing now, and overtime I put lots of light weight parts on it, big bike is no longer an issue except in xc racing scenario.


----------



## Ailuropoda (Dec 15, 2010)

It's not just marketing. There may not be a lot of difference between individual model years but my 2018 Stumpjumper is a far, far superior bike to my 2010 Stumpjumper. There's no comparison. I recently sold the 2010 after fixing it up and, compared to the 2018, it was almost unridable. Disappointing, actually. And I remember very well how much I liked it when I bought it.

Both are full-suspension with decent forks. The 2010 was a 26er which feels like a kids bike to me now.

Marketing isn't all bad, either. If a company makes a good product that improves your riding experience they have to tell you about it somehow. Sure, they get a little carried away with some of the catch phrases but many things are actually improvements. We are also not robots. You can't sell people something they don't want. Mountain biking is a hobby. Cool new stuff is part of it. I've been on MTBR since 2010 and I think I've noted many times that of all the money on I spend on things like taxes, insurance, professional fees, alimony, mortgage, and dozens of other things for which I am forced to pay, I actually enjoy spending money on bikes, parts, and gear. That's why they call it a hobby. Many of you seem very upset and angry by your hobby. Buy what you can afford by whatever formula you use to determine if it's going to be worth it. Could I buy a full-throttle $12,000 S-Works Enduro? Sure. I could write the check today. I just don't think the extra six grand over what I'm going to end up spending gets me that much.


----------



## Dirtfiend (May 5, 2010)

Ailuropoda said:


> Every hobby has this problem. It's irrational.


Most definitely. I'm into music - you should see the arms race in musical instrument gear, it's kind of hilarious.


----------



## blkdout (Oct 3, 2021)

It blows my mind that hobbyists criticize one another over bare minimum requirements. "You don't need that." is a crazy concept to me. I hope those people still use an outhouse and get to work on horseback... even those are luxuries by some standards lol.


----------



## old_er (Dec 27, 2020)

blkdout said:


> It blows my mind that hobbyists criticize one another over bare minimum requirements. "You don't need that." is a crazy concept to me. I hope those people still use an outhouse and get to work on horseback... even those are luxuries by some standards lol.


What oil should I use?


----------



## 93EXCivic (Mar 12, 2018)

Whiterabbitt said:


> This. Why do people have such a boner over what other people ride, and whether they are using that hardware to its full potential?
> 
> Other hobbies don't have this problem.





Whiterabbitt said:


> This. Why do people have such a boner over what other people ride, and whether they are using that hardware to its full potential?
> 
> Other hobbies don't have this problem.


Like every hobby I have every hobby I have been in has people that are like that (whether it is disc golf, cars, watches or cameras).


----------



## BadgerOne (Jul 17, 2015)

Dirtfiend said:


> Most definitely. I'm into music - you should see the arms race in musical instrument gear, it's kind of hilarious.


It's hilarious for a couple of reasons. Step one, buy a monster quad processor modeling board that has 129 amp models, 72 speaker models, 112 effects (30 simultaneous), IR loading, complex signal routing, combining, and software with a one month learning curve to know how to use it, because these things sound good and tube amps are obsolete. Step two, hand me my guitar. Les Paul or Strat or Tele please, I want it as old as possible in technology, look, and feel. Anything newer is stupid. Oh, and I'll need my 1964 design germanium fuzz to put in front of my modeler. 

It's a weird, weird, world.


----------



## EatsDirt (Jan 20, 2014)

JerzyBoy said:


> All because I asked a question? The industry has shifted alot in the last 10-12 years. I'm not sure why it hurts you so badly that I was curious about why today people are riding bikes with much larger travel. I ride the same trails today that I stopped riding in 08. Back then the biggest fork you'd see there was 140. Flash forward to today it seems like 160 is the norm with larger travel than that mixed in as well. Is it really that weird that I would wonder why? Since I havent purchased a fs bike yet, I'm Not quite sure what you think I need confirmation on. That being said, when I see how angry you're getting at this thread, that tells me more than any marketing ad will about why people today are choosing the bikes that they are. Sounds to me like you're the one doing the dick swinging.


I'm not angry, I just think you're dumb.


----------



## JerzyBoy (May 26, 2008)

EatsDirt said:


> I'm not angry, I just think you're dumb.


If somehow that helps you to have a better day then go for it.


----------



## EatsDirt (Jan 20, 2014)

JerzyBoy said:


> If somehow that helps you to have a better day then go for it.


Nah, but I will tell you what made my day… stretching the legs on my overbuilt supersprung heavy ass bike while pedaling fire roads today.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

Loll said:


> Longer travel bikes can be as light as a trail bike. Mine is set up like that. I have a Funn Mamba pedal that is cleat one side and flat the other.
> 
> During the weekdays, I take advantage of the light weight, clip into the spd, and do uphill intervals. On weekend, I put on 5/10s and go full sent on the longer trails going downhill.
> 
> Is definitely overbike for the uphills. But the weight is reasonable, and better than me forking out another few grands for a down country bike. The longer travel bikes are so capable climbing now, and overtime I put lots of light weight parts on it, big bike is no longer an issue except in xc racing scenario.


Ah yes, but shorter travel bikes can have more control in rough terrain when set up with better suspension....


----------



## Ailuropoda (Dec 15, 2010)

It also begs the question as to why we are riding in the first place. Every ride doesn't have to be a heroic adventure where we are riding at the very edge of our abilities. It's cool. It's a hobby and a sport. For me it's also my major form of cardiovascular exercise so, while I'm not getting big air all the time, I'm definitely riding hard enough uphill and on the flats to jack up my heart rate significantly and I seldom ride for less than two hours. Apart from those sloppy wankers on eBikes, it's cool no matter how you ride or what you ride.

I will most certainly never push my new Enduro build to it's limits but it's going to be a smooth, comfortable ride. I like to suffer on rides but not as a result of an uncomfortable bike.


----------



## Ailuropoda (Dec 15, 2010)

Me, with too much bike for the current terrain.....


----------



## JerzyBoy (May 26, 2008)

EatsDirt said:


> Nah, but I will tell you what made my day… stretching the legs on my overbuilt supersprung heavy ass bike while pedaling fire roads today.


I'm guessing watching that made a lot of peoples day as well.


----------



## Loll (May 2, 2006)

Jayem said:


> Ah yes, but shorter travel bikes can have more control in rough terrain when set up with better suspension....


Can you elaborate? Do you have an example in mind? Are we talking downhill or uphill?

I used to also own a down country 130/120. You are right for sure that for 75% of the riding it can perform close to the enduro bike. I do feel mentally I ride may be with slight reservations on the shorter bike. May be I just dont feel mentally as safe at bottom out. One example is a big flight of stairs near my house. I still jump off of it ok on the down country bike, but much more cautiously. With the bigger bike, i usually aim at the edge and full sent. Until bikes like the Transition Spur came out, most short travel 120mm bikes have sharper head angles that compard to slack head angles, were just less stable to my intermediate level skills. The big bikes were the only ones that were widely available with such stability geometry. Personally I end up having more fun with big bike after the climb. And confidence/ no reservation is often time the difference that make features fun for my level.

ymmv.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

Koogs said:


> is it now a rich dirtbag's sport ?


Haha, yeah really


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

There's a couple flow/jump trails close to me. Nothing crazy, biggest table is maybe 20 ft. The sort of thing I can ride on any bike. I'm tied for the KOM on both. I figured my 120mm bike would be faster because the 160mm bike is complete overkill. However, both KOM's are on the big bike. It has me rethinking the idea that the big bike needs really rough descents to start to become an advantage.


----------



## Lenny7 (Sep 1, 2008)

Reminds me, I used to play a lot of golf and people always are annoyed by the guy with a 35 handicap with a bag of clubs that cost $6k. Or has a 35 handicap and thinks he can play blade irons. It happens in every sport/hobby.

For me, it's all in fun. i give my buddies a hard time for having enough travel to drop out of a helicopter on some of the flattest trails in the country. In turn, they give me a hard time for having titanium rotor bolts and wearing my bike kit for a team that I rarely place higher than mid pack for.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

Loll said:


> Can you elaborate? Do you have an example in mind? Are we talking downhill or uphill?
> 
> I used to also own a down country 130/120. You are right for sure that for 75% of the riding it can perform close to the enduro bike. I do feel mentally I ride may be with slight reservations on the shorter bike. May be I just dont feel mentally as safe at bottom out. One example is a big flight of stairs near my house. I still jump off of it ok on the down country bike, but much more cautiously. With the bigger bike, i usually aim at the edge and full sent. Until bikes like the Transition Spur came out, most short travel 120mm bikes have sharper head angles that compard to slack head angles, were just less stable to my intermediate level skills. The big bikes were the only ones that were widely available with such stability geometry. Personally I end up having more fun with big bike after the climb. And confidence/ no reservation is often time the difference that make features fun for my level.
> 
> ymmv.


Yep,

A 130/120 bike with the proper sized stanchions, leverage curve, coil shock, etc., could take a flight of stairs just fine. A spindly 25lb bike with a lightweight air fork, Fox DPS in the rear and XC wheeset/tires would be comparatively horrible on the same section. 

Head angle is highly overrated. With giant wagon-wheels and wide bars, if you are endoing you need to buy some more skills. Its more likely you are endoing because you are letting the wheel go sideways and not holding the bars straight, vs. actually flipping upside down on an obstacle, assuming proper skill of weight shift. 

But back to the point about travel. If your bike is built well enough, with decent suspension or custom tune, you can often punch above your weight, where a bike in the next class may have more travel, but the suspension on it doesn't actually work better. Even my 4" XC bike with a good shock setup is pretty amazing on how fast I can ride it, vs. a poor setup. In many cases, people just don't know that their suspension holds the bike back. There's something to be said for skills of course, but as you get nearer the limit, you can only do so much with a bike that is out of control.


----------



## NWA_Tre (Sep 30, 2021)

Jayem said:


> Yep,
> 
> A 130/120 bike with the proper sized stanchions, leverage curve, coil shock, etc., could take a flight of stairs just fine. A spindly 25lb bike with a lightweight air fork, Fox DPS in the rear and XC wheeset/tires would be comparatively horrible on the same section.
> 
> ...


This is a great post


----------



## EatsDirt (Jan 20, 2014)

JerzyBoy said:


> I'm guessing watching that made a lot of peoples day as well.


Maybe. It was strange though, everyone kept asking me what tires I'm using that appear to make my bike so slow. 

😏


----------



## JerzyBoy (May 26, 2008)

EatsDirt said:


> Maybe. It was strange though, everyone kept asking me what tires I'm using that appear to make my bike so slow.
> 
> 😏


Apparently this thread touched on some sensitivity.


----------



## EatsDirt (Jan 20, 2014)

JerzyBoy said:


> Apparently this thread touched on some sensitivity.


Sounds to me like you want to throw barbs but can't take a joke right back... 

I'll leave you alone then.


----------



## phantoj (Jul 7, 2009)

Jayem said:


> Its more likely you are endoing because you are letting the wheel go sideways and not holding the bars straight, vs. actually flipping upside down on an obstacle, assuming proper skill of weight shift.


I don't know about this


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

My head angle preference has little to do with endoing.


----------



## jay_paradox (Oct 21, 2020)

I was riding down flights of stairs on bikes from 20-25 years ago so I don’t think head angle is an issue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

Exactly. Is it adding some stability? Sure. Is it the reason for an endo? No freaking way IMO. That's improper weight placement or tech terrain that whipped the bars crooked. I found someone passed out from a concussion that let the front wheel go sideways off a 1.5 foot roller last year. Was obvious given their position on the ground and the bike. I was around when we transitioned to 29er wheels and guys on 29er XC FS bikes were all of a sudden keeping up with us at South Mountain on the gnar terrain (and I ain't talking about National). They can roll and roll and roll and their HTA was crazy steep. That place is wheel-catcher/tech central and while there have been some helpful things, I'll say it again, HTA is blown way out of proportion. It's definitely below wheel size, bar/stem length, dropper post, weight shift as far as important things IME for clearing tech terrain. Not that I'm advocating steep 72 HTA, I'm just saying that a few degrees does not have the effect that some people claim, in that it's somehow magically preventing endos. I think the other factors have a LOT more to do with endos than HTA.


----------



## targnik (Jan 11, 2014)

jay_paradox said:


> I was riding down flights of stairs on bikes from 20-25 years ago so I don’t think head angle is an issue.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Can't remember the last time a step sent me over the bars... more stuffing saddle into the backside.

Not many bomb holes on steps.

Sent from my Asus Rog 3


----------



## jay_paradox (Oct 21, 2020)

targnik said:


> Can't remember the last time a step sent me over the bars... more stuffing saddle into the backside.
> 
> Not many bomb holes on steps.
> 
> Sent from my Asus Rog 3


Depends on the neighborhood lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## BrianU (Feb 4, 2004)

Jayem said:


> Exactly. Is it adding some stability? Sure. Is it the reason for an endo? No freaking way IMO. That's improper weight placement or tech terrain that whipped the bars crooked. I found someone passed out from a concussion that let the front wheel go sideways off a 1.5 foot roller last year. Was obvious given their position on the ground and the bike. I was around when we transitioned to 29er wheels and guys on 29er XC FS bikes were all of a sudden keeping up with us at South Mountain on the gnar terrain (and I ain't talking about National). They can roll and roll and roll and their HTA was crazy steep. That place is wheel-catcher/tech central and while there have been some helpful things, I'll say it again, HTA is blown way out of proportion. It's definitely below wheel size, bar/stem length, dropper post, weight shift as far as important things IME for clearing tech terrain. Not that I'm advocating steep 72 HTA, I'm just saying that a few degrees does not have the effect that some people claim, in that it's somehow magically preventing endos. I think the other factors have a LOT more to do with endos than HTA.


Definitely agree. MY first 29er was a Vassago Jabberwocky frame that I built up in 2008. One of the great things I really loved about that bike after riding nothing but 26" XC race bikes for 17 years, was that it felt like it would take some serious effort to endo. Between the big wheels and "Wet Cat" geometry, it did not take long to get used to being able to drop the front down over stuff that would have had me eating dirt on every other bike I ever owned. And that was with a rigid fork, 675mm bars and a 71 degree HTA.


----------



## Travolta (Oct 26, 2016)

Amt0571 said:


> Hydraulic discs.


for me thats the only one. I can easily do without the other.
hydraulic discs is a real improvement.
wider tires. wider bars. disc breaks. thats about all the innovations I require.


----------



## speedygz (May 12, 2020)

My current build is based on a 2014 Vitus Sentier hardtail frame. 27.5 wheels, 120 fork, somewhere around 1130mm wheelbase. I bomb down flights of stairs, and steeps I struggle to walk down. It's not the bike that's holding me back.


----------



## Picard (Apr 5, 2005)

I need too much bike to ride chunky terrain. XC bike is too tame


----------



## C619V (Mar 8, 2021)

I will freely admit I let my younger self dictate my original purchase of a 2021 Commencal Meta AM 29 Essential pre-order.

I was hyping myself on plowing like my younger years in MX at Glamis or Glen Helen nearly 20 years ago  Had these visions of knarl, the excitement, the heart pumping on the edge of sketch. Braaap! 

Cancelled my pre-order from Commencal, went locally and grabbed a Ibis Ripley AF Deore, which I cruise through simple sh1t and happier for it.

I’m nearly 49 now, injuries take much longer to heal, arthritic; was already color blind, ultra light sensitive and now far-sighted needing 300 readers and this bike is way more than I need, but just enough when I want to live on some sketch.

So yeah, I can agree with the OP.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## JerzyBoy (May 26, 2008)

C619V said:


> I will freely admit I let my younger self dictate my original purchase of a 2021 Commencal Meta AM 29 Essential pre-order.
> 
> I was hyping myself on plowing like my younger years in MX at Glamis or Glen Helen nearly 20 years ago  Had these visions of knarl, the excitement, the heart pumping on the edge of sketch. Braaap!
> 
> ...


The one person who commented that people buy the bike for where they say they are gonna ride, not where they actually ride really put it into perspective. Mark my words, the industry will keep making these bikes slacker until they turn into a damn 2 wheeled skateboard. Then……they will slowly start heading in the other direction until people are back to riding on 120mm bikes again and acting like its some big revelation that they can now pedal with ease and ride the same terrain faster.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

JerzyBoy said:


> they will slowly start heading in the other direction until people are back to riding on 120mm bikes again and acting like its some big revelation that they can now pedal with ease and ride the same terrain faster.


120mm bikes are very popular right now.


----------



## targnik (Jan 11, 2014)

Right bike for the job...

If you're hucking to flat and/or hitting large drops, then more squish is better.

I like to think of it as 'lots of air = lots of travel'

Technical terrain rule of thumb... flat = less travel, steep = more travel.

I can ride most things on my 29+ rig w/ 130/130 travel.

Too much air and tires start to squirm. Great for technical terrain... Doesn't mind steep tech either.

My 115mm travel Banshee Phantom punches well above it's numbers (despite what nay-sayers bleat on the interwebs).

I'll hit 6ft drops and 10 foot gaps no worries.

If it's too steep and too techy, then in walks .y 170/160 Giant Reign Adv.

More cushin for the pushin.

Despite it's long legs, it's like a 'Giant'  BMX bike. Poppy and playful 

If I could only have one bike, it'd be a 160/140 mullety whip.

Something like a Patrol or Bronson or Prime 

Sent from my Asus Rog 3


----------



## cookieMonster (Feb 23, 2004)

jeremy3220 said:


> There's a couple flow/jump trails close to me. Nothing crazy, biggest table is maybe 20 ft. The sort of thing I can ride on any bike. I'm tied for the KOM on both. I figured my 120mm bike would be faster because the 160mm bike is complete overkill. However, both KOM's are on the big bike. It has me rethinking the idea that the big bike needs really rough descents to start to become an advantage.


My experience as well. My big bike has 180mm at both ends, and my other is a Honzo ESD w/ 140mm fork. Both have about the same head angle when riding them, even though the hardtail has a very slack 63 degrees static.

Anyhow, I enjoy the Honzo way more on smooth and flatter trails (I like it a lot on the steeps too 😉). It is faster on smooth terrain, but more importantly, I can feel the trail better— where the big bike is boring and I feel nothing on the easy trails.

In some cases though, what feels slower and boring on the big bike still turns out to be faster after all.

I, too, have (well HAD — lost it last week) a KOM on a downhill trail that starts with a flat sprint across a bunch of roots and features a lot of pedaling throughout. Some of it is flowy, loamy, and smooth, but there are roots and rocks quite often as well.

I cannot beat my enduro bike time on the Honzo, despite it being a pedally downhill and not extremely technical anywhere. I chalk it up to being able to pedal and maintain speed through the rough sections, where the hardtail loses speed in those sections.

Overall, I still prefer that trail on the hardtail. Going 5-10 seconds faster on a trail doesn’t mean it was more fun.


----------



## NWA_Tre (Sep 30, 2021)

jeremy3220 said:


> 120mm bikes are very popular right now.


I mean, I know it’s just one guy, but HTP always says 130 is perfect. I’m on 100. I wouldn’t know lol


----------



## John Kuhl (Dec 10, 2007)

I have a 100mm and my long travel bike is 120mm.


----------



## Hibikealot (Oct 14, 2021)

I regularly see people riding serious full suspensions where I ride......its technical xc trail mostly but meh.....their money and have a feeling they get hung up alot on the climbs but I guess it doable with Hydraulic like legs and sheer determination🤣
Good on them I say.


----------



## vonasemj (Jun 12, 2020)

I rode the Colorado front range on a 120mm hardtail with 70° HA the last two years and managed okay on the climbs but couldn’t keep up on descents and was constantly thinking about crashing. This year I bought a Ripmo after riding with guys on Bronsons and Hightowers. While the climbs now take way more out of me, the downhills are so much more enjoyable. I recently sold the hardtail and am contemplating building another hardtail next year but with a more trail than xc geometry. Less travel than the Ripmo would definitely work, but half of the trails I ride can get pretty gnarly. I’m happy with the slightly longer wheelbase and travel.


----------



## Monty219 (Oct 26, 2020)

Hibikealot said:


> I regularly see people riding serious full suspensions where I ride......its technical xc trail mostly but meh.....their money and have a feeling they get hung up alot on the climbs but I guess it doable with Hydraulic like legs and sheer determination🤣
> Good on them I say.


If someone can only afford one bike and doesn’t mind less efficiency on the climbs to maintain full capability on all types of descents this choice makes a lot of sense.


----------



## JerzyBoy (May 26, 2008)

Monty219 said:


> If someone can only afford one bike and doesn’t mind less efficiency on the climbs to maintain full capability on all types of descents this choice makes a lot of sense.


This comment makes a lot of sense to me. I think with the price of bikes now it makes total sense that if someone can only afford one bike, and they know for sure they will be doing a fair amount of downhill or really gnarly stuff then they might be willing to make the tradeoff of less efficiency when riding trail or xc type stuff.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

NWA_Tre said:


> I mean, I know it’s just one guy, but HTP always says 130 is perfect. I’m on 100. I wouldn’t know lol


HTP = Hardtail Party? "120mm bike" means 120mm rear suspension unless otherwise specified. 

HTP is a solid rider but my needs are different than his.


----------



## NWA_Tre (Sep 30, 2021)

jeremy3220 said:


> HTP = Hardtail Party? "120mm bike" means 120mm rear suspension unless otherwise specified.
> 
> HTP is a solid rider but my needs are different than his.


I knew I was seeing this through my HT-only lens


----------



## Monty219 (Oct 26, 2020)

JerzyBoy said:


> This comment makes a lot of sense to me. I think with the price of bikes now it makes total sense that if someone can only afford one bike, and they know for sure they will be doing a fair amount of downhill or really gnarly stuff then they might be willing to make the tradeoff of less efficiency when riding trail or xc type stuff.


Yep that was me for many years. I love the gnar and don’t want to be held back on it so given only 1 choice I happily sacrificed xc prowess.


----------



## sgltrak (Feb 19, 2005)

Monty219 said:


> Yep that was me for many years. I love the gnar and don’t want to be held back on it so given only 1 choice I happily sacrificed xc prowess.


I am the exact opposite. I feel plenty confident on tech and downhills and can out-descend the majority of the folks with whom I ride, but have not been a fast climber in the past so I prioritize lighter and easier climbing bikes to make that part of the ride faster and make the rides to the trails easier.


----------



## kestrel242 (Jul 11, 2008)

I find that a big bike with lots of travel is really handy at forgiving my mistakes when I'm trying to master something outside of my comfort zone. Afterwards, it doesn't matter so much.


----------



## noosa2 (May 20, 2004)

Back in 2008 I was riding my local trails (chunky desert) on a 170/160mm bike and wondering if it was enough travel. For the last 18months I’ve been on a 130/125 mm travel bike and it has mostly been enough travel for my local trails. Since that frame broke last month I’ve been on a hardtail and I really miss the rear suspension…but I’m old with an arthritic back. I’ve got a 150/140mm travel bike that I’ll be building over the next couple of months. I say get a bike that you enjoy riding and go hit some trails.


----------



## shredchic (Jun 18, 2007)

First of all, I don't really worry about what personal choices other people make in bike and in life. Bikes are for fun, and fun is subjective. There is no "right" bike for the type of trail. Heck you see gravel bikes on singletrack these days. YOU DO YOU.

That being said, yes, I think something like a Tallboy or (talk about marketing terms) a "down-country" bike is really capable on a wide variety of terrain, and can even replace the longer travel bikes of yesteryear.


----------



## EatsDirt (Jan 20, 2014)

sgltrak said:


> I am the exact opposite. I feel plenty confident on tech and downhills and can out-descend the majority of the folks with whom I ride, but have not been a fast climber in the past so I prioritize lighter and easier climbing bikes to make that part of the ride faster and make the rides to the trails easier.


Your priorities make sense, but you seem to insinuate that the poster you're replying to isn't a confident/capable descender. I won't speak for that poster, but I could have easily typed that.

For me, it's about the upper limits the bike is capable of with a side of mechanical sympathy. Having frequently ridden/raced trails that WC DH pros currently train on, riding everything from a twitchy 90's HT to a modern 170, it's not about having a crutch.

I have no interest in making climbing easier when I'd be riding a big heavy bike on the challenging trails/quality rides I look forward to anyway.

This all works quite well FOR ME. YMMV


----------



## jsudar (Dec 9, 2011)

I ride a hardtail I custom built in my garage. It has an Angleset in it and I can move the HA +\- 1.5* for a total of 3* of adjustment. I honestly couldn’t tell a difference with a 1* slacker change. Maybe I could if I did back to back rides with the full three degree swing. 
I was riding it with a 160mm Lyrik and I was overbiked like you wouldn’t believe for the Utah Wasatch Front trails I usually ride. I built the bike for the rider I wished I was and not so much for the rider I actually am. Finally got honest with myself and put on a 140mm Pike. Haven’t noticed the difference there either except the bike is nearly a pound lighter. I’m probably still over biked for most of what I ride. 
I do make the trip to Moab quite often and I am most grateful for the suspension in that terrain. I know because I’ve ridden Moab on a full rigid single speed klunker too. For now I’m still willing to pedal uphill on a 31 lb. hardtail so I can rail on the way down and still have a good time riding Moab chunk a few times a year. 
Age has a lot to do with it too. I’m over forty now and I just can’t ride like I used to. My next bike I build will be much more XC oriented and you know what? I probably won’t be disappointed or notice a huge difference. 

I agree. Most of the bikes I see on my local trails are way overkill for the terrain. In terms of both suspension and cost. But they sure look good! And that’s what really matters, right?


----------



## JerzyBoy (May 26, 2008)

sgltrak said:


> I am the exact opposite. I feel plenty confident on tech and downhills and can out-descend the majority of the folks with whom I ride, but have not been a fast climber in the past so I prioritize lighter and easier climbing bikes to make that part of the ride faster and make the rides to the trails easier.


This is the category I fall into also. 90 percent of my riding ia a mix of flat terrain, some downhill sections that aren't too crazy and climbs. If I decide to start making trips to the bike park on a regular basis I'm gonna buy a rig just to use for that. As for now I'm waiting for my shop to get the full suspension in that I want that will be my 2nd trail bike.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

EatsDirt said:


> For me, it's about the upper limits the bike is capable of with a side of mechanical sympathy. Having frequently ridden/raced trails that WC DH pros currently train on, riding everything from a twitchy 90's HT to a modern 170, it's not about having a crutch.


I get the impression sometimes that MTBR thinks riding a long travel bike automatically makes someone over biked. There are places where 170mm is under biked.


----------



## HTail (Jan 29, 2004)

I think you're right, there are a lot of people riding bikes with more travel than they really need. Some good commentary on this, and it is an industry influenced thing for sure. We buy what's in front of us, marketed to us and available. That said, having bought my first full susp 20 years ago, coming from a hard tail and going to 100mm Ellsworth Truth, for the next 10 years or so have never felt like I needed more travel. Obviously it was great for climbing & hardpack, but had enough to smooth out rough and tumble stuff just took more riding finesse, rather than being able to roll straight over the chunky stuff. 

Fast forward to today, I've demo'd many the latest "trail" bikes and have to say I'm pretty impressed. In spite of the longer travel (120mm-140mm), the bikes climbed amazingly well, just felt big and less maneuverable than the old 26"....kind of feel like I'm on stilts, sitting up high.

I also agree with others that it also depends on what kind of riding you're doing, and there's a bike for that. But good point being made here, many riders (not all..) really don't need as much travel as many bikes offered these days, and might actually do themselves a favor with a shorter travel "XC" bike, at least on the climbs .


----------



## EatsDirt (Jan 20, 2014)

jeremy3220 said:


> I get the impression sometimes that MTBR thinks riding a long travel bike automatically makes someone over biked. There are places where 170mm is under biked.


So true. At times it feels like my riding peers and I are living in an alternate reality.

It must come down to location, level of participation, and exposure to the upper end of trails...


----------



## BadgerOne (Jul 17, 2015)

It's all about the right bike for the rider. Case in point - my riding buddy before we both moved away rode a 2015-ish carbon Scalpel. Steep, narrow, fast thing with a little travel. I rode a mid-geo hardtail or a RIP 9. I called us 'uphill' and 'downhill'. The irony is that I was 'uphill' and he was 'downhill'. Turn that featherweight Scalpel uphill and I'd drop him. Downhill, he and the Scalpel were gone. Go figure.


----------



## CannondaleF9 (Nov 17, 2012)

jeremy3220 said:


> I get the impression sometimes that MTBR thinks riding a long travel bike automatically makes someone over biked. There are places where 170mm is under biked.


I think there's a lot of people reading the title of this thread and responding without reading most of the posts. 
The OP was wondering that since at their local trails, there isn't much tech, and it's not crazy steep, why do people everywhere seem to have longer travel bikes. 

I agree a lot of this comes down to location, and how many "big mountain" trails are in the area. If you buy a 180mm bike that can still pedal, use it at the park twice a month and then pedal your XC trails the rest of the time, that would make sense if it was your only bike. If you buy a 180mm bike in the hope that one day you might ride a DH park, or that you think you need that much travel because you like watching DH or Enduro racing for fun, then maybe you'll be overbiked. 

For those who can afford multiple bikes, this isn't really an issue, which also comes down to this; most people tend to buy bikes that will handle the hardest type of riding they will do.


----------



## BIGTIMEBALLER (Jul 7, 2020)

Forgive me for not reading the entire thread… but have read several pages.

I think what we have here is a bit of elitism. Somehow being underbiked is worthy of praise and commendation. If you are not comfortable with a skittish hard tail or XC bike, then your riding skills must be inferior.

Just the term”overbiked” is loaded and offensive. As many have mentioned already, modern geo puts enduro and all mountain bikes right there with downcountry and full susp XC bikes with regard to climbing and pedaling, but also is more capable overall, more comfortable, and safer (better susp, tires, and brakes).

In addition, I keep reading about weight. Current Aluminum trail hard tails weight 30lbs +\-…. Current carbon enduro bikes weigh 32lbs +\-… current trail and downcountry bikes are 25-28lbs.


----------



## JerzyBoy (May 26, 2008)

BIGTIMEBALLER said:


> Forgive me for not reading the entire thread… but have read several pages.
> 
> I think what we have here is a bit of elitism. Somehow being underbiked is worthy of praise and commendation. If you are not comfortable with a skittish hard tail or XC bike, then your riding skills must be inferior.
> 
> ...


Has zero to do with elitism. I've walked into bike shops, told them what trails I ride, which have way more techy ups than gnarly downs, and what bikes I've been considering, and had them say..."why not go w this model? It has 160mm lf travel in case you ever need it". That has led me to wonder, how many people who know nothing about mountain biking are on the wrong bikes. That's what this is about.


----------



## JerzyBoy (May 26, 2008)

One thing I will say, I feel like alot more people understood what I was getting at here, then people who didn't. I wasn't trying to bash anyone, or turn my nose up, or whatever else. Just saw a shift in the industry and this seemed like an interesting question to ask.


----------



## sgltrak (Feb 19, 2005)

EatsDirt said:


> Your priorities make sense, but you seem to insinuate that the poster you're replying to isn't a confident/capable descender. I won't speak for that poster, but I could have easily typed that.
> 
> For me, it's about the upper limits the bike is capable of with a side of mechanical sympathy. Having frequently ridden/raced trails that WC DH pros currently train on, riding everything from a twitchy 90's HT to a modern 170, it's not about having a crutch.
> 
> ...


My intent was certainly not to assume anything about the descending capabilities or confidence of anyone here, but rather to point out how I choose to tackle the weakness in my own riding (and my general laziness in not wanting to pedal more up the hills than I absolutely have to).


----------



## froze (Feb 5, 2011)

I think probably 95% of the people that buy bikes get too much bike for what their skill level is or will ever be! This goes for road and MTB's. But, they buy nice bikes for showing off to others in their group, or they think spending more money is better, they do the same thing with their vehicles and houses too. Not sure why a family of 4 would have both spouses working so they can afford a 3,000 plus square foot home, when a simpler 1,500 to 2,000 square foot home with one working spouse footing the bill would be just fine, then mom, or dad, can stay home and take care of the kids instead of dumping them off at a daycare when their not even 6 months old yet! I'm sorry but that's no way for child to be raised, they need a parent, not a nanny, or a babysitter, or a daycare worker to confuse the baby into thinking one of them is their mommy because they spend most of their waking hours with them and not their parents. Why do people think they need 2 brand new cars every 5 years? not just any car either but a top of line SUV's the gobble fuel. 

Sorry, got to get off my soapbox, LOL!!


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

There's a whole lot of ridiculous assumptions going on in this thread. I think that's funny.


----------



## EatsDirt (Jan 20, 2014)

sgltrak said:


> My intent was certainly not to assume anything about the descending capabilities or confidence of anyone here, but rather to point out how I choose to tackle the weakness in my own riding (and my general laziness in not wanting to pedal more up the hills than I absolutely have to).


To me, it read a little assumptive/abrasive given the way you started the post. Cheers to doing your thing.


----------



## fuzz_muffin (Dec 24, 2017)

froze said:


> I think probably 95% of the people that buy bikes get too much bike for what their skill level is or will ever be! This goes for road and MTB's. But, they buy nice bikes for showing off to others in their group, or they think spending more money is better, they do the same thing with their vehicles and houses too. Not sure why a family of 4 would have both spouses working so they can afford a 3,000 plus square foot home, when a simpler 1,500 to 2,000 square foot home with one working spouse footing the bill would be just fine, then mom, or dad, can stay home and take care of the kids instead of dumping them off at a daycare when their not even 6 months old yet! I'm sorry but that's no way for child to be raised, they need a parent, not a nanny, or a babysitter, or a daycare worker to confuse the baby into thinking one of them is their mommy because they spend most of their waking hours with them and not their parents. Why do people think they need 2 brand new cars every 5 years? not just any car either but a top of line SUV's the gobble fuel.
> 
> Sorry, got to get off my soapbox, LOL!!


Cost is not proportional to travel. 
There are also expensive road/hardtail/short travel bikes.

This thread is a dumpster fire.


----------



## frdfandc (Sep 5, 2007)

I know which bikes I'm going to have in my quiver. My full rigid SS and a 140/130mm travel bike like the current Trek Fuel EX lineup. I rode a Fuel EX 9.8 in XL and I felt right at home on it. It's a little overkill for the trails I ride, but I'm going to be traveling and exploring different trail systems and feel that a 140/130mm travel bike.


----------



## JerzyBoy (May 26, 2008)

dysfunction said:


> There's a whole lot of ridiculous assumptions going on in this thread. I think that's funny.


Amen.


----------



## OldMike (Apr 30, 2020)

Not sure if I bought "Too Much Bike" (5'10.5" on S4 2021 SJ), but I can tell you today I was really glad I had it when I got caught in the rain.
The overall stability and confidence going down wet leaf covered rock gardens and steep chutes is hard to explain, but not something I could have done 
on my old 2003 Jamis Dakar.


----------



## Ailuropoda (Dec 15, 2010)

For a change of pace while training for a race I occasionally rode my full-suspension bike the 62 miles to work and back in the morning on all smooth gravel and paved roads. You know what? It was a great ride. Very comfortable. A little slower than my regular bike but totally doable and very fun. There is no such thing as being “overbiked.” Modern full-suspension bikes are very versatile. And I usually ride the ten miles to my nearest local trails on paved roads on the full-suspension bike. No issues.

My number one criterion for a bike? Comfort. Everything else is secondary. I’m not into torture as I’m not a professional trying to glean every tenth of a second from my ride. And I’m so far from winning any race I’m in that it doesn’t matter. I just race for fun and to take part in events.


----------



## Monty219 (Oct 26, 2020)

sgltrak said:


> I am the exact opposite. I feel plenty confident on tech and downhills and can out-descend the majority of the folks with whom I ride, but have not been a fast climber in the past so I prioritize lighter and easier climbing bikes to make that part of the ride faster and make the rides to the trails easier.


To each their own. I am based in the foco loveland area as well so maybe I’ll see ya out there (but probably not realize it) one of these days.


----------



## civil_servant (Dec 22, 2020)

My wife's bike would probably be seen as overbiked. She owns a Knolly Warden frame with 170/170mm EXT setup. Before that she was riding a 120/120mm setup BMC, which didn't provide her with much confidence. We're a biking family with two sons and we ride every weekend. On her 120mm setup she didn't have enough confidence to tackle a lot of obstacles and she started to become the slowest member in the family when my youngest reached age 7. We got her the bigger bike and her confidence improved dramatically. Her speed picked up as well and she's able to keep up with the 9-year old now. The bigger bike was well worth it, but I can easily see how someone seeing her on the trail would think it's too much bike.

That brings me back to people commenting on here that they can ride with lower suspension and keep up with your buddies. Good on you that you possess these biking skills. But has it ever occurred to you that if your friends had lower specced bikes that you would have to spend more time waiting for them? So don't worry, be happy.


----------



## jay_paradox (Oct 21, 2020)

civil_servant said:


> My wife's bike would probably be seen as overbiked. She owns a Knolly Warden frame with 170/170mm EXT setup. Before that she was riding a 120/120mm setup BMC, which didn't provide her with much confidence. We're a biking family with two sons and we ride every weekend. On her 120mm setup she didn't have enough confidence to tackle a lot of obstacles and she started to become the slowest member in the family when my youngest reached age 7. We got her the bigger bike and her confidence improved dramatically. Her speed picked up as well and she's able to keep up with the 9-year old now. The bigger bike was well worth it, but I can easily see how someone seeing her on the trail would think it's too much bike.
> 
> That brings me back to people commenting on here that they can ride with lower suspension and keep up with your buddies. Good on you that you possess these biking skills. But has it ever occurred to you that if your friends had lower specced bikes that you would have to spend more time waiting for them? So don't worry, be happy.


That Knolly Warden looks sweet!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jay_paradox (Oct 21, 2020)

I’m thinking I need something like this...











Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Bacon Fat (Mar 11, 2016)

JerzyBoy said:


> Has zero to do with elitism. I've walked into bike shops, told them what trails I ride, which have way more techy ups than gnarly downs, and what bikes I've been considering, and had them say..."why not go w this model? It has 160mm lf travel in case you ever need it". That has led me to wonder, how many people who know nothing about mountain biking are on the wrong bikes. That's what this is about.


Knowing what trail that you ride, 160mm travel would probably turn someone off on Mtn bike. Way too soft and heavy for the smooth trails at Allaire. It would like showing up to a track in a jeep. It really is a fun place on a SS rigid bike. A 120/130mm bike is more than enough to handle anything there at speed. Bike shops really should know what bikes work best in their area.


----------



## JerzyBoy (May 26, 2008)

jay_paradox said:


> I’m thinking I need something like this...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's what I'm sure they will be using to run rhe Tour de France with in a few yrs.


----------



## JerzyBoy (May 26, 2008)

Bacon Fat said:


> Knowing what trail that you ride, 160mm travel would probably turn someone off on Mtn bike. Way too soft and heavy for the smooth trails at Allaire. It would like showing up to a track in a jeep. It really is a fun place on a SS rigid bike. A 120/130mm bike is more than enough to handle anything there at speed. Bike shops really should know what bikes work best in their area.


Yea Ht's are honestly the most fun at Allaire in my opinion.I see alot of guys out there on rigid ss bikes as well as people on long travel bikes too so there's a mix.


----------



## Monty219 (Oct 26, 2020)

JerzyBoy said:


> That's what I'm sure they will be using to run rhe Tour de France with in a few yrs.


With emotors in the hubs


----------



## sgltrak (Feb 19, 2005)

Monty219 said:


> To each their own. I am based in the foco loveland area as well so maybe I’ll see ya out there (but probably not realize it) one of these days.


I've been off the bike for a couple of weeks due to a nasty tumble in Horsetooth, but started riding again yesterday. I hope to meet you one of these days. I'll be the slow old guy you pass.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

jsudar said:


> I ride a hardtail I custom built in my garage. It has an Angleset in it and I can move the HA +\- 1.5* for a total of 3* of adjustment. I honestly couldn’t tell a difference with a 1* slacker change. Maybe I could if I did back to back rides with the full three degree swing.
> I was riding it with a 160mm Lyrik and I was overbiked like you wouldn’t believe for the Utah Wasatch Front trails I usually ride. I built the bike for the rider I wished I was and not so much for the rider I actually am. Finally got honest with myself and put on a 140mm Pike. Haven’t noticed the difference there either except the bike is nearly a pound lighter. I’m probably still over biked for most of what I ride.
> I do make the trip to Moab quite often and I am most grateful for the suspension in that terrain. I know because I’ve ridden Moab on a full rigid single speed klunker too. For now I’m still willing to pedal uphill on a 31 lb. hardtail so I can rail on the way down and still have a good time riding Moab chunk a few times a year.
> Age has a lot to do with it too. I’m over forty now and I just can’t ride like I used to. My next bike I build will be much more XC oriented and you know what? I probably won’t be disappointed or notice a huge difference.
> ...


My thought is that HTA is blown way way out of proportion as a measurement and that it "needs to be" 66, 65 or 64 or whatever. Stability at speed is nice. Not endo-ing is nice, but I find that comes down a lot more to bar/stem length and being able to hold the front wheel straight, weight shift and being able to get your weight back, fork trail/offset, dropper post (which helps with weight shift, but it's not the end of it either), and larger wheels (especially compared to old 26). While I'm not saying go for a steep HTA, I am saying the obsession with it is not productive and it's not doing what many people think it's doing, that mostly comes from the other factors. It's not why people endo. The endo because they didn't shift the weight back or they didn't hold the bars straight to keep the wheel from going 90 degrees. These are affected by the other factors more than HTA IMO.

It is a problem on "modern geometry" bikes where they keep moving the ST steeper to put more pressure on your hands for flat ground. If it's a longer travel bike, this is ok since you are generally climbing and descending more and during those times you want the steeper angle to counter the weight effects on climbs, but on the shorter travel bikes this is getting a little out of hand, in conjunction with kicking out the front. Great if you are climbing...crap if you are on flatter terrain.


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

Amt0571 said:


> IMHO, there have been only 3 meaningful innovations in mountain bike since they were invented:
> 
> Hydraulic discs.
> Suspension forks.
> ...


I would add geometry specifically tailored to riding off-road as the first meaningful innovation.

Before that, we just had beefed up road bike frames with lightweight, flimsy motorcycle type components strapped to them. Total garbage.


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

Today I rode my Spur at Emma Long. Which is quite chunky in spots with many small/ medium drops in ATX. The ride was a lot of fun because it made the seemingly endless climbing significantly easier than the same climbs on my SJ Evo. I performed better than usual against my peers and did all the usual lines. Pretty sure my overall time on the Spur was faster and I felt fresh after the ride. 
That said, it would have been more fun on the SJ Evo because at my skill level I can charge the chunky downhills/ drops with more abandon & overall confidence. There were two 3.5' vertical drops in a row at slow speed and they were a bit sketchy for me, on the 120mm bike for example. 
So did I need a bigger bike for today's ride? No. But I would have enjoyed myself a bit more on the bigger bike, and that's what matters. 


Sent from my SM-G715A using Tapatalk


----------



## stripes (Sep 6, 2016)

sgltrak said:


> I've been off the bike for a couple of weeks due to a nasty tumble in Horsetooth, but started riding again yesterday. I hope to meet you one of these days. I'll be the slow old guy you pass.


If you foco guys don’t mind a slow ride,
I’d love to join y’all. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Calsun (May 12, 2021)

JerzyBoy said:


> I'm with you on this. My bike came spec'd out with a 2.3 front and rear. Swapped for a grippier 2.3 rear and a 2.5 front because although my bike rolled fast, the rear didn't hook up too well. Paying the price now because my bike rolls terribly now on anything but the downs.


The tread and sidewalls influence rolling performance and traction far more than the width of the tire. In some ways there are almost too many choices even with Maxxis brand tires and then a lot depends on the terrain you most often encounter where you tend to ride. I changed out Maxxis Rekon Race on the front wheel for the Maxxis Minon DHF with both tires having a 2.3" width but different compounds and tread patterns.


----------



## kendunn (Sep 9, 2013)

Its fun to mix it up, big travel is big fun, it lets you take some crazy lines, but shorter is fast.


----------



## sgltrak (Feb 19, 2005)

stripes said:


> If you foco guys don’t mind a slow ride,
> I’d love to join y’all.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


PM anytime. I'm always glad to ride, no matter the speed.


----------



## Monty219 (Oct 26, 2020)

sgltrak said:


> I've been off the bike for a couple of weeks due to a nasty tumble in Horsetooth, but started riding again yesterday. I hope to meet you one of these days. I'll be the slow old guy you pass.


No kidding, i just spent 4 weeks with 8 stitches in my knee and elbow due to a crash on horsetooth myself. Made me rethink how fast i want to ride, or at least keep my speed in check on less familiar trails. Finally getting back to almost normal 5 weeks in.


----------



## hvmatt (Jan 1, 2019)

I live next to a bike park and my bikes are tailored for that.I still pedal up hill but it's really not as fun or easy as riding a lighter short travel bike but I wouldn't have a bike specifically for that(my troy 29 does just fine).It's just horses for courses,if I lived somewhere flatter I wouldn't have a d/h bike but I don't so I do.I'd just have an enduro bike(Spartan/Troy) with two wheelsets so for park oriented trips away I could stick the heavier wheelset on.But really it doesnt matter in the slightest to me what people are choosing to ride.


----------



## John Kuhl (Dec 10, 2007)

Most people now use way too much bike. That includes those who use motors. I'm an old guy and I ride those same trails on a 100mm bike.


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

John Kuhl said:


> Most people now use way too much bike. That includes those who use motors. I'm an old guy and I ride those same trails on a 100mm bike.


100mm full suspension or hardtail? Cause if full suspension, then you are on way too much bike!

However, I ride rigid with 26” wheels, so doesn’t matter, you are on way too much bike either way with your extreme 100mm travel. I remember when 100mm travel meant you were riding a downhill bike. Now get off my lawn!!!!!


----------



## BuzzinHornets (Sep 17, 2005)

Sometimes you will find me at the bike park on my 110mm bike and sometimes you will find me on my local “XC” trails on my 170mm bike. Am I under or over biked? Please tell me as I just can’t stand the thought of using the wrong bike for the wrong trail….


----------



## DeoreDX (Jul 28, 2007)

Under biked has one wheel. Over biked has a three wheels. Anything in between is fine with me. Ride what makes you happy.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

John Kuhl said:


> Most people now use way too much bike. That includes those who use motors. I'm an old guy and I ride those same trails on a 100mm bike.


You hitting all the gap jumps and big drops?


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

singletrackmack said:


> Now get off my lawn!!!!!


Seems the vibe of the entire thread.


----------



## rod9301 (Oct 30, 2004)

jay_paradox said:


> I’m thinking I need something like this...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't think so, you can't put a big dropper on it. 

Sent from my Redmi Note 8 Pro using Tapatalk


----------



## MattiThundrrr (Jul 6, 2019)

DeoreDX said:


> Under biked has one wheel. Over biked has a three wheels.


Under biked?








over biked?








Over-Underbiked?








Four legs good, two legs better!


----------



## rod9301 (Oct 30, 2004)

kendunn said:


> Its fun to mix it up, big travel is big fun, it lets you take some crazy lines, but shorter is fast.


Faster uphill? Because for sure you can descend a lot faster on a big travel bike, and even on cruise country trails, rolling terrain

Sent from my Redmi Note 8 Pro using Tapatalk


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

rod9301 said:


> cruise country


Did you just invent a new bike category?


----------



## MattiThundrrr (Jul 6, 2019)

jeremy3220 said:


> Did you just invent a new bike category?


Cruise country: Down country with automatic transmission


----------



## ccm (Jan 14, 2004)

jeremy3220 said:


> Did you just invent a new bike category?


yes he did
you saw it here first


----------



## fuzz_muffin (Dec 24, 2017)

MattiThundrrr said:


> Cruise country: Down country with automatic transmission


I've ridden one of those internal gear auto SRAM hubs. Was a good chuckle.


----------



## kendunn (Sep 9, 2013)

70% of the miles I ride a hardtail is perfect. 20% is much better on a short travel FS.....but the thing is that last 10%....the really tough stuff......that benefits from more travel, and that 10% is what I'm out there looking for. But hey, some people are out there just trying to beat Strava times, thats not me.


----------



## Shamis (Apr 12, 2015)

I have not read though the 16 pages of this post, but why are so many people wound up about what someone else is riding?

Buy the bike that makes you happy and allows you to do what makes you happy. End of story... If you have the means to own multiple bikes and that's what makes you happy, good on you!


----------



## Champion_Monster (Nov 30, 2014)

A lot of people wondering why someone would bother with full suspension where_ they_ would use a hard tail must have really tough tailbones or something. I got sick of riding my Specialized Aluminum HT from 2014 on _flat_ ground that had dried very hard with ruts and smallish bumps- couldn't go too much lower tire pressure wise. Even if the actual roots, rocks, minor drops and climbs weren't available on my trails I'd have traded just to be more comfortable in these visibly flat but rough areas, it's just noticeably more comfortable on a 130/140 FEX8 FS bike.


----------



## lil byke (Jun 16, 2021)

I agree with most of what has been said here, I see 10k Yetis all the time on really easy flow trails. However, there are also many trails I ride that the 10k 150-160mm travel yeti would be best for.

It depends on where you live and what you ride. If you live somewhere with plenty of extremely steep rocky trails that most people wouldn’t even consider riding then the travel might be warranted.
I have an alloy stumpy with upgraded I9 wheels/hubs and 140 mm travel and it seems like almost the perfect bike for doing the steep rocky but also the flowy.
I even ride it at the bike park but there are definitely some down hill trails that I have to take it easy on because a longer heavier bike is needed.
It also rides uphill super well and is not too heavy but I do use 2.5 tires because I would rather not die on the down hill when I try to go way too fast. 

For me a hard tail or less travel would def be not enough bike but a heavier enduro / all mountain bike because my legs are too weak currently and it would be silly to pedal such a heavy bike but in a few years when i’m stronger I may buy something with 150 - 160 travel. 

There is definitely a sweet spot!!!


----------



## lil byke (Jun 16, 2021)

kendunn said:


> 70% of the miles I ride a hardtail is perfect. 20% is much better on a short travel FS.....but the thing is that last 10%....the really tough stuff......that benefits from more travel, and that 10% is what I'm out there looking for. But hey, some people are out there just trying to beat Strava times, thats not me.


Yes, this is also me lol!


----------



## Ailuropoda (Dec 15, 2010)

Hey...I'm building up a Specialized Enduro. 170 mm of travel front and back. I know very well I'm not going to be taking massive Red Bull Rampage style jumps or even taking it to a bike park. And I'm still going to ride conservatively but I like to have a rugged bike for the factor or safety. As has been pointed out ad infinitum on MTBR, if you're not racing other factors become more important for bike selection. In my case number one, two, and three are comfort followed by reliability and aesthetics. By reliability I mean not breaking spokes, snapping chains, or breaking critical and expensive parts at the wrong time. 

The trails around here in Phoenix are pretty rough and some are somewhat technical. I've seen people riding them on hardtails and I could certainly do it but I don't want to. It's supposed to be a fun hobby.


----------



## Prognosticator (Feb 15, 2021)

My decision to buy a Ripley V4 was based on the trails I ride, what bike I was coming from and how I like the bike to feel.

I was riding a TB2 with 100MM of travel. I enjoyed that bike immensely. But I decided I wanted something that was a little more slack and with a little more travel. I am getting older and that seemed a reasonable concession to my age. That decision was grounded in the context of how my TB2 felt on my local trails here in NE Georgia and the trails in Western North Carolina and other Southeastern locales.

I also prefer to feel like my bike is at the limit of my ability to ride the trails I frequent. I want to feel the roots and rocks, not just float over them.

I have a good friend who has a Porsche 911. He's a self-made man, can afford the car, and I don't begrudge his decision to buy it. But he will never be able to push that car to its limits on the roads here and he doesn't track it. So he will never get the satisfaction of exploring its capabilities which are so far beyond what is legal and safe on our roads. I drive a Honda Accord Sport manual with a Hondata tune. I have a long commute that includes many back roads. Just driving to work, I am able to wring it out and explore its limits. My friend with the 911 couldn't do that, since that car doesn't really get exciting until 145 MPH and higher.

That's kind of how I feel about my bike. It is just enough bike for me to have fun.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

Rigid is best.


----------



## Ailuropoda (Dec 15, 2010)

Waiting on the fork. What too much bike looks like…


----------



## Whiterabbitt (May 16, 2020)

Prognosticator said:


> My friend with the 911 couldn't do that, since that car doesn't really get exciting until 145 MPH and higher.


I assure you that Laguna Seca can wring out the most of a base 911 whether it’s taking turn 11 at 60 mph, or barely squeaking to 120 on the straightaway before turn 2, and hitting 1.3 g in turn, uh, 8? I think?

I guarantee loads of excitement and not much driving over 80 at all.


----------



## Whiterabbitt (May 16, 2020)

Oh, and that is WITH driving on R-compound tires that won't last 1 season of DE days much less timed runs if he's that good!

BUT, more likely he, in his fancy-schmancy 911, would be getting passed by people in BRZ, Miata, and even Volkswagen Golfs who are die hard track rats. Talk about being over-car'd! (But fun tho!)

(Why am I responding to this analogy? Replace 911 with AMG and that's me at LS, getting passed by honda S2000's with less than half my power and crappier tires! And getting absolutely WALKED by spec class miatas in the turns. Those guys are GOOD.)

So yeah, I've learned not to take it personally when I ride a bike that would be at home with the team redbull bikers, yet biking on trail slower than folks on a santa cruz blur. Overbiked, tires are dragging like velcro, gap jumps mostly smaller than 6 ft, drops mostly smaller than 2 ft.

WAY overbiked.

....damn it's fun tho.

Much more fun than NOT being overbiked!!


----------



## Whiterabbitt (May 16, 2020)

I'm also over PADDED. Do I look like a total ASS wearing a helmet, elbow pads with arm guards, knee pads with shin guards, and wrist braces?

Riding a 180/180 mm travel bike?

Taking the pee-wee jump line with 6 ft gaps while the hard core guys are on 140/130 bikes, padless minus a FF helmet, on the advanced line, gapping 15 ft with twice the air height I'm getting?

Yes! Yes I do look like an ass!

I'm over it tho. Still having fun. Still giving respect for the guys on the advanced line, and the 12 year olds smashing my line and looking better than me while doing it.


----------



## ocnLogan (Aug 15, 2018)

Whiterabbitt said:


> I'm also over PADDED. Do I look like a total ASS wearing a helmet, elbow pads with arm guards, knee pads with shin guards, and wrist braces?
> 
> Riding a 180/180 mm travel bike?
> 
> ...


I much prefer to be more padded, than more broken. I'm not afraid of some pain, but the broken part causes more impact to my daily life than I want. So I try to pad up when it doesn't feel overly intrusive. I wouldn't worry about what you look like, if its getting you out there to ride.

I'm FF on pretty much every ride, knee, elbow, and hip pads (I love my Leatt armored chamois, it literally feels exactly the same to me, other than my hip socket being slightly armored if I hit the dirt). And while I'm not the slowest at all, I'm definitely not hitting as big of stuff as some less padded people. Maybe I will be more cavalier about it in the future when my skills are higher, but for now, this feels right .


----------



## Calsun (May 12, 2021)

A neighbors dog got loose and I had a hard crash on pavement as a result and it has taken my right knee nearly 3 months and it is still not at 100%. If I had broken a collar bone with would have been a 4 month recovery period with no riding whatsoever. The older I get the less I rely on dumb luck.


----------



## blammo585 (Apr 24, 2012)

Champion_Monster said:


> A lot of people wondering why someone would bother with full suspension where_ they_ would use a hard tail must have really tough tailbones or something. I got sick of riding my Specialized Aluminum HT from 2014 on _flat_ ground that had dried very hard with ruts and smallish bumps- couldn't go too much lower tire pressure wise. Even if the actual roots, rocks, minor drops and climbs weren't available on my trails I'd have traded just to be more comfortable in these visibly flat but rough areas, it's just noticeably more comfortable on a 130/140 FEX8 FS bike.


I've been riding bikes with my wife around the school's paved track and put the lockout on on my rear shock. My butt was hurting so bad and then I thought to reach down and flip the switch. It felt so much better even on a paved track.


----------



## AJ Morris (Jul 4, 2020)

It's worth pointing out that for a lot of us, there is a compromise between how emotionally invested we are in the sport, and how much financial investment we can afford. If you are passionate about mountain biking, but have limited funds, it makes sense to buy the bike that covers the widest spectrum. 

I see a lot of college kids on my local trails that are seriously over-biked, but given that we live within a days drive of some of the best riding in North America, it only makes sense. I was talking to one youngster just yesterday who was riding a Santa Cruz Hightower. That bike is overkill to the Nth degree here, but she and her friends are heading to Moab to camp in the desert for a week over Thanksgiving break... At which point that bike begins to make an awfully good case for itself...


----------



## Dhorn33 (May 3, 2005)

Great discussion. As a self-proclaimed cheap ass that has been riding nothing but 2nd hand bikes for the last 30 years as a purely recreational rider I figured I would add my perspective. Maybe others on here read threads like these can relate.

I don't do jumps, drops, mountain downhill or races. I ride mostly ride local single-track in MN. The last time I did lift service downhill was in Vail, CO in 1997 when I rode my 1996 Schwinn High Sierra SS with a Manitou 3 fork a Englund Speed Springs installed. No jumps then either, but it sure was fun going 40+ mph down the fire roads! I lusted for something like a M2 Stumpjumper, Schwinn Homegrown or cool CNC parts like Kooka, Ringle, etc - but I was a broke college kid.

Fast forward a number of years and i got back into riding MTB and loving it again. I upgraded to a used 06 Stumpjumper m4 hardtail and installed some mechanical Avid bb7 disk brakes. Life was great! I felt great great and questioned why so many at the local single-track were spending thousands on full carbon long travel full suspension bikes when I was passing them on the trail.

I did recently upgrade again to a short travel xc full suspension bike - a 2015 Salsa Spearfish. I bought it used for a great price. I spent months searching for the right used bike, agonizing over head tube angle, hardtail or squish, 29 or 27.5, etc, but buying used means I was limited to what became available. This bike is just 80/100mm, and so far it is great for me. I also picked up a modern 29er xc hardtail and it also works great for the riding I do. I will say that the Spearfish is very smooth and less jarring on my rides, and my body has appreciated that.

Am I having any more or less fun than someone that has more or less bike? Who knows, and who cares? The hobby is whatever you make it. Do you have to spend thousands of dollars to have fun? No. But if you do and you can afford it, go for it. I have no dilusions that I am ever going to hammer down the giant gap jumps on the A-line at Whistler so I made a decision that I don't need a bike for that, but I sure love watching the videos on YouTube! Anyway, have fun everyone. Regardless of the bike you have, be thankful that you can ride it and enjoy the experience.


----------



## Ailuropoda (Dec 15, 2010)

Way, way too much bike.

I finally decided on the configuration and cut the head tube to length. Rides really, really well. 

Specialized makes the best stuff.


----------



## Mesozoic (Apr 20, 2004)

My latest all rounder MTB has 130-140mm of travel and is perfectly adequate for rough descents and efficient enough for lengthy climbs. If I need to get out of those bounds I will get on my FR bike for descending and my HT for climbs.


----------



## looks easy from here (Apr 16, 2019)

Champion_Monster said:


> A lot of people wondering why someone would bother with full suspension where_ they_ would use a hard tail must have really tough tailbones or something. I got sick of riding my Specialized Aluminum HT from 2014 on _flat_ ground that had dried very hard with ruts and smallish bumps- couldn't go too much lower tire pressure wise. Even if the actual roots, rocks, minor drops and climbs weren't available on my trails I'd have traded just to be more comfortable in these visibly flat but rough areas, it's just noticeably more comfortable on a 130/140 FEX8 FS bike.


I happily seek out chunky, steep, black terrain on my 120mm hardtail. Misery is flat, pedaly, hardpacked, gopher-pocked chatterfests, where I'd like to be seated, but it's like my saddle is bolted to a jackhammer.


----------



## Ailuropoda (Dec 15, 2010)

Too much bike for Arizona. Cave Creek Race Route.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

….


----------



## Whiterabbitt (May 16, 2020)

I love this thread. It has so much leg it will run forever.

I'm not riding for fitness, but if I were, shouldn't I be climbing on a 40 lb 200/180 behemoth? It's the same workout as climbing on a huffy, or on an XC bike but I put weighted straps on my legs for muscle strength.

Descending on a huffy tho.....


(does huffy even still exist?)


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

I've never been overbiked, only underbiked.

I like to do more with less, though as I get older I think more about upping the suspension to take the sting outta the chunder.

Both my bikes are 140/160.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

If you case jumps as hard and often as I do, then it's a good idea to have as much travel as possible.


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

Curveball said:


> If you case jumps as hard and often as I do, then it's a good idea to have as much travel as possible.


Ride faster 🙄


----------



## speedygz (May 12, 2020)

I subscribe to the old motorcycle adage, "it's way more fun riding a slow bike fast, than a fast bike slow"


----------



## MattiThundrrr (Jul 6, 2019)

speedygz said:


> I subscribe to the old motorcycle adage, "it's way more fun riding a slow bike fast, than a fast bike slow"


100% agree. Up to a certain point. Example: I had a 250 cc Honda. My buddy with the cafe racer GL1000 was always asking to borrow my bike for back road blasting. However, once he'd tried to pass a transport on the interstate, his enthusiasm for its 13 horsepower waned.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

speedygz said:


> I subscribe to the old motorcycle adage, "it's way more fun riding a slow bike fast, than a fast bike slow"


But fast bike fast is still best.


----------



## Schmeg (Nov 2, 2021)

After owning a few HT’s over the years which all were far from top shelf, I went to the road for a few years, spent way too much, and now at 61 years old and fighting cancer (in remission), I bike for fitness. Living in Maine I needed to get around in the winter so now my Growler is the bike I ride year round. I’m not overbiked by any stretch but I can see the allure. as others have said. Have fun. Stay fit.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

MattiThundrrr said:


> Cruise country:


Finally a name for my style of riding!


----------



## speedygz (May 12, 2020)

jeremy3220 said:


> But fast bike fast is still best.


Well, seeing you have an obsession for the "best" I hope for your sake that you're married to a nympho supermodel. Any reply will be useless without pic's


----------



## Champion_Monster (Nov 30, 2014)

looks easy from here said:


> I happily seek out chunky, steep, black terrain on my 120mm hardtail. Misery is flat, pedaly, hardpacked, gopher-pocked chatterfests, where I'd like to be seated, but it's like my saddle is bolted to a jackhammer.


Yes, that's exactly what my experience was and you describe it well. The flat but punishing sections helped me determine damn quickly that a FS bike was the next move.


----------



## speedygz (May 12, 2020)

Schmeg said:


> After owning a few HT’s over the years which all were far from top shelf, I went to the road for a few years, spent way too much, and now at 61 years old and fighting cancer (in remission), I bike for fitness. Living in Maine I needed to get around in the winter so now my Growler is the bike I ride year round. I’m not overbiked by any stretch but I can see the allure. as others have said. Have fun. Stay fit.


Nailed it. I ride mountain bikes, simply because it's fun. And good therapy for injuries, as long as you don't go stupid, & inflict more  A bit of fitness gained along the way is just a bonus. Life is short, enjoy what you can. Another motorcycle saying I try & live by, the journey is just as important as the destination.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

Nurse Ben said:


> Ride faster 🙄


Hey, I can't help it if I'm a slow old man.


----------



## Pedalon2018 (Apr 24, 2018)

BadgerOne said:


> I don't know about everyone else, but I did it once. Bought a highly rated 140mm 29er for a my all-rounder. There were some trails I got my mileage out of the configuration, but in some ways it was a barcalounger on wheels. Still didn't climb great especially compared to my hardtail (obviously) and was heavier and more maintenance work. In the end I'm just a hardtail guy and like the added challenge, but I probably would have loved a 120mm-ish playful bike.


I stick with a lightweight 32 SC with 100mm travel on hard tails… the best all rounder bike but still an awesome ride.


----------



## rockymountaindude (Jun 9, 2021)

BadgerOne said:


> I don't know about everyone else, but I did it once. Bought a highly rated 140mm 29er for a my all-rounder. There were some trails I got my mileage out of the configuration, but in some ways it was a barcalounger on wheels. Still didn't climb great especially compared to my hardtail (obviously) and was heavier and more maintenance work. In the end I'm just a hardtail guy and like the added challenge, but I probably would have loved a 120mm-ish playful bike.


Love my 120 mm Rocky Mountain Element.


----------



## GKelley (Sep 4, 2018)

When you get into your 40's, you realize that suspension isn't only for performance, but comfort as well. I don't _need_ a 140/130 FS bike, but my back sure does appreciate it. 😉


----------



## blammo585 (Apr 24, 2012)

GKelley said:


> When you get into your 40's, you realize that suspension isn't only for performance, but comfort as well. I don't _need_ a 140/130 FS bike, but my back sure does appreciate it. 😉


I remember years ago my nephew and I were riding trails. He had a hardtail and I had a cheap, coil shock full suspension. We rode for a while and we traded up to see how the other felt. I was so glad to get back on my "FS" Mongoose . That hardtail, when I'd hit a root, gets bounced up and "displaced" over to the side depending on how hard you hit.


----------



## cassieno (Apr 28, 2011)

blammo585 said:


> That hardtail, when I'd hit a root, gets bounced up and "displaced" over to the side depending on how hard you hit.


That's just riding a bike....No matter what your suspension at some point you will hit something that you need to actually ride over and cannot just sit down and let the bike take it. Those skills translate to all bikes.


----------



## d365 (Jun 13, 2006)

GKelley said:


> When you get into your 40's, you realize that suspension isn't only for performance, but comfort as well. I don't _need_ a 140/130 FS bike, but my back sure does appreciate it. 😉


This is where I'm at. Ridden mostly XC bikes for 25 years, but then got 140/130 trail bike that still pedals well. I feel like the extra travel and new geo only enhances my rides. A new level of comfort really, all around. 

I'll probably get a good pedaling 150/140mm bike next, when the time comes.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

I understand the comfort aspect but I've found at pedaling speeds and on most undulating trails that my 120mm FS is just as comfortable as my 160mm FS. It's not until speeds reach the point where the 120mm starts getting uncomfortable that the 160mm makes a difference. So I think there's generally a pretty sharp drop off in comfort returns as you go up in travel unless you're bombing down something like black diamond Pisgah trails.


----------



## NC_Foothills_Rider (11 mo ago)

Hardrake said:


> What many people don't realize is that if you spend $9,000 or more on a long travel 29er, such as a 160/140 enduro/trail bike; you will potentially have a bike that weighs about the same or lighter than most 130/120 trail bikes. In comparison to a shorter travel bike, you achieve roughly the same weight and get more travel. That's much better, in my opinion. You can make a longer travel bike climb better but you can't make a shorter travel bike descend better!


Yep. XL Tallboy 4 AL tipped the scales at 36.6 lbs ready to ride, bone stock. That's more than my friend's Pivot Firebird (?) 170 rear travel carbon bike, with Fox 36 and cush core.

Doesn't mean I don't like my bike but in some instances the AL frames can weigh a lot more than you'd think for a 120 mm bike.


----------



## JoeMountain (Apr 17, 2010)

I bought too much bike in 2014 and it really ended up working out for me. I rode the hell out of it and then ended up moving right next to a gnarly trail riding area. So glad I got it. Just a great bike for what I ride on now. My buddy on the other hand is just the opposite. Bought a nice FS bike for $2700 in 2014 and never rides it. What a waste. I tried his in his back yard and went and bought a higher option version of it ($4200 list, paid like $3800). If I got a new one I would *NOT* get some Enduro bike. I'd get something similar to the All Mountain one I have now. 130/140 is perfect.


----------



## Stewiewin (Dec 17, 2020)

JerzyBoy said:


> I got out of mountain biking back in 08 due to moving, marriage, etc. I just had no time for it anymore. Flash forward to a few mos ago and I got back into it. Back then most people hit my local trails on 100-120 mm bikes. 120 was probably the sweet spot. The downhill guys who made runs to the bike park on the weekends ran 150-160 mm bikes. All of that made sense for the types of riding people in both classes were doing. The terms Enduro and All Mountain were out there but never really made sense to me because the bikes in that class still weren't robust enough to take to the bike park, and were way overkill for most singletrack and trails in my area. Nowadays I hit the same trail systems I used to ride at and I see people pedaling around heavier 150-170 mm bikes and I can't help but ask myself why. I'm on a hardtail currently and I'm not getting beat up in the least, although I do plan on buying another full suspension within the next 6 mos.
> 
> I just can't understand why everyone seems to be riding these huge long travel bikes on flowy singletrack with long climbs, etc when they could get away all day every day with 130mm travel and a lighter bike. I guess it would make sense if they had one bike to do it all, but most have seperate bikes they take to do the downhill stuff.
> 
> ...


its not really too much bikes but i can see shops over selling to consumers. its paying too much for bikes.


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

I take away from this that I live in the only place in the world that doesn't have only groomed, smooth, flowy, single track.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

dysfunction said:


> I take away from this that I live in the only place in the world that doesn't have only groomed, smooth, flowy, single track.


Same here. Smooth is a rare thing around here.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

Curveball said:


> Same here. Smooth is a rare thing around here.


Y'all must be neighbors because there's only one place like that in the world.


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

GKelley said:


> When you get into your 40's, you realize that suspension isn't only for performance, but comfort as well. I don't _need_ a 140/130 FS bike, but my back sure does appreciate it. 😉


59 and wouldn't give up my Fleetwood Brougham, cough, Wildcat for anything! Love the ride, even if the fuel economy is piss poor! 
Scoliosis is changing my ways, slowly... Will see if Keystone pass is in order next season since this season is cancer recovery specific.


----------



## jonshonda (Apr 21, 2011)

The only real thing I see around me is riders with way too much rear tire. Especially older riders. 

I run way too much front tire, but at 255lbs with big hope brakes, I can keep up in the corners with the smaller riders. I typically run XR4/XR2 with very few rear traction issues. Two older guys I know run XR4 or Hans Dampf front and rear, and we are riding cross country/light trail type trails.


----------



## norcalbike (Dec 17, 2004)

jonshonda said:


> The only real thing I see around me is riders with way too much rear tire. Especially older riders.
> 
> I run way too much front tire, but at 255lbs with big hope brakes, I can keep up in the corners with the smaller riders. I typically run XR4/XR2 with very few rear traction issues. Two older guys I know run XR4 or Hans Dampf front and rear, and we are riding cross country/light trail type trails.


Idk those sound like perfectly fine tire combos to me. Some people prefer more grip.


----------



## Lionel_Hutz (Dec 8, 2021)

norcalbike said:


> Idk those sound like perfectly fine tire combos to me. Some people prefer more grip.


Seriously--XR4 is pretty much the lightest "trail" tire you can buy and it rolls fast. Thought the poster was going to complain about somebody running dual Assegais...


----------



## jonshonda (Apr 21, 2011)

norcalbike said:


> Idk those sound like perfectly fine tire combos to me. Some people prefer more grip.


Very very few people ride that aggressive of a rear tire around here. For the type of riding I am referring to, maybe 5% of the riders have that aggressive of a rear tire.


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

Are people these days buying too much bike?

Well the trails aren't getting any easier and I ain't getting any younger, so guilty as charged.


----------



## MattiThundrrr (Jul 6, 2019)

Suns_PSD said:


> Well the trails aren't getting any easier


Some would disagree


----------



## norcalbike (Dec 17, 2004)

MattiThundrrr said:


> Some would disagree


Sure machine built flow trails are easy, but the steep natty bois are still out there.


----------



## Bikeventures (Jul 21, 2014)

A lot of our local trails get more difficult over time, due to erosion. But once they get bad enough, the park rangers will get volunteers to turn the eroded trail into a pump track trail. But that usually only happens on popular blue trails. The gnar trails stay gnar.


----------

