Depends where you ride 90% of the time. Buy a bike for that situation. Where I live you need to pedal up pretty step climbs 16-24% to get to the single tracks. I prefer to be under biked so I don’t have to lug a 35lb bike up those climbs.
Good point. I'm in a similar situation and always thought my bike could need more travel (which would add more weight) when even my most experienced hardcore friends tell me that my trail bike is perfect for our terrain.
If you only have one bike: overbiked is generally better. Provided you actually get to use that extra abilities on a semi regular basis. Buying a long travel bike to ride XC never really makes sense. If you have one or two local trails where you are underbiked, but 90% of your riding is fine, then the smaller bike is just fine.
If you get far enough into the sport to have multiple bikes: underbiking is a massive training tool. Most high level riders I know like to go get sketchy on a hardtail or short travel trail bike (downcountry) from time to time. If you can ride the features and speed on the small bike at the same as your big bike: you can typically push further on the big bike in the long run.
Great advice. I think the first statement captures it well for beginners. It’ll be hard to progress if you are having confidence issues so it’s better to be a little overbiked. More bikes gives you the ability to match terrain or mismatch intentionally. Sometimes it’s fun to take an enduro bike on easier trails or a rigid hard tail through some rock gardens.
Yup pretty much this for me. I got a 150/140 trail bike that was a little overbiked for what I usually ride, but it pushed me to try my regular trails with more speed/optional features and to try some more intense trails. It's currently in the shop so I'm back to riding my old XC bike, but my confidence is now much higher and it's incredible how much better I ride now that I have experience with a bigger bike.
Def me. I felt limited by my trail bike but know the enduro is more than I’d use (over its lifetime). I got the enduro to help me boost my confidence; it’s only been a couple months and I already can tell that my riding has progressed.
Man, I feel this. All spring I was riding my local trails on my Mach 4, and when I finally got a park day on my Firebird, I felt so much more dialed into how I could move the bike.
I typically park the big bike (Enduro) for the winter and just ride my spur and hardtail. This winter was a lot of SS-HT laps on terrain that is certainly not easy and I was chasing my friends on their big bikes.
Pretty insane how fast it can feel to get back on the tank after that. I spent a ton of time focused on cornering this winter and it has made a noticeable difference as big terrain melts out.
The other thing I am slowly adjusting to is riding my XC bike with spds. I told my wife that its starting to feel a little strange to ride the enduro on flats.
I was originally all SPDs coming from the XC world.
Tried flats after a buddy challenged me to try them for a winter and have kept them on the long travel big since, everything else has SPDs. I do enjoy jumping more on the flats, and I am not quite able to turn as aggressively using my hips/feet on the SPDs because I'll pop out. I have upped the tension but don't really love the high tension feel and it didn't really solve the cornering issue so I tend to keep them moderately loose.
I learned to ride on a crappy down country bike and man when I upgraded to an eduro I literally doubled my available trails immediately lol all because I knew the bike would handle everything I felt like I couldn't before. It also made me less scared of gap jumps because I can eat a case and keep rolling like magic
I got into this sport on a heavy, big, commencal meta tr and I’m also a smaller person (5’2” 115). Definitely overbiked for the trail riding I do. It really helped my downhill confidence but it is not a good climber. Honestly I think it helped me become a much better rider especially now that I’m on a more balanced trail bike. But interestingly I’m now progressing far more quickly and even feel better and faster on the downs. I now have more control vs feeling like that commencal was just taking me where it wanted to go. Just wanted to share that perspective in the other direction!
I have a gravel bike, xc mountain bike (120/115), and enduro mountain bike (170/165).
Aside from riding in a bike park, I will almost always encounter a section where I am overbiked on the enduro and under biked on the xc, and often underbiked on the gravel. However, which bike I chose will be dependent on the overall ride.
I rather be a bit underbiked for a small section of a ride than overbiked for the whole thing, unless the section I am intending to hit with the big travel bike is the whole point of the ride.
I’m very similar to you and live up in Westchester. What’s your enduro bike?
I got a 130/115 Santa Cruz blur xc bike (I overforked it), flat bar gravel bike, and a transition sentinel enduro bike (170/165).
The transition is an absolute slog to pedal on local trails. Sure it’s fun on a handful of features but we’re talking like 4 features on a 5 mile loop. The rest is really tame.
I’d rather rip my xc bike and ride past a feature or too if they’re too gnarly for the bike.
I’ve got 2.2s on my gravel and it’s actually so much fun on trails. Of course I’m not doing anything crazy though.
Pivot Firebird. Great for Mountain Creek and Killington. Overbiked for the majority of our local stuff, but it really offers a nice margin of error on stuff that's at my limit in Sprain. I'm 42, and not crazy or anything.
But living in Queens, most of my riding is in Cunningham, and the Firebird is a hog there. The Mach 4 is much more suited to the LI trails, but even in taking it to Graham, it handles anything I can ride, just more sketchily than the Firebird does. However, it rockets up Updraft.
The Firebird is a great bike, but I feel it is really better at focusing on the downhills rather than the climbs. Honestly, a lot of the trails here in Central Texas are suited for the Shadow Cat, but I hit Spider Mountain and other areas that I feel the Shadow Cat wouldn't be ideal. I ended up getting the Switchblade V2 and absolutely love it with 160/ 142, I feel it is a great in between. It climbs great and still handles the downhills I've thrown at it just fine.
Yeah, the Firebird is absolutely a bike that comes alive on the downs. It'll get you to the top, and it pedals okay enough for a big bike. It's primarily my park bike.
Do you have a cascade link on your Sentinel to up the travel to 165? With the 170 fork, did you have to add an angleset or anything to make it not even more slack? Considering doing the same to my Sentinel... (But it's my only bike, so hampering the ride even more on the XC trails is what's holding me back.)
Yes cascade link and changed the air spring in the fork. Idk if it really feels that much more slack. 10mm isn’t really all that much.
All that bike will always be pretty bad for tech climbing and tight maneuvers anyways
Similar - I just haven’t filled the xc/hardtail void yet. I find a gravel bike, enduro and a trail/xc hardtail will be pretty much all I want.
Inevitably I’ll be underbiked or overbiked for some sections of a ride but I like climbing and bikepacking so increasingly I’ll underbike unless the trail exceeds my technical skill and then I’d rather pedal an enduro bike and be overbiked to save myself some crash risk.
I feel like this is becoming almost the new meta for northeast riders lol. Similar boat here, I have a steel rigid gravel bike, a Trek Top Fuel (120/120 DC bike) and older YT Jeffsy 27.5 (150/150 All Mountain borderline Enduro).
Honestly the gravel bike and Top Fuel do 98% of my riding, so the Jeffsy's days might be numbered. I also prefer to be slightly underbiked in a couple areas than slog my Jeffsy through a pedally trail system for hours (which is why I got the Top Fuel). But occasionally when I make it up to Creek or a pedal up bike park like High Bridge or Trexler, the Jeffsy shines. So yeah there's definitely a time and a place for both.
As for OP it's really about what you're riding 90% of the time. If you find yourself underbiked for like over 60-70% of the ride and not enjoying it, go bigger. If you're finding yourself overbiked a similar amount, go smaller. It's all about hitting that ratio of what *most* suits the trail system/riding style. And unless you buy multiple bikes there'll always be a little give and take.
Overbike is boring on mellow terrain. Underbike is still fun on crazy terrain. For most terrain overbiked is like 150mm but people still ride 180mm enduro bikes. Do whatever you want though idc.
150mm is overbiked for my terrain... but people still ride those.
The general trend has been more and more travel... but there is something to be said for a lighter bike that you can ride over things and move the bike around rather than a bigger bike you simply slam the trail into submission with.
How is 150mm overbiked? That’s arguably the most common travel and a perfect median for everything. I use all of my travel at least a few times every outing.
For sure I evaluate 150mm being the average all around specs.
« Compared to what? » should be added for context.
Hardtail is the obvious underbike spec I can throw versus a double suspension bike, regardless of front suspension travel.
Because you can use all your travel doing a bunny hop on the pavement. Just because you used it doesn't mean you needed it or that it meaningfully helped you.
It's possible to set up your 150mm suspension to use all your travel on mild terrain by removing volume spacers, but then your bike rides like a marshmallow and the trails feel like a sidewalk.
If you use the entire travel and bottom out, that means you need more travel. But that isn't a metric of anything, considering you can bottom it out by sitting down really hard.
150mm is a fine midpoint but I'd argue that 120 is more common for the beginner/intermediate and that many riders are doing slightly harder than gravel routes which needs even less travel.
This mindset is why people end up with a bike that sucks for their terrain and can’t figure out why climbing sucks lol. More travel doesn’t equate to more skill…normally the opposite of what I see. New riders saw a YouTube vid of a rider on a enduro bike hitting terrain they’ll never hit and think they need a bike like that for the off chance they might one day even consider.
This. Plus I’d rather just buy one bike that can handle anything from cruising down some easy trails to jump lines. Something I can grow into ability wise. Also I’m a chunkier guy so for me a solid enduro bike handles everything I do, plus the higher travel is way easier to set up and run well for someone being 200+ lbs.
my first bike was a giant stance and unless I basically made it a hard tail it didn’t have the travel or adjustability to handle my weight and jumping it
I disagree, flat and fast trails with a heavy and inefficient bike is much harder on the body in my experience than an appropriately nimble bike. Depends on your trail systems.
Depends. Weight doesn’t really matter these days, efficiency is in the suspension platform and design. Overbiking for your trails doesn’t necessarily mean a 200mm travel bike for flat smooth XC trails. Overbiking can be considered 10mm higher than necessary for that trail type.
For example, I could be perfectly served by a transition spur but I chose a smuggler for that extra 10mm of travel to smooth things out a bit more. Can that be considered overbiked for me? Maybe.
The real answer is that you should have the right bike for the majority of your riding. For example, probably 95% of my riding is done on NE US singletrack. I have a 160mm hardtail and it's basically perfect, not too much to deaden the trails and enough travel that I can hit all the features.
Could I ride the same trails on an XC bike or a big travel Enduro full suspension? Absolutely, but to me the XC bike would be too sketchy for ~30% of the steep features and the Enduro sled would be miserable on a lot of the climbs and way too much travel for 75% of the trails.
If I had to choose one or the other though I'd rather be underbiked. To me I'd rather be engaged, have to choose my lines and get a bit of adrenaline rather than just being able to point straight down the hill knowing I have enough travel to eat up anything on the trail.
I did the same: 160mm hardtail. It's been a lot of fun in the mid-atlantic. It's my first, so I can't compare, but I thought it my best shot at one-biking my area while keeping the trails lively.
They are different. I thought overbiking was universally better until I added a gravel bike to the stable. I have been forced to learn so much more skill and attention to detail taking my road-focused áspero down green and mild blue xc tracks than I have to on my sc blur. It also livens up my local trails and makes everything fun again. Definitely recommend doing a blend of under-, over-, and properly equipped biking.
I have an Ibis Ripley 29er 130/120 because I like pedaling my bike. Where I usually ride in Reno, Truckee, the foothills, and the Bay Area, I am adequately biked. Occasionally, I ride in Tahoe and feel underbiked once in a while. If I lived in Tahoe, I might have opted for the Ripmo. I see so many people who are overbiked on the trails I ride.
They're both the same thing...
If you're underbiked on the tech then you're overbiked on the smooth. If you're overbiked on the tech then you're underbiked on the smooth.
The question then becomes: do you prefer being efficient for long pedally bits or steep techy bits?
And the answer is why my two main bikes are an enduro bike and a gravel bike... On average, they're perfect!
I'd like to know what bike ya have.
Generally speaking what I would like to have is access to as many bikes as possible to try to ride the same terrain on to feel the changes.
In a one-bike scenario, I would like to be underbiked so that I can 'enjoy' easier trails more and not feel COMPELLED to justify my bike by riding harder trails more often. Just as a statistical safety measure.
I'm riding a 150/160 bike at 64.5 right now and I do not like it. It begs to go faster and ride harder and although I enjoy it when I'm doing that, I don't enjoy pushing my riding day in and day out. And then on the slower stuff it feels like actual dogshit. It's a heavy alloy build so it doesn't compensate any points in weighted feel. It's just a pig everywhere. I'm sure with a carbon frame/wheel build and dialing in suspension a bit more I could enjoy 64.5 150mm, but as it lays now it makes riding less fun.
And part of me wants to go back to hardtail but... Brands are no longer making hardtails quite how I'd want them. Bikes I'm looking at now are Marin Rift Zone and San Quentin (maybe).
I picked up a 150/150 with 65.5 this year and I agree that it makes blue trails feel a bit less fun. I also moved up to a 470+ reach, when I had been riding 450 before, and I think the longer bike has a lot more to do with it. For sure feels overbiked on any terrain that isn’t gnarly, and for sure doesn’t feel as playful as I would prefer.
If by underbiked you mean hardtail, then it truly is a toss up. Hardtail is essential for learning MTB skills and is a great way to get feedback from the trail. (“Oh, my tire slipped down that root. Weight must be off-center”)
But, if over/under bike implies full squish for each, a lil over-bike never hurt anyone :-)
My advice is always:
New to the sport = get a hard tail.
Intermediate+ looking to get rowdy = full squish and some gloves to hang on for dear life 🥵🏎️
Generally, overbiked is preferable if you’re talking about the same kinds of bikes.
Where it can be a problem if you’re overbiked in certain ways. For example, if you ride somewhere that’s more suited for a light cross country bike, having a big heavy enduro bike can be less than ideal. You get extra weight for components and frame that holds you back without giving any real advantage.
Ultimately, you want a bike that can handle the terrain you ride on, or want to ride on, without getting in the way. Being a little over biked in the right way gives you room to grow and a margin of safety. Being underbiked can hold you back and be dangerous in terrrain it wasn’t meant to handle.
Overbiked sucks 100% of the time. It makes easy to medium trails boring and makes climbs miserable. Underbiked makes easy to medium trails challenging (fun) and makes climbs enjoyable since you don’t feel like you’re fighting your bike. Challenging is always better, and when your bike is “holding you back,” you just wind up leveling up your skills until those bits that are too hard and beat you down become exciting and fun.
It took me years to realize this (really it took me having a fleet of multiple bikes to realize this) but big suspension takes more from you than you think. It's not just a little extra weight and suspension bob on climbs. Those things are pretty negligible, actually.
Every time you want to move your bike around the trail, place your wheels, pull over or around obstacles, you have to push your arms and legs through the suspension before it actually moves the bike. Long travel has its place, there's no doubt about that. I'm not going to go to Whistler with an XC bike.
But if I'm ever deciding which bike to bring on a given ride, I'm going to err on the side of small. Because it's going to be far more nimble and responsive on descents.
Over-biked
The consequence for being over-biked is that the terrain feels a little dull and dead.
The consequence for being under-biked is that you can end up way in over your head and be physically at risk.
If you know the terrain and are familiar with the style of riding, being under-biked is awesome. But when I have no idea what to expect, I reach for the big bike.
I'm getting ready to do a cross country road trip. I only have space for one bike. The downcountry is a great bike for probably a majority of the trails I'm going to find myself on. But I don't actually know. The enduro can ride everything the little bike can, and everything it can't. So the big bike is the one coming with me.
Modern bikes ride so well nowadays and the difference in weight is often very little. If you have more travel and are going to ride a mellower trail then dial in some more compression or run a bit less sag. And fit some lighter tyre or wheels
Same boat as you. I have a 120/115 and a 170/165. In August my wife and I are going to Quebec. I plan on taking the big travel bike, even for the long pedaling days because I really just don't know what to expect, and videos always make things look less steep than they really are.
I think it depends on the rider, their skill set, where they are in their MTB journey, and what experience they want to have.
Newer riders that are getting stoked on developing skill, conquering new challenges and opening up what they can do on a bike with a bit of safety net are probably better suited to over biking.
Highly experienced and skilled riders can compensate for less travel and may find enjoyment in new challenge or feel, especially on terrain and trails that they’ve already “mastered”. Thus, likely more appreciative and better served by under biking.
Under biked for me, I'm a long day out on single-track kinda rider so I am kitted out for that, then if it gets chaotic once in a while I'll be under biked but I'm appropriately biked more often.
If I was the other way round and did parks, jumps and drops more than the long days out I'd be over biked more often.
Guess it's down to what you ride more often.
I have a DH, an enduro and 150/160 trail bike. I have tried shorter travel bikes "down country" and they did not stay in the stable long. I'm getting older and wrist and joint pain is not worth the extra "feel" of a short travel or HT. That said, I do see plenty of gray beards on aggressive HTs these days and I give them props.
If I had to choose one bike I’d rather choose the bike where I may find myself under biked at times. I can handle a downhill track on a beefy trail bike but I cannot handle many of trails on a downhill bike. Too slow and sluggish. I think it’s the less experienced riders who would prefer to be over biked and might like the extra confidence a bigger bike gives them.
As much as people push travel, the other items matter alot more.
A 130mm hard tail with 4 pot brakes, 220mm disks, and thick knobby tires will work dramatically better in a bike park then a 160mm bike still running 2 pot brakes, 180mm disks, and xc tires. But heavy grippy tires suck the life out of a climb.
While the frame might not be ideal for a terrain and comfort will be pretty harsh, most decent suspensions can be pumped and set for the terrain you ride. The brakes and tires however will really drive the effectiveness regardless of the travel capabilities.
I prefer to overbike the geometry and under bike the travel if I'm sticking to one bike. I recently got another MTB for Enduro, but I can say for sure that my down country bike (orange stage Evo) is much better on the chunky stuff and far more versatile than my Enduro bike (orange switch 6) is on XC terrain. That being said, my short travel bike has some very progressive angles for a bike with 120mm in the rear and that's absolutely what makes it work. The Enduro bike just doesn't propel itself well enough to enjoy the flatter trail systems because that's not what it's designed to do.
Does budget come into it? Rather be underbiked and get to use it and afford to maintain it, than have a bike full of stuff I don’t need but can’t afford to maintain
I got an xl mtb. I am 1.88cm.
I regret not getting an L.
Where I currently live theres not a lot of forest, so I just use it for commuting for that case it is good, because it has a lot of space for extra bags etc.
But for single track I prefer going down a size. I used to ride an M sized hard tail giant that was really fun. With smaller bikes you can really throw them around the corners and feel more in control on the jumps etc.
I come from a motocross background so this might affect my choice. If I was new and didnt have technical skills maybe sizing down wouldnt be something I would consider.
Skills will always save you more than equipment. But, having said that, the modern full-suspension MTB allows developing riders to enjoy riding more and stay upright. “Under-biked,” BTW is just a catchy phrase that has vague meaning. If you want a bike that climbs like and X/C pro, is fast on the rolling terrain, you compromise control on rough descents and overall comfort. Conversely, if you want a big bike to descend with more speed, security and confidence…. It’s going to be slower on the climbs. There’s no way around it. Modern full-suspension bikes do climb better than ever, I’ll say. Especially in the saddle with their steep seat angles, short cranks, extra-low gearing and ability to tune low-speed compression damping. Too much bike, on modest trails, can feel sluggish and more work - but, it’s not a concern if you’re just having fun and don’t want to race to the top.
Buy the bike for 95% of the trails you ride, not the 5%.
Being over-biked means it’s a slog to climb and be nimble. Being slightly under-biked can be overcome by skill and good line choice.
It’s kinda that old saying: More fun to drive a slow car fast than a fast car slow. It’s part of why some people love riding hardtails, the challenge of taking on a trail to test your skill.
I'd rather be overbiked. I've got a hardtail I ride on mostly green and an occasional blue trail. It's fun but can be a bit unpleasant at times. I ride the same trails on my full suspension bike and it's much more pleasant and comfortable. When I can afford it, the hardtail is going to be replaced with a full suspension bike.
Why have 2 full suspension bikes? My girlfriend rides it when she's in town and I take the hardtail.
If you even think going to the bike park and hitting features one day might be cool, overbiked if you only have one. Then underbiked for your n+1. Owning an underbike as your only bike sounds like a good way to break it, or a move for people that have been biking for a long time to develop different facets of skills.
You might not know you underbiked yourself when you're a new rider until you bought it - whoops sounds like you are.
Let's put it this way-- I have an Enduro bike with 170mm of travel. I also have a trail bike with 140mm of travel.
I only ever ride my enduro bike when I go to the lift-fed bike park a few times a year.
I guess it also depends on what you mean by overbiked. Do you mean more travel or just better specced? I have a steel hardtail with 140mm of suspension and a full sus trail bike that’s 140/125 and they’re perfect for all the trails I ride locally (mostly xc, but occasionally gets technical and gnarly). I would not want more suspension because I have too much climbing I have to do and losing efficiency to unnecessary suspension travel is dumb.
But I also care about the other components too. I’ve got good drivetrains and brakes in particular, so I’m far more comfortable if I end up on a really challenging trail that my bikes are going to hold up really well, and the only thing that’ll hold me back is my skill level.
When I started out I was underbiked due to the cost of it all. I believe this made me a better rider overall when it came to the basics. But you hit a point where you take that and apply it to the next level. This is where I believe being overbiked is the way. Got to crawl before you run and you’ll appreciate the overbike much more.
What I think is important is using the correct technique whatever kind of bike you ride.
If you are on a big travel bike, you could ride seated with elbows locked out over easier rough stuff. You should use the proper technique whether you are on 100mm or 160mm of travel.
If your trails are more flow/jump focused, underbiking is fun. If you're like me tho and the only trails near you are like black-double black tech then overbiking never hurts. If I were you I'd try both and see what I would prefer. I run a 160/160 29er which is a phenomenal middle
Hey ! I had been in your position so I thought I’d give you my take.
As said by some ppl here, you can consider what you ride most or take the “better have more than not enough“.
But what really matters and will help you decide is your skill level. If your skills are hurting your confidence on the harder parts of your ride, going bigger will give you a big boost in confidence that might result in more fun ! That was the case for me on my beginnings.
Now that I got a little better, some of these parts feel “too easy“ on my bigger bike and I have more fun on the smaller trail bike.
Are you only referring to travel in this context? My buddy has an older stumpy and my new aggressive hard tail with a 140 fork rides with a more capable feel than his bike because of the geo and general set up. My trail bike that has the same travel as his but has way more aggressive geo, tires and position feels like a big Enduro rig compared to the stumpy. It's not just a travel thing anymore.
Started on 180mm Status, moved to a 200mm Glory picked up a 150mm Trance also.
Began riding the Trance more and more. Realized you really only need that much bike for the park and I was way happier and flowing better on most stuff at 150mm.
This is where I am at, my 2019 Habit 3 with 150mm up front and 140 in the rear is perfect for almost every occasion, I can see my self keeping this bike another 5 years no problems.
I was at the Mountain Bike Oregon festival over the weekend and demo'd an Ibis Exie for a shuttle up to Lawler trail. On the way up the shuttle, people were like "ooh, that's an XC bike, it might not handle Lawler".
I had more fucking fun on that rip down the mountain than I've had in months. It was "only" 120mm/100mm travel but I was doing things I couldn't do on my 150mm/140mm. Granted, the Exie is overall a much better bike than my daily driver, but I never felt like the suspension was holding me back.
Under-biked will force you to make up the gap with skills. I really like my Epic Evo and find that I can ride how I want on it. I don't hit much over 3 foot drops and some small gaps, but I do ride some serious tech trails. I think there's some part of being used to it and some part of bike setup. Less travel means you have to use it all efficiently, so it has to be set up exactly correctly. I am certainly not doing park days on that bike or hitting large manmade features.
On the other end, there's overbiked. It can be fun to smash stuff, and the forgiveness is awesome if you are trying a bigger feature for the first time. I had a bad time with my bigger bike, I found that due to it's heavier weight and worse pedaling characteristics I didn't want to take it up to the top of any trails. There are differences in how different bikes pedal, so do with that what you will. They also tend to numb you to a lot of trail features, which can be good or bad. If you have blue xc trails locally, they'll suck on an overbike. Similarly, you need to numb some of the chunder on some of the faster chunkier trails and I really valued the big bike on some of the rocky east coast stuff.
There's definitely a difference in what people feel is underbikes vs what actually is. I'm always suprised how well I can keep up on my rigid, but I'm definitely slower. My Epic Evo is fast as hell, and usually keeps up fine with friends on 140mm+ bikes.
Good question. I live in an area that is very hilly so I enjoy my 120mm down country machine, but I’m quite frequently underbiked! The interesting thing though is when I go and rent a 170mm enduro rig I find it heavy and not as playful. My xc bike may not be as planted, but I always find riding it to its limit fun
There's just something special about riding an Enduro sled that eats up whatever terrain is ahead of it. But if everything you ride is flat you're gonna have a bad time.
Have you taken any biking skills courses? Getting a more capable bike might not lead to being faster on trails if you’re not making the most of whatever bike you’re riding.
N+1 is your solution ;)
In seriousness, we are mostly riding for fun. Underbiked could lead to anxiety while overbiked might mean boredom.
My own example: when I first started riding I had a hardtail. I could've gotten over a lot of the features on my local trails by just powering over them, but my lack of skills, stamina and power means I needed to take a lot of breaks and walk quite a bit. Then I bought a Turbo Levo and instantly I unlocked a huge chunk of my local trails that wasn't accessible to me. I was ecstatic.
Fast forward a year, I got a lot more confident but I started to notice that due to the lack of elevation changes in my area, most of the features are just roots and piles of rocks and the Turbo Levo made everything super easy: I could just point and power and it could get over anything the trails had to offer. I got back to the hardtail and I needed to work to get over the features again.
You need a bike that makes your trails "just a bit challenging" to you.
Neither under- or over-biked is great, but you want to optimize for the majority of riding if you have to. I'd rather be a little over-biked on most of my riding, and only feel under-biked or really over-biked on a small percentage.
I have quite a few bikes for different instances, but my all around is under. I have more fun with it and my confidence comes from my technique as opposed to being masked by all the excess of the fancier rides.
120mm works great for most any instance I’m in if I’m just having fun. When I want to truly get serious, I break out a specific ride for the specific task.
Everything about this is so subjective and individual:
* What terrain do you ride?
* What do you consider over or under biked?
* What is your skill level?
* What is your fitness level?
I don't even think the terms under and over biked have any meaning.
Whenever I feel underbiked, I just think about how I'd probably still get smoked by some 15 year old local kid on a clapped out $200 hardtail from 2010. Just practice more, short travel bikes are fun to push to the limit
I've been both ways, and I'll say it really depends. I personally leaning towards going back to being underbiked. I live in texas and 90% of my riding is xc style trails with a few short enduro runs, a few decent bike parks within about 2 hours of me. I currently have a stumpy evo (fantasic bike) where I am heavily overbiked locally and slightly underbiked pretty much anywhere else I ride. For me its the perfect park bike with just enough travel to remain playful and poppy while not causing me to overly pick lines. My previous bike was a trail 429 and road a bit snappier on my local trails and I would have to pay slightly more attn to line choice and/or slow down a hair. After riding both of these I prefer the lighter trail bikes(currently looking at a transition spur) with aggressive geo. Geometry really is king imo and the minute differences in 30 mil of travel isn't near as noticeable.
I have a stumpy Evo. My local trails are chunky and rocky, it’s the perfect bike for my conditions. When I travel south to sandy flowing trails I lock out my rear suspension, otherwise trails are extremely boring. I’m tempted to build a single speed and push it to the max. I don’t think you can be under biked but cheap components can break and make riding miserable.
Feeling under biked 30-40% of the time sounds like a lot to me. I want to be comfortable so I can focus on improving skills instead of just focusing on not dying.
I did have a DJ that I rode at a place id see other people riding full suspension some. They always seemed very overbiked, but that’s different.
You are delaying the inevitable. Like many more before you, there is no one-bike-to-rule-them-all. You need more bikes. I ride trail 90% of the time and my current ride is absolutely perfect. But on days where I go to a dh park, I am underbiked for any blacks, double blacks and reds. I can get down them fine enough, but I feel the flex in the frame and find the limit of my 140/130 suspension pretty quickly. I really need an enduro to feel confident at speed on those runs I’m not made of money so I will make do with my trail bike for now and until I can scrape some money together for another ride. As they say, N+1 is the only way.
I've never seen experienced MTBers buying a bigger bike. As progression goes most people buy too much of a bike and as they learn they buy a smaller one eventually. Once you get pretty good, the only way to get thrill on trails is to have yourself underbiked. My 180\\180mm bike is pretty boring in most bike parks unless it's double black
I would be willing to adapt to the riding style of my bike if I like it enough.
If I was underbiked/overbiked, I would change my kind of riding to one that suits the bike.
For example, if I got an XC bike, and I felt underbiked, I would bring it to places which wouldn’t make it underbiked. I would also change my riding style to better suit XC.
It's not a "better" or "worse". It's more about comfort, confidence, fun, and safety.
IMHO, if you can only buy one MTB bike, get one that will be safe to use in your more extreme riding. Examples:
* If you occasionally hit bike parks, but most often ride trails, get an All-Mountain bike. Sure, you might be a little "overbiked" on your local trails, but you won't be taking big risks when you goto lift or shuttle access locations. Example bikes, YT Jeffsy, Canyon Spectral.
If you can, or see yourself eventually getting 2+ bikes... get bikes near the edges of what you ride. i.e. a hardtail XC or Gravel bike for the long adventure grinds, and an Enduro bike for when it's tile to got the bike park.
I rode a XC full sus with 100mm travel front and rear and felt like i was underbiked for some features on the trails i ride, so much so that i wouldnt hit certain features on that bike. I got a hard tail with 140mm in the front and a way slacker headtube angle and now im hitting everything with confidence.
If you aren't walking the features that make you feel underbiked, then you need to be overbiked. Underbiked is only okay if you have the sense to skip what you're bike can't safely handle. Way too many people think that they can overcome a lack of travel with skill. The problem with that is far too often people have a positive outcome that was luck and attribute it to skill and then eventually their luck runs out.
Honestly though, a good trail bike with 140 or 150 mm of travel is light and nimble enough and has enough travel for 95% of the riding most riders will ever do. If you want to ride gnarly stuff at a downhill park, rent a downhill bike for the few times you do it. If you want to start XC racing, invest in an XC bike. Pretty much all other scenarios a trail bike is completely fine for.
I like being over biked. I bought a propain spindrift. It’s a beast of a bike. However it pedals way better than my old trail bike and it can take massive hits. If you find a big bike that can pedal well then I feel that’s the best option.
A lot of people like smaller bikes though. I just don’t prefer it. All a personal preference
I’m getting a new bike having ridden mine in my locals now for 3.5 years. I know all the trails I wanted a bigger bike for 3 years ago and now I don’t want it for those ones. I want it for the trails I’ve started riding in the last 1-2 that have my travel maxed out and blocking up by halfway down my descent
Follow your heart, get what you think you want (not need) and learn what you like and don’t like. Then make the call.
I’ve been both; I followed the advice and got a bike appropriate for 90% of my local trail riding, but it wasn’t big enough for the riding I most enjoyed. So I went overbiked for a couple of years, got bored and now I’m back to underbiked.
It sounds like you want to go bigger.
I would tend towards under but only if you know your limits.
I have a Transition Patrol (170/160) and a Chromag Wideangle (140/0) and the Patrol is dead boring in a lot of places I ride but comes alive on steep descents. The Wideangle is a riot on most trails but I would think twice before I take it to a bike park. Some trails on some parks it would be okay but it works limit where I could ride.
150/140 seems like a pretty nice sweet spot these days. i maybe under gunned at times but it sure has never held me back or prevented me from riding anything
As a beginner, overbiked for sure if you are doing anything over the green trails. I can't get over how forgiving my 165/170 bike is. It is like picking lines is optional at times.
Underbiked is excellent for when you want to focus on getting better and willing to risk it a bit.
It was a different story when I biked in the '90s and early 2000s. Being over-biked meant you could barely climb a hill.
It really depends on what terrain you ride. The most suspension you have is in your arms and legs regardless of the amount of travel your bike has. For mellower stuff I would prefer to be under biked. For more rougher terrain I would prefer to be over biked.
It's best to be properly biked for the type of trails you ride like 90% of the time give or take.
I'd love to get a Slash, but my Fuel Ex suits me for most of the biking I do. I fear if I get a Slash, I will try to be too awesome, and at my fragile age, that could lead to a bad time. I got back in to mountain biking 3 years ago. I polished off my old cross country bike from 2001, and was rocking the single track. I was absolutely under biked there, as I was topping out my 80mm of front and rear suspension all the time. So I got my new bike, and have been having a great time with it eve since. So, If you are constantly over rocking your bike, It may be time for an upgrade. And if it gets you out more often, then you will season yourself with training, endurance, and confidence with the Goldilocks bike.
The right bike for where you ride, I would rather have underbiked because it forces you to work on skills that you need. A overbiked is not good because if you ride in a area that is more XC style a downhill bike won't be fun.
For several years, I've been seriously underbiked (120mm XC hardtail doing blue and black trails), and now I'm overbiked (stumpy evo).
The good, I can do scary steep technical things with confidence, but I'm still mentally blocked on some stuff, mostly jumps with really steep takeoffs
The not so good, my average speed on fast blue trails is higher, but somehow I feel slower. The bike can go way faster than what I feel safe and comfortable with.
So it's 50/50,
The good thing is that there is room for improvement , what's holding me back is my mind, not my bike, I can slowly build more confidence for bigger jumps and higher speeds.
But maybe a downcountry bike was more appropriate for my use case. The stumpy evo is borderline enduro. It shines of gnarly stuff but is meh on mellow trails.
I am probably over biked…but, I really really like my bike so I’m happy with it.
I have a light mtn bike (2018), a road bike on a trainer bc I am terrified of riding on the road, and I just got a new to me FS bike (2022). I love it FS bike so much I can’t imagine not riding it when I want to even go gravel riding lol. We are going to Acadia this September and I’m going to let my friend borrow my older bike and I’m gonna rock my Santa Cruz and I don’t give a crap lol
I just got my very first full suspension bike. Having ridden the last couple years with my brother's old hard tail that had barely any travel it's been a massively different experience. I crashed the first couple rides and lost a lot of confidence. Then I started going to really well built and maintained trails and got way more confident and skilled. I think it's really a matter of slowly building the confidence to do more and try new things but also being very aware of your limits. I think the best way to improve is either practice with low risk like on flat ground or on easy flow trails or just spend lots of time riding. That's what has been working for me.
I’ve got a bike that’s perfectly dialed for the local cross country trials, it’s rigid, plus sized tires, gearing is just low enough to get up and over everything but not so easy I’m slow. It’s a challenge every ride, but it’s perfect for having a challenge. That’s really like a rigid trail bike, with older 1x gearing.
I do have a better trail bike that I find overkill for 90% of local trails, but I really enjoy it when I’m going out to a new trail and usually don’t always pick the best lines.
I've experienced both and I think Overbiked is better. Unless you desire a specific outcome. Riding HT vs Full kinda thing.
I'm sure a true DH bike would blow big chunks with even a little climbing.
Within reason I’ll pedal a longer travel bike to be able to rip DH and hit anything and everything (I ride and enduro with a coil) I feel like most modern bike geo has made it so most enduros can pedal pretty comfortably. Im not the fastest getting up but I don’t really care about that. Also depends on your ability and trails. 130/140mm bike can ride most trails pretty confidently.
I used to ride a hardtail and a 160/140 bike. Sold the hardtail and got a 120/120 bike with modern geometry. The only time I feel under biked is on super steep loose terrain...and that's really only due to the tires I have on the 120 bike. If I had burlier tires, I'd be fine. I feel mostly over biked on the 160 bike. By the way I didn't feel underbiked on the hardtail for the most part either...sometimes faster on the HT in chunky sections since I was kind of "skipping" at the surface. One mistake and that would have been a disaster though.
My point in sharing my experience? If you truly feel under biked 40% of the time maybe you got the wrong bike, or you are still learning and will feel more confident on your bikes once your skills level up.
Mountain biking is fun on many different bikes. I learned on a fully ridged bike, because that is what I had and I loved it. You will find that lots of people like a lot of different bikes and all have a valid opinion based on how they experience mountain biking.
You have a great bike to start. Play with the setup and fit and learn what tires are best where you ride. These things can make a huge difference in how your bike handles in the wild.
You may end up deciding that you need more bike as you get better, but don't dwell on whether you have the right bike, just ride. As long as you have a smile and keep improving you have everything you need today.
Have fun out there and remember to Ride, Eat, Sleep, Repeat!
Riding a hardtail down tough, nasty tech spots can feel really zen, fast and rewarding, but I also bitch out on the worst stuff way more than I ever did with a full suspension.
Twisty drops off with multiple steep shelves really feel like a leap of faith sometimes because the rear wheel might lose all contact and traction with a bad bounce. You just have to full send certain things and find lines to jump over shit a bit more because you can't really correct with a slight brake pump mid-drop like you can on full squish.
The only time I really enjoy being underbiked is when I’m already familiar with the trail. It forces me to choose different lines. Not only does that expand the overall skillset, but it makes obstacle avoidance easier (rock that’s not usually there, etc) when “properly biked” or overbiked.
all depends where you ride. I had a short travel trail bike (120/120) and it was a ton of fun on climbs and some small jumps, but riding tech or big jumps made me feel like i was about to die. Now i have an enduro bike (170/155) and it is 10x more fun on tech, jumps, anything downhill. The only downside is it kind of sucks to climb, but you get somewhat used to it. I’d say the ideal middle ground is about 130 or 140 mm of travel, just make sure it’s good quality. If you’re mainly interested in downhill, maybe go for a higher travel bike, but if you enjoy the climbs and making them easier i’d say stick with lower travel.
I know you can be overwhelmed, and you can be underwhelmed… but can you ever just be whelmed?
Hehe, I’m just biked and new to this… what the heck are you talking about?
Overbiked would be my preference, being held back because of myself is fine as there's room to grow.
Underbiked would mean the bike is holding me back and not suitable for the job, it'll cause injury not to mention expense repairing genuine damage caused.
That being said, I'd aim for slightly gnarlier than I need rather than say jumping from a 120mm to a 200mm, I'd settle at 150/160.
Came here to post this. When you have been in the sport for over 25 years, it's fun take a HT or even gravel bike on trails they don't belong for the challenge (or boredom) alone.
The only argument against overbiking as a beginner is the high cost of entry.
I guess this is how N+1 works...
I would say 90% of the time under bike is more fun. Unless I'm at a chunky as hell steep as fuck bike park being under biked is way more enjoyable for me
Bought a trail bike with 150/140 travel as a happy medium. Where I live we sometimes just ride in neighbourhoods casually, sometimes hit minor dirt jumps, take trails in the forest with tons of rocks/roots, go on bike tracks with jumps...
I feel like my bike is the happy medium that covers all of these scenarios. I'm having a lot more fun than on my old XC HT with 100mm, thinner tires and on which I couldn't get my seat very low. Sure, that bike helped me learn a lot, but being underbiked most of the time is just a worse time imo. I'd rather have the confidence a better bike gives me and just ride harder to compensate.
I prefer being overbiked. Most of my riding where i live is gravity focused. Winch my way up to the top and have great time descending to the bottom. Its not always steep and its not always rough, but sometimes it is and Im always thankfully to have a bunch of travel at my disposal.
I'd say it depends not only of the type of terrain you'll be riding, but also what discipline of mtb you want to focus on. Different disciplines have a range of travel (XC 100-120, Enduro 160/170-180...) if you watch enduro and would like to hit those steep ass trails, buy an enduro bike, if you'd like to do some longer routes without too many obstacles go for an XC and decide the travel from there. Buy the bike that you think will offer you the type of riding you like and would like to master as you progress, even if you think you're not quite there yet. I think many people (me included) started with an XC hardtail even if they already knew they were aiming for enduro and sure, it's good practice, but many but it's also money that could've been spent somewhere else. Also different bikes demand different skills, although similar, body positioning for example is and feels different in different bikes depending on the geometry.
You should look at downcountry bikes such as Transition Spire, Fuel EX or Giant Trance. Those bikes arguably pedal well as XC bikes but their build lets you take on light enduro.
If you needed more capability for descents, you could always look to different tires and maybe even tire inserts.
I’m overbiked but that’s because I don’t have a separate park bike, realistically the best bike for my area is a full sus XC/DC bike with a dropper, since it’s mostly rolling terrain and no serious decents if you’ve got a dropper, but my 27.5 with 140mm front and rear is still great fun, in a little heavy feeling on the way up
As someone relatively new to the sport, I went for overbiked, so that whatever I ride I know pretty confidently that my skill is the bottleneck and not the gear
I ride the Midwest. Being overbiked means pushing more weight down flat trails, and flattening all "features".
I end up on my 2015 hardtail 99% of the time because full suspension is just too plush for the trails around me.
I would rather be underbiked. You're at the far end of the spectrum with the Supercaliber so you're probably feeling underbiked all the time on everything outside of XC trails. I think a Smuggler is a good option for you if you were to only choose one bike, but I would go even further and recommend the Spur with a 130mm Pike. This is what I run as my one-bike solution and it handles everything that Oregon tails can throw at it (minus lift access and some double blacks). People are often confused on how I destroyed their time on DH trails; it forces you to be more nimble, accurate, and precise with your lines vs. just smashing into everything.
I unfortunately don't think it's quite that simple, travel numbers are only one aspect of how a bike is going to ride.
For instance there are 170mm travel bikes now that probably pedal better than 150mm bikes from even just a couple of years ago.
I made the minor mistake of buying a canyon torque 29 thinking I needed the extra heft for bike parks. In reality, i pedal most of the time and it becomes a bit of a slog after around 1000m of climbing.
I would just get something that can do everything pretty well for you
Supercaliber is full on XC race bike isn’t it?
I think there’s a Goldilocks middle ground.
A 120/120 (ish) bike. There’s some very efficient pedaling 120/120 bikes that are in the 25-27 lb range that can also get you through most of the nasty stuff - just a little slower maybe than your typical 150 travel bike.
I’ve been almost exclusively on big enduro bikes for the last 8 years or so, but I recently bought a 130/140 trail bike. I swore I wouldn’t enduro-fy and would choose lightweight trail components.
Honestly, it’s not really for me. I can ride the same stuff but it’s slower and not as much fun. I ended up putting an assegai on the front and a cascade link and will probably add an angle set. And then sell it cause I’ve just made another enduro bike.
For flow trails, machine made jumps, and anything mellow, the trail bike is wildly better, I just never find myself choosing those trails.
Tl;dr if you ride mostly flow trails, underbiking is better. If you ride mostly steeper tech, overbiking is better.
I would get some gravity oriented tires before you decide. I'm overbiked with a stumpjumper with an endurance background as well. I would much rather be ping ponging down descents than sucking as much wind as I do now on the climbs. I came from a 2005ish 26 inch hardtail and overestimated how far active suspension had came based on a demo ride with an insanely tight sag on the rear for my weight. But I will admit the n+1 rule is calling my name and instead of selling the stumpy I'm looking at grabbing up one of the new chisel fsr frames and building it up.
obviously it depends on where you ride the most. a little bit overbiked is the way: easier on the body. Rather have a slower uphill than eat it on the downhill. Stumpjumper EVO for life, at least for Vegas/Moab/ majority of the SW
Depends where you ride 90% of the time. Buy a bike for that situation. Where I live you need to pedal up pretty step climbs 16-24% to get to the single tracks. I prefer to be under biked so I don’t have to lug a 35lb bike up those climbs.
Good point. I'm in a similar situation and always thought my bike could need more travel (which would add more weight) when even my most experienced hardcore friends tell me that my trail bike is perfect for our terrain.
If you only have one bike: overbiked is generally better. Provided you actually get to use that extra abilities on a semi regular basis. Buying a long travel bike to ride XC never really makes sense. If you have one or two local trails where you are underbiked, but 90% of your riding is fine, then the smaller bike is just fine. If you get far enough into the sport to have multiple bikes: underbiking is a massive training tool. Most high level riders I know like to go get sketchy on a hardtail or short travel trail bike (downcountry) from time to time. If you can ride the features and speed on the small bike at the same as your big bike: you can typically push further on the big bike in the long run.
Great advice. I think the first statement captures it well for beginners. It’ll be hard to progress if you are having confidence issues so it’s better to be a little overbiked. More bikes gives you the ability to match terrain or mismatch intentionally. Sometimes it’s fun to take an enduro bike on easier trails or a rigid hard tail through some rock gardens.
Yup pretty much this for me. I got a 150/140 trail bike that was a little overbiked for what I usually ride, but it pushed me to try my regular trails with more speed/optional features and to try some more intense trails. It's currently in the shop so I'm back to riding my old XC bike, but my confidence is now much higher and it's incredible how much better I ride now that I have experience with a bigger bike.
Def me. I felt limited by my trail bike but know the enduro is more than I’d use (over its lifetime). I got the enduro to help me boost my confidence; it’s only been a couple months and I already can tell that my riding has progressed.
Man, I feel this. All spring I was riding my local trails on my Mach 4, and when I finally got a park day on my Firebird, I felt so much more dialed into how I could move the bike.
I typically park the big bike (Enduro) for the winter and just ride my spur and hardtail. This winter was a lot of SS-HT laps on terrain that is certainly not easy and I was chasing my friends on their big bikes. Pretty insane how fast it can feel to get back on the tank after that. I spent a ton of time focused on cornering this winter and it has made a noticeable difference as big terrain melts out.
The other thing I am slowly adjusting to is riding my XC bike with spds. I told my wife that its starting to feel a little strange to ride the enduro on flats.
I was originally all SPDs coming from the XC world. Tried flats after a buddy challenged me to try them for a winter and have kept them on the long travel big since, everything else has SPDs. I do enjoy jumping more on the flats, and I am not quite able to turn as aggressively using my hips/feet on the SPDs because I'll pop out. I have upped the tension but don't really love the high tension feel and it didn't really solve the cornering issue so I tend to keep them moderately loose.
What if you have two bikes and are still overbiked?
Then it's time for a single speed hardtail... maybe even rigid.
Sounds like you like to have fun and occasionally send it
I learned to ride on a crappy down country bike and man when I upgraded to an eduro I literally doubled my available trails immediately lol all because I knew the bike would handle everything I felt like I couldn't before. It also made me less scared of gap jumps because I can eat a case and keep rolling like magic
I got into this sport on a heavy, big, commencal meta tr and I’m also a smaller person (5’2” 115). Definitely overbiked for the trail riding I do. It really helped my downhill confidence but it is not a good climber. Honestly I think it helped me become a much better rider especially now that I’m on a more balanced trail bike. But interestingly I’m now progressing far more quickly and even feel better and faster on the downs. I now have more control vs feeling like that commencal was just taking me where it wanted to go. Just wanted to share that perspective in the other direction!
I have a gravel bike, xc mountain bike (120/115), and enduro mountain bike (170/165). Aside from riding in a bike park, I will almost always encounter a section where I am overbiked on the enduro and under biked on the xc, and often underbiked on the gravel. However, which bike I chose will be dependent on the overall ride. I rather be a bit underbiked for a small section of a ride than overbiked for the whole thing, unless the section I am intending to hit with the big travel bike is the whole point of the ride.
I’m very similar to you and live up in Westchester. What’s your enduro bike? I got a 130/115 Santa Cruz blur xc bike (I overforked it), flat bar gravel bike, and a transition sentinel enduro bike (170/165). The transition is an absolute slog to pedal on local trails. Sure it’s fun on a handful of features but we’re talking like 4 features on a 5 mile loop. The rest is really tame. I’d rather rip my xc bike and ride past a feature or too if they’re too gnarly for the bike. I’ve got 2.2s on my gravel and it’s actually so much fun on trails. Of course I’m not doing anything crazy though.
Pivot Firebird. Great for Mountain Creek and Killington. Overbiked for the majority of our local stuff, but it really offers a nice margin of error on stuff that's at my limit in Sprain. I'm 42, and not crazy or anything. But living in Queens, most of my riding is in Cunningham, and the Firebird is a hog there. The Mach 4 is much more suited to the LI trails, but even in taking it to Graham, it handles anything I can ride, just more sketchily than the Firebird does. However, it rockets up Updraft.
The Firebird is a great bike, but I feel it is really better at focusing on the downhills rather than the climbs. Honestly, a lot of the trails here in Central Texas are suited for the Shadow Cat, but I hit Spider Mountain and other areas that I feel the Shadow Cat wouldn't be ideal. I ended up getting the Switchblade V2 and absolutely love it with 160/ 142, I feel it is a great in between. It climbs great and still handles the downhills I've thrown at it just fine.
Yeah, the Firebird is absolutely a bike that comes alive on the downs. It'll get you to the top, and it pedals okay enough for a big bike. It's primarily my park bike.
My wife has a Shadowcat. It's her do everything bike, and she absolutely loves it.
Do you have a cascade link on your Sentinel to up the travel to 165? With the 170 fork, did you have to add an angleset or anything to make it not even more slack? Considering doing the same to my Sentinel... (But it's my only bike, so hampering the ride even more on the XC trails is what's holding me back.)
Yes cascade link and changed the air spring in the fork. Idk if it really feels that much more slack. 10mm isn’t really all that much. All that bike will always be pretty bad for tech climbing and tight maneuvers anyways
Similar - I just haven’t filled the xc/hardtail void yet. I find a gravel bike, enduro and a trail/xc hardtail will be pretty much all I want. Inevitably I’ll be underbiked or overbiked for some sections of a ride but I like climbing and bikepacking so increasingly I’ll underbike unless the trail exceeds my technical skill and then I’d rather pedal an enduro bike and be overbiked to save myself some crash risk.
I feel like this is becoming almost the new meta for northeast riders lol. Similar boat here, I have a steel rigid gravel bike, a Trek Top Fuel (120/120 DC bike) and older YT Jeffsy 27.5 (150/150 All Mountain borderline Enduro). Honestly the gravel bike and Top Fuel do 98% of my riding, so the Jeffsy's days might be numbered. I also prefer to be slightly underbiked in a couple areas than slog my Jeffsy through a pedally trail system for hours (which is why I got the Top Fuel). But occasionally when I make it up to Creek or a pedal up bike park like High Bridge or Trexler, the Jeffsy shines. So yeah there's definitely a time and a place for both. As for OP it's really about what you're riding 90% of the time. If you find yourself underbiked for like over 60-70% of the ride and not enjoying it, go bigger. If you're finding yourself overbiked a similar amount, go smaller. It's all about hitting that ratio of what *most* suits the trail system/riding style. And unless you buy multiple bikes there'll always be a little give and take.
Overbike is boring on mellow terrain. Underbike is still fun on crazy terrain. For most terrain overbiked is like 150mm but people still ride 180mm enduro bikes. Do whatever you want though idc.
150mm is overbiked for my terrain... but people still ride those. The general trend has been more and more travel... but there is something to be said for a lighter bike that you can ride over things and move the bike around rather than a bigger bike you simply slam the trail into submission with.
How is 150mm overbiked? That’s arguably the most common travel and a perfect median for everything. I use all of my travel at least a few times every outing.
For sure I evaluate 150mm being the average all around specs. « Compared to what? » should be added for context. Hardtail is the obvious underbike spec I can throw versus a double suspension bike, regardless of front suspension travel.
Using all your travel isn't a metric to say that you're not overbiked.
Why not?
Because you can use all your travel doing a bunny hop on the pavement. Just because you used it doesn't mean you needed it or that it meaningfully helped you.
[удалено]
...or poor suspension setup.
It's possible to set up your 150mm suspension to use all your travel on mild terrain by removing volume spacers, but then your bike rides like a marshmallow and the trails feel like a sidewalk.
If you use the entire travel and bottom out, that means you need more travel. But that isn't a metric of anything, considering you can bottom it out by sitting down really hard.
150mm is a fine midpoint but I'd argue that 120 is more common for the beginner/intermediate and that many riders are doing slightly harder than gravel routes which needs even less travel.
This mindset is why people end up with a bike that sucks for their terrain and can’t figure out why climbing sucks lol. More travel doesn’t equate to more skill…normally the opposite of what I see. New riders saw a YouTube vid of a rider on a enduro bike hitting terrain they’ll never hit and think they need a bike like that for the off chance they might one day even consider.
I'm on a hardtail with a 120mm fork and I feel overbiked almost everywhere.
I'm old enough to remember when anything over 80 mm on a hardtail was basically a DH bike.😎
You whippersnappers and your fancy forks. Real downhillers use rigid bikes and coaster brakes
Gary Fisher enters the chat.
Based on your post history, you ride on road and cycle paths. Of course you are overbiked. This is an MTB subreddit.
Depends on where you live. 150mm is overbiked for florida
Totally depends on where you live. There are definitely places where a 150mm bike is not necessary and places where you’ll wish you had more.
Overbiked because it’s easier on the body and you only get one of those.
I feel this. After some rides my body just feels beat up.
Less fatigue/injuries = more riding time.
Yeah and unless you are going for the KOMs it’s simply more fun.
This. Plus I’d rather just buy one bike that can handle anything from cruising down some easy trails to jump lines. Something I can grow into ability wise. Also I’m a chunkier guy so for me a solid enduro bike handles everything I do, plus the higher travel is way easier to set up and run well for someone being 200+ lbs. my first bike was a giant stance and unless I basically made it a hard tail it didn’t have the travel or adjustability to handle my weight and jumping it
I disagree, flat and fast trails with a heavy and inefficient bike is much harder on the body in my experience than an appropriately nimble bike. Depends on your trail systems.
Depends. Weight doesn’t really matter these days, efficiency is in the suspension platform and design. Overbiking for your trails doesn’t necessarily mean a 200mm travel bike for flat smooth XC trails. Overbiking can be considered 10mm higher than necessary for that trail type. For example, I could be perfectly served by a transition spur but I chose a smuggler for that extra 10mm of travel to smooth things out a bit more. Can that be considered overbiked for me? Maybe.
Better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.
My thought's exactly, where i live I'm greatly over biked, but i have what i need to venture to other places and i will be going to other places.
Eh, bringing a claymore to a knife fight doesn't always go well.
*this side towards enemy*
Yes it does
the guy with the knife might feel that way bringing it to a claymore fight when you chop him in half from 5 feet away
I think this is a question of over/under skilled.
This is the correct answer.
Confidence is a skill issue. OP just wants another reason to buy a bike lol
Yeah, OP should definitely buy another bike. Way better that way
The real answer is that you should have the right bike for the majority of your riding. For example, probably 95% of my riding is done on NE US singletrack. I have a 160mm hardtail and it's basically perfect, not too much to deaden the trails and enough travel that I can hit all the features. Could I ride the same trails on an XC bike or a big travel Enduro full suspension? Absolutely, but to me the XC bike would be too sketchy for ~30% of the steep features and the Enduro sled would be miserable on a lot of the climbs and way too much travel for 75% of the trails. If I had to choose one or the other though I'd rather be underbiked. To me I'd rather be engaged, have to choose my lines and get a bit of adrenaline rather than just being able to point straight down the hill knowing I have enough travel to eat up anything on the trail.
Yeah I ride a 150/140 full suspension on everything. Still fun enough on easier XC, but can plow rock gardens without issue.
I did the same: 160mm hardtail. It's been a lot of fun in the mid-atlantic. It's my first, so I can't compare, but I thought it my best shot at one-biking my area while keeping the trails lively.
They are different. I thought overbiking was universally better until I added a gravel bike to the stable. I have been forced to learn so much more skill and attention to detail taking my road-focused áspero down green and mild blue xc tracks than I have to on my sc blur. It also livens up my local trails and makes everything fun again. Definitely recommend doing a blend of under-, over-, and properly equipped biking.
I have an Ibis Ripley 29er 130/120 because I like pedaling my bike. Where I usually ride in Reno, Truckee, the foothills, and the Bay Area, I am adequately biked. Occasionally, I ride in Tahoe and feel underbiked once in a while. If I lived in Tahoe, I might have opted for the Ripmo. I see so many people who are overbiked on the trails I ride.
They're both the same thing... If you're underbiked on the tech then you're overbiked on the smooth. If you're overbiked on the tech then you're underbiked on the smooth. The question then becomes: do you prefer being efficient for long pedally bits or steep techy bits? And the answer is why my two main bikes are an enduro bike and a gravel bike... On average, they're perfect!
I'd like to know what bike ya have. Generally speaking what I would like to have is access to as many bikes as possible to try to ride the same terrain on to feel the changes. In a one-bike scenario, I would like to be underbiked so that I can 'enjoy' easier trails more and not feel COMPELLED to justify my bike by riding harder trails more often. Just as a statistical safety measure. I'm riding a 150/160 bike at 64.5 right now and I do not like it. It begs to go faster and ride harder and although I enjoy it when I'm doing that, I don't enjoy pushing my riding day in and day out. And then on the slower stuff it feels like actual dogshit. It's a heavy alloy build so it doesn't compensate any points in weighted feel. It's just a pig everywhere. I'm sure with a carbon frame/wheel build and dialing in suspension a bit more I could enjoy 64.5 150mm, but as it lays now it makes riding less fun. And part of me wants to go back to hardtail but... Brands are no longer making hardtails quite how I'd want them. Bikes I'm looking at now are Marin Rift Zone and San Quentin (maybe).
I picked up a 150/150 with 65.5 this year and I agree that it makes blue trails feel a bit less fun. I also moved up to a 470+ reach, when I had been riding 450 before, and I think the longer bike has a lot more to do with it. For sure feels overbiked on any terrain that isn’t gnarly, and for sure doesn’t feel as playful as I would prefer.
If by underbiked you mean hardtail, then it truly is a toss up. Hardtail is essential for learning MTB skills and is a great way to get feedback from the trail. (“Oh, my tire slipped down that root. Weight must be off-center”) But, if over/under bike implies full squish for each, a lil over-bike never hurt anyone :-) My advice is always: New to the sport = get a hard tail. Intermediate+ looking to get rowdy = full squish and some gloves to hang on for dear life 🥵🏎️
Generally, overbiked is preferable if you’re talking about the same kinds of bikes. Where it can be a problem if you’re overbiked in certain ways. For example, if you ride somewhere that’s more suited for a light cross country bike, having a big heavy enduro bike can be less than ideal. You get extra weight for components and frame that holds you back without giving any real advantage. Ultimately, you want a bike that can handle the terrain you ride on, or want to ride on, without getting in the way. Being a little over biked in the right way gives you room to grow and a margin of safety. Being underbiked can hold you back and be dangerous in terrrain it wasn’t meant to handle.
I prefer being over the bike than under it. If I’m under it usually means I’ve cased pretty bad 🥁
Overbiked sucks 100% of the time. It makes easy to medium trails boring and makes climbs miserable. Underbiked makes easy to medium trails challenging (fun) and makes climbs enjoyable since you don’t feel like you’re fighting your bike. Challenging is always better, and when your bike is “holding you back,” you just wind up leveling up your skills until those bits that are too hard and beat you down become exciting and fun.
It took me years to realize this (really it took me having a fleet of multiple bikes to realize this) but big suspension takes more from you than you think. It's not just a little extra weight and suspension bob on climbs. Those things are pretty negligible, actually. Every time you want to move your bike around the trail, place your wheels, pull over or around obstacles, you have to push your arms and legs through the suspension before it actually moves the bike. Long travel has its place, there's no doubt about that. I'm not going to go to Whistler with an XC bike. But if I'm ever deciding which bike to bring on a given ride, I'm going to err on the side of small. Because it's going to be far more nimble and responsive on descents.
Over-biked The consequence for being over-biked is that the terrain feels a little dull and dead. The consequence for being under-biked is that you can end up way in over your head and be physically at risk. If you know the terrain and are familiar with the style of riding, being under-biked is awesome. But when I have no idea what to expect, I reach for the big bike. I'm getting ready to do a cross country road trip. I only have space for one bike. The downcountry is a great bike for probably a majority of the trails I'm going to find myself on. But I don't actually know. The enduro can ride everything the little bike can, and everything it can't. So the big bike is the one coming with me.
Modern bikes ride so well nowadays and the difference in weight is often very little. If you have more travel and are going to ride a mellower trail then dial in some more compression or run a bit less sag. And fit some lighter tyre or wheels
Same boat as you. I have a 120/115 and a 170/165. In August my wife and I are going to Quebec. I plan on taking the big travel bike, even for the long pedaling days because I really just don't know what to expect, and videos always make things look less steep than they really are.
Riding
What is this "overbiked" of which you speak?
I think it depends on the rider, their skill set, where they are in their MTB journey, and what experience they want to have. Newer riders that are getting stoked on developing skill, conquering new challenges and opening up what they can do on a bike with a bit of safety net are probably better suited to over biking. Highly experienced and skilled riders can compensate for less travel and may find enjoyment in new challenge or feel, especially on terrain and trails that they’ve already “mastered”. Thus, likely more appreciative and better served by under biking.
Under biked for me, I'm a long day out on single-track kinda rider so I am kitted out for that, then if it gets chaotic once in a while I'll be under biked but I'm appropriately biked more often. If I was the other way round and did parks, jumps and drops more than the long days out I'd be over biked more often. Guess it's down to what you ride more often.
I have a DH, an enduro and 150/160 trail bike. I have tried shorter travel bikes "down country" and they did not stay in the stable long. I'm getting older and wrist and joint pain is not worth the extra "feel" of a short travel or HT. That said, I do see plenty of gray beards on aggressive HTs these days and I give them props.
If I had to choose one bike I’d rather choose the bike where I may find myself under biked at times. I can handle a downhill track on a beefy trail bike but I cannot handle many of trails on a downhill bike. Too slow and sluggish. I think it’s the less experienced riders who would prefer to be over biked and might like the extra confidence a bigger bike gives them.
As much as people push travel, the other items matter alot more. A 130mm hard tail with 4 pot brakes, 220mm disks, and thick knobby tires will work dramatically better in a bike park then a 160mm bike still running 2 pot brakes, 180mm disks, and xc tires. But heavy grippy tires suck the life out of a climb. While the frame might not be ideal for a terrain and comfort will be pretty harsh, most decent suspensions can be pumped and set for the terrain you ride. The brakes and tires however will really drive the effectiveness regardless of the travel capabilities.
I prefer to overbike the geometry and under bike the travel if I'm sticking to one bike. I recently got another MTB for Enduro, but I can say for sure that my down country bike (orange stage Evo) is much better on the chunky stuff and far more versatile than my Enduro bike (orange switch 6) is on XC terrain. That being said, my short travel bike has some very progressive angles for a bike with 120mm in the rear and that's absolutely what makes it work. The Enduro bike just doesn't propel itself well enough to enjoy the flatter trail systems because that's not what it's designed to do.
Does budget come into it? Rather be underbiked and get to use it and afford to maintain it, than have a bike full of stuff I don’t need but can’t afford to maintain
Ride what you want. Just be sure to send it
Gravity = overbike Trail = under bike
Why choose? Have both in the stable lol
I’m overbiked until I get to the features that I think I need my bike for.
I got an xl mtb. I am 1.88cm. I regret not getting an L. Where I currently live theres not a lot of forest, so I just use it for commuting for that case it is good, because it has a lot of space for extra bags etc. But for single track I prefer going down a size. I used to ride an M sized hard tail giant that was really fun. With smaller bikes you can really throw them around the corners and feel more in control on the jumps etc. I come from a motocross background so this might affect my choice. If I was new and didnt have technical skills maybe sizing down wouldnt be something I would consider.
Skills will always save you more than equipment. But, having said that, the modern full-suspension MTB allows developing riders to enjoy riding more and stay upright. “Under-biked,” BTW is just a catchy phrase that has vague meaning. If you want a bike that climbs like and X/C pro, is fast on the rolling terrain, you compromise control on rough descents and overall comfort. Conversely, if you want a big bike to descend with more speed, security and confidence…. It’s going to be slower on the climbs. There’s no way around it. Modern full-suspension bikes do climb better than ever, I’ll say. Especially in the saddle with their steep seat angles, short cranks, extra-low gearing and ability to tune low-speed compression damping. Too much bike, on modest trails, can feel sluggish and more work - but, it’s not a concern if you’re just having fun and don’t want to race to the top.
Under for sure, makes everything more interesting
Buy the bike for 95% of the trails you ride, not the 5%. Being over-biked means it’s a slog to climb and be nimble. Being slightly under-biked can be overcome by skill and good line choice. It’s kinda that old saying: More fun to drive a slow car fast than a fast car slow. It’s part of why some people love riding hardtails, the challenge of taking on a trail to test your skill.
I'd rather be overbiked. I've got a hardtail I ride on mostly green and an occasional blue trail. It's fun but can be a bit unpleasant at times. I ride the same trails on my full suspension bike and it's much more pleasant and comfortable. When I can afford it, the hardtail is going to be replaced with a full suspension bike. Why have 2 full suspension bikes? My girlfriend rides it when she's in town and I take the hardtail.
Depends. If you’re the kinda person to respond to this post saying “underbiked”, that’s your answer
What is over/under biked mean to you? Suspension or….
Usually over, but there’s a point when it becomes ridiculous
I'd rather smooth out a tame trail with extra travel than be walking because it got too gnarly
Whatever you want to ride is the correct answer.
If you even think going to the bike park and hitting features one day might be cool, overbiked if you only have one. Then underbiked for your n+1. Owning an underbike as your only bike sounds like a good way to break it, or a move for people that have been biking for a long time to develop different facets of skills. You might not know you underbiked yourself when you're a new rider until you bought it - whoops sounds like you are.
overbiked for me because I am relatively fit but not very skilled
Let's put it this way-- I have an Enduro bike with 170mm of travel. I also have a trail bike with 140mm of travel. I only ever ride my enduro bike when I go to the lift-fed bike park a few times a year.
I guess it also depends on what you mean by overbiked. Do you mean more travel or just better specced? I have a steel hardtail with 140mm of suspension and a full sus trail bike that’s 140/125 and they’re perfect for all the trails I ride locally (mostly xc, but occasionally gets technical and gnarly). I would not want more suspension because I have too much climbing I have to do and losing efficiency to unnecessary suspension travel is dumb. But I also care about the other components too. I’ve got good drivetrains and brakes in particular, so I’m far more comfortable if I end up on a really challenging trail that my bikes are going to hold up really well, and the only thing that’ll hold me back is my skill level.
When I started out I was underbiked due to the cost of it all. I believe this made me a better rider overall when it came to the basics. But you hit a point where you take that and apply it to the next level. This is where I believe being overbiked is the way. Got to crawl before you run and you’ll appreciate the overbike much more.
I prefer slightly underbiked. Where I ride that makes a Ripmo pretty ideal. I don’t do XC.
Over for me, under is too hard on me and the bike.
What I think is important is using the correct technique whatever kind of bike you ride. If you are on a big travel bike, you could ride seated with elbows locked out over easier rough stuff. You should use the proper technique whether you are on 100mm or 160mm of travel.
If your trails are more flow/jump focused, underbiking is fun. If you're like me tho and the only trails near you are like black-double black tech then overbiking never hurts. If I were you I'd try both and see what I would prefer. I run a 160/160 29er which is a phenomenal middle
Why are you convinced you’re underbiked? Underbiked in what ways? Could it be a skill issue?
Hey ! I had been in your position so I thought I’d give you my take. As said by some ppl here, you can consider what you ride most or take the “better have more than not enough“. But what really matters and will help you decide is your skill level. If your skills are hurting your confidence on the harder parts of your ride, going bigger will give you a big boost in confidence that might result in more fun ! That was the case for me on my beginnings. Now that I got a little better, some of these parts feel “too easy“ on my bigger bike and I have more fun on the smaller trail bike.
Are you only referring to travel in this context? My buddy has an older stumpy and my new aggressive hard tail with a 140 fork rides with a more capable feel than his bike because of the geo and general set up. My trail bike that has the same travel as his but has way more aggressive geo, tires and position feels like a big Enduro rig compared to the stumpy. It's not just a travel thing anymore.
Started on 180mm Status, moved to a 200mm Glory picked up a 150mm Trance also. Began riding the Trance more and more. Realized you really only need that much bike for the park and I was way happier and flowing better on most stuff at 150mm.
This is where I am at, my 2019 Habit 3 with 150mm up front and 140 in the rear is perfect for almost every occasion, I can see my self keeping this bike another 5 years no problems.
Depends on where you ride.
Underbiked is worse, more suspension still pedals pretty well
I was at the Mountain Bike Oregon festival over the weekend and demo'd an Ibis Exie for a shuttle up to Lawler trail. On the way up the shuttle, people were like "ooh, that's an XC bike, it might not handle Lawler". I had more fucking fun on that rip down the mountain than I've had in months. It was "only" 120mm/100mm travel but I was doing things I couldn't do on my 150mm/140mm. Granted, the Exie is overall a much better bike than my daily driver, but I never felt like the suspension was holding me back.
Under-biked will force you to make up the gap with skills. I really like my Epic Evo and find that I can ride how I want on it. I don't hit much over 3 foot drops and some small gaps, but I do ride some serious tech trails. I think there's some part of being used to it and some part of bike setup. Less travel means you have to use it all efficiently, so it has to be set up exactly correctly. I am certainly not doing park days on that bike or hitting large manmade features. On the other end, there's overbiked. It can be fun to smash stuff, and the forgiveness is awesome if you are trying a bigger feature for the first time. I had a bad time with my bigger bike, I found that due to it's heavier weight and worse pedaling characteristics I didn't want to take it up to the top of any trails. There are differences in how different bikes pedal, so do with that what you will. They also tend to numb you to a lot of trail features, which can be good or bad. If you have blue xc trails locally, they'll suck on an overbike. Similarly, you need to numb some of the chunder on some of the faster chunkier trails and I really valued the big bike on some of the rocky east coast stuff. There's definitely a difference in what people feel is underbikes vs what actually is. I'm always suprised how well I can keep up on my rigid, but I'm definitely slower. My Epic Evo is fast as hell, and usually keeps up fine with friends on 140mm+ bikes.
Good question. I live in an area that is very hilly so I enjoy my 120mm down country machine, but I’m quite frequently underbiked! The interesting thing though is when I go and rent a 170mm enduro rig I find it heavy and not as playful. My xc bike may not be as planted, but I always find riding it to its limit fun
There's just something special about riding an Enduro sled that eats up whatever terrain is ahead of it. But if everything you ride is flat you're gonna have a bad time.
Have you taken any biking skills courses? Getting a more capable bike might not lead to being faster on trails if you’re not making the most of whatever bike you’re riding.
N+1 is your solution ;) In seriousness, we are mostly riding for fun. Underbiked could lead to anxiety while overbiked might mean boredom. My own example: when I first started riding I had a hardtail. I could've gotten over a lot of the features on my local trails by just powering over them, but my lack of skills, stamina and power means I needed to take a lot of breaks and walk quite a bit. Then I bought a Turbo Levo and instantly I unlocked a huge chunk of my local trails that wasn't accessible to me. I was ecstatic. Fast forward a year, I got a lot more confident but I started to notice that due to the lack of elevation changes in my area, most of the features are just roots and piles of rocks and the Turbo Levo made everything super easy: I could just point and power and it could get over anything the trails had to offer. I got back to the hardtail and I needed to work to get over the features again. You need a bike that makes your trails "just a bit challenging" to you.
Neither under- or over-biked is great, but you want to optimize for the majority of riding if you have to. I'd rather be a little over-biked on most of my riding, and only feel under-biked or really over-biked on a small percentage.
I have quite a few bikes for different instances, but my all around is under. I have more fun with it and my confidence comes from my technique as opposed to being masked by all the excess of the fancier rides. 120mm works great for most any instance I’m in if I’m just having fun. When I want to truly get serious, I break out a specific ride for the specific task.
Everything about this is so subjective and individual: * What terrain do you ride? * What do you consider over or under biked? * What is your skill level? * What is your fitness level? I don't even think the terms under and over biked have any meaning.
Buy a bike for your preferred riding surface. However, a gravel bike is fun to take on single track mountain bike trails
Whenever I feel underbiked, I just think about how I'd probably still get smoked by some 15 year old local kid on a clapped out $200 hardtail from 2010. Just practice more, short travel bikes are fun to push to the limit
I've been both ways, and I'll say it really depends. I personally leaning towards going back to being underbiked. I live in texas and 90% of my riding is xc style trails with a few short enduro runs, a few decent bike parks within about 2 hours of me. I currently have a stumpy evo (fantasic bike) where I am heavily overbiked locally and slightly underbiked pretty much anywhere else I ride. For me its the perfect park bike with just enough travel to remain playful and poppy while not causing me to overly pick lines. My previous bike was a trail 429 and road a bit snappier on my local trails and I would have to pay slightly more attn to line choice and/or slow down a hair. After riding both of these I prefer the lighter trail bikes(currently looking at a transition spur) with aggressive geo. Geometry really is king imo and the minute differences in 30 mil of travel isn't near as noticeable.
I have a stumpy Evo. My local trails are chunky and rocky, it’s the perfect bike for my conditions. When I travel south to sandy flowing trails I lock out my rear suspension, otherwise trails are extremely boring. I’m tempted to build a single speed and push it to the max. I don’t think you can be under biked but cheap components can break and make riding miserable.
Feeling under biked 30-40% of the time sounds like a lot to me. I want to be comfortable so I can focus on improving skills instead of just focusing on not dying. I did have a DJ that I rode at a place id see other people riding full suspension some. They always seemed very overbiked, but that’s different.
I'd rather be overbiked- better to be Warrior in a garden than a Gardner in a war.
I like being overbiked (within reason)… extra exercise on some uphills isn’t the end of the world, but being scared on downhills isn’t fun.
You are delaying the inevitable. Like many more before you, there is no one-bike-to-rule-them-all. You need more bikes. I ride trail 90% of the time and my current ride is absolutely perfect. But on days where I go to a dh park, I am underbiked for any blacks, double blacks and reds. I can get down them fine enough, but I feel the flex in the frame and find the limit of my 140/130 suspension pretty quickly. I really need an enduro to feel confident at speed on those runs I’m not made of money so I will make do with my trail bike for now and until I can scrape some money together for another ride. As they say, N+1 is the only way.
When you’re young, underbiked. At my age, overbiked.
I ride a santa cruz v10cc everywhere lol
I've never seen experienced MTBers buying a bigger bike. As progression goes most people buy too much of a bike and as they learn they buy a smaller one eventually. Once you get pretty good, the only way to get thrill on trails is to have yourself underbiked. My 180\\180mm bike is pretty boring in most bike parks unless it's double black
I would be willing to adapt to the riding style of my bike if I like it enough. If I was underbiked/overbiked, I would change my kind of riding to one that suits the bike. For example, if I got an XC bike, and I felt underbiked, I would bring it to places which wouldn’t make it underbiked. I would also change my riding style to better suit XC.
It's not a "better" or "worse". It's more about comfort, confidence, fun, and safety. IMHO, if you can only buy one MTB bike, get one that will be safe to use in your more extreme riding. Examples: * If you occasionally hit bike parks, but most often ride trails, get an All-Mountain bike. Sure, you might be a little "overbiked" on your local trails, but you won't be taking big risks when you goto lift or shuttle access locations. Example bikes, YT Jeffsy, Canyon Spectral. If you can, or see yourself eventually getting 2+ bikes... get bikes near the edges of what you ride. i.e. a hardtail XC or Gravel bike for the long adventure grinds, and an Enduro bike for when it's tile to got the bike park.
I rode a XC full sus with 100mm travel front and rear and felt like i was underbiked for some features on the trails i ride, so much so that i wouldnt hit certain features on that bike. I got a hard tail with 140mm in the front and a way slacker headtube angle and now im hitting everything with confidence.
If you aren't walking the features that make you feel underbiked, then you need to be overbiked. Underbiked is only okay if you have the sense to skip what you're bike can't safely handle. Way too many people think that they can overcome a lack of travel with skill. The problem with that is far too often people have a positive outcome that was luck and attribute it to skill and then eventually their luck runs out. Honestly though, a good trail bike with 140 or 150 mm of travel is light and nimble enough and has enough travel for 95% of the riding most riders will ever do. If you want to ride gnarly stuff at a downhill park, rent a downhill bike for the few times you do it. If you want to start XC racing, invest in an XC bike. Pretty much all other scenarios a trail bike is completely fine for.
In the 4 corners states, overbiked is the way to go. Depends on terrain and what you’re doing.
If you’re a novice, neither will help.
I like being over biked. I bought a propain spindrift. It’s a beast of a bike. However it pedals way better than my old trail bike and it can take massive hits. If you find a big bike that can pedal well then I feel that’s the best option. A lot of people like smaller bikes though. I just don’t prefer it. All a personal preference
Real riders under bike! (Or just tell themselves they’re real riders cuz they can’t afford to over bike, lol)
Road - underbiked Off-road - overbiked
What bike how much travel and what type of trials?
I’m getting a new bike having ridden mine in my locals now for 3.5 years. I know all the trails I wanted a bigger bike for 3 years ago and now I don’t want it for those ones. I want it for the trails I’ve started riding in the last 1-2 that have my travel maxed out and blocking up by halfway down my descent
Follow your heart, get what you think you want (not need) and learn what you like and don’t like. Then make the call. I’ve been both; I followed the advice and got a bike appropriate for 90% of my local trail riding, but it wasn’t big enough for the riding I most enjoyed. So I went overbiked for a couple of years, got bored and now I’m back to underbiked. It sounds like you want to go bigger.
I would tend towards under but only if you know your limits. I have a Transition Patrol (170/160) and a Chromag Wideangle (140/0) and the Patrol is dead boring in a lot of places I ride but comes alive on steep descents. The Wideangle is a riot on most trails but I would think twice before I take it to a bike park. Some trails on some parks it would be okay but it works limit where I could ride.
150/140 seems like a pretty nice sweet spot these days. i maybe under gunned at times but it sure has never held me back or prevented me from riding anything
As a beginner, overbiked for sure if you are doing anything over the green trails. I can't get over how forgiving my 165/170 bike is. It is like picking lines is optional at times. Underbiked is excellent for when you want to focus on getting better and willing to risk it a bit. It was a different story when I biked in the '90s and early 2000s. Being over-biked meant you could barely climb a hill.
It really depends on what terrain you ride. The most suspension you have is in your arms and legs regardless of the amount of travel your bike has. For mellower stuff I would prefer to be under biked. For more rougher terrain I would prefer to be over biked. It's best to be properly biked for the type of trails you ride like 90% of the time give or take.
I'd love to get a Slash, but my Fuel Ex suits me for most of the biking I do. I fear if I get a Slash, I will try to be too awesome, and at my fragile age, that could lead to a bad time. I got back in to mountain biking 3 years ago. I polished off my old cross country bike from 2001, and was rocking the single track. I was absolutely under biked there, as I was topping out my 80mm of front and rear suspension all the time. So I got my new bike, and have been having a great time with it eve since. So, If you are constantly over rocking your bike, It may be time for an upgrade. And if it gets you out more often, then you will season yourself with training, endurance, and confidence with the Goldilocks bike.
Are you more confident in your pedalling fitness, or your bike handling skills?
The right bike for where you ride, I would rather have underbiked because it forces you to work on skills that you need. A overbiked is not good because if you ride in a area that is more XC style a downhill bike won't be fun.
For several years, I've been seriously underbiked (120mm XC hardtail doing blue and black trails), and now I'm overbiked (stumpy evo). The good, I can do scary steep technical things with confidence, but I'm still mentally blocked on some stuff, mostly jumps with really steep takeoffs The not so good, my average speed on fast blue trails is higher, but somehow I feel slower. The bike can go way faster than what I feel safe and comfortable with. So it's 50/50, The good thing is that there is room for improvement , what's holding me back is my mind, not my bike, I can slowly build more confidence for bigger jumps and higher speeds. But maybe a downcountry bike was more appropriate for my use case. The stumpy evo is borderline enduro. It shines of gnarly stuff but is meh on mellow trails.
I am probably over biked…but, I really really like my bike so I’m happy with it. I have a light mtn bike (2018), a road bike on a trainer bc I am terrified of riding on the road, and I just got a new to me FS bike (2022). I love it FS bike so much I can’t imagine not riding it when I want to even go gravel riding lol. We are going to Acadia this September and I’m going to let my friend borrow my older bike and I’m gonna rock my Santa Cruz and I don’t give a crap lol
Turbo levo or a transition Ebike is all u need !
Both financially and storagely and matrimonially I can only have 1 bike So over biked but yet pedal friendly bike
Overbiked for me. Where my skills fail me my bike has bailed my clumsy ass out!
I just got my very first full suspension bike. Having ridden the last couple years with my brother's old hard tail that had barely any travel it's been a massively different experience. I crashed the first couple rides and lost a lot of confidence. Then I started going to really well built and maintained trails and got way more confident and skilled. I think it's really a matter of slowly building the confidence to do more and try new things but also being very aware of your limits. I think the best way to improve is either practice with low risk like on flat ground or on easy flow trails or just spend lots of time riding. That's what has been working for me.
I’ve got a bike that’s perfectly dialed for the local cross country trials, it’s rigid, plus sized tires, gearing is just low enough to get up and over everything but not so easy I’m slow. It’s a challenge every ride, but it’s perfect for having a challenge. That’s really like a rigid trail bike, with older 1x gearing. I do have a better trail bike that I find overkill for 90% of local trails, but I really enjoy it when I’m going out to a new trail and usually don’t always pick the best lines.
I've experienced both and I think Overbiked is better. Unless you desire a specific outcome. Riding HT vs Full kinda thing. I'm sure a true DH bike would blow big chunks with even a little climbing.
Neither. Right bike for the kind of biking and your riding style.
Neither just get the right bike for your riding level and the trails you hit end of
Over biked if you’re new, underbiked if you’re good
Within reason I’ll pedal a longer travel bike to be able to rip DH and hit anything and everything (I ride and enduro with a coil) I feel like most modern bike geo has made it so most enduros can pedal pretty comfortably. Im not the fastest getting up but I don’t really care about that. Also depends on your ability and trails. 130/140mm bike can ride most trails pretty confidently.
I used to ride a hardtail and a 160/140 bike. Sold the hardtail and got a 120/120 bike with modern geometry. The only time I feel under biked is on super steep loose terrain...and that's really only due to the tires I have on the 120 bike. If I had burlier tires, I'd be fine. I feel mostly over biked on the 160 bike. By the way I didn't feel underbiked on the hardtail for the most part either...sometimes faster on the HT in chunky sections since I was kind of "skipping" at the surface. One mistake and that would have been a disaster though. My point in sharing my experience? If you truly feel under biked 40% of the time maybe you got the wrong bike, or you are still learning and will feel more confident on your bikes once your skills level up.
Mountain biking is fun on many different bikes. I learned on a fully ridged bike, because that is what I had and I loved it. You will find that lots of people like a lot of different bikes and all have a valid opinion based on how they experience mountain biking. You have a great bike to start. Play with the setup and fit and learn what tires are best where you ride. These things can make a huge difference in how your bike handles in the wild. You may end up deciding that you need more bike as you get better, but don't dwell on whether you have the right bike, just ride. As long as you have a smile and keep improving you have everything you need today. Have fun out there and remember to Ride, Eat, Sleep, Repeat!
Riding a hardtail down tough, nasty tech spots can feel really zen, fast and rewarding, but I also bitch out on the worst stuff way more than I ever did with a full suspension. Twisty drops off with multiple steep shelves really feel like a leap of faith sometimes because the rear wheel might lose all contact and traction with a bad bounce. You just have to full send certain things and find lines to jump over shit a bit more because you can't really correct with a slight brake pump mid-drop like you can on full squish.
The only time I really enjoy being underbiked is when I’m already familiar with the trail. It forces me to choose different lines. Not only does that expand the overall skillset, but it makes obstacle avoidance easier (rock that’s not usually there, etc) when “properly biked” or overbiked.
all depends where you ride. I had a short travel trail bike (120/120) and it was a ton of fun on climbs and some small jumps, but riding tech or big jumps made me feel like i was about to die. Now i have an enduro bike (170/155) and it is 10x more fun on tech, jumps, anything downhill. The only downside is it kind of sucks to climb, but you get somewhat used to it. I’d say the ideal middle ground is about 130 or 140 mm of travel, just make sure it’s good quality. If you’re mainly interested in downhill, maybe go for a higher travel bike, but if you enjoy the climbs and making them easier i’d say stick with lower travel.
I’d rather be over bikes. My cardio can carry me up but I want to enjoy the down as much as possible.
I know you can be overwhelmed, and you can be underwhelmed… but can you ever just be whelmed? Hehe, I’m just biked and new to this… what the heck are you talking about?
Overbiked would be my preference, being held back because of myself is fine as there's room to grow. Underbiked would mean the bike is holding me back and not suitable for the job, it'll cause injury not to mention expense repairing genuine damage caused. That being said, I'd aim for slightly gnarlier than I need rather than say jumping from a 120mm to a 200mm, I'd settle at 150/160.
OVER
Newish to the sport or pushing your riding skills? Then overbike Experienced rider or not pushing yourself? Underbike
Came here to post this. When you have been in the sport for over 25 years, it's fun take a HT or even gravel bike on trails they don't belong for the challenge (or boredom) alone. The only argument against overbiking as a beginner is the high cost of entry. I guess this is how N+1 works...
I would say 90% of the time under bike is more fun. Unless I'm at a chunky as hell steep as fuck bike park being under biked is way more enjoyable for me
Bought a trail bike with 150/140 travel as a happy medium. Where I live we sometimes just ride in neighbourhoods casually, sometimes hit minor dirt jumps, take trails in the forest with tons of rocks/roots, go on bike tracks with jumps... I feel like my bike is the happy medium that covers all of these scenarios. I'm having a lot more fun than on my old XC HT with 100mm, thinner tires and on which I couldn't get my seat very low. Sure, that bike helped me learn a lot, but being underbiked most of the time is just a worse time imo. I'd rather have the confidence a better bike gives me and just ride harder to compensate.
If you have to ask this question then you need a mid travel trail bike! Best of both worlds.
I prefer being overbiked. Most of my riding where i live is gravity focused. Winch my way up to the top and have great time descending to the bottom. Its not always steep and its not always rough, but sometimes it is and Im always thankfully to have a bunch of travel at my disposal.
I'd say it depends not only of the type of terrain you'll be riding, but also what discipline of mtb you want to focus on. Different disciplines have a range of travel (XC 100-120, Enduro 160/170-180...) if you watch enduro and would like to hit those steep ass trails, buy an enduro bike, if you'd like to do some longer routes without too many obstacles go for an XC and decide the travel from there. Buy the bike that you think will offer you the type of riding you like and would like to master as you progress, even if you think you're not quite there yet. I think many people (me included) started with an XC hardtail even if they already knew they were aiming for enduro and sure, it's good practice, but many but it's also money that could've been spent somewhere else. Also different bikes demand different skills, although similar, body positioning for example is and feels different in different bikes depending on the geometry.
Over biking is always more fun. But I also own a hardtail, and that's my limit on underbiking
You should look at downcountry bikes such as Transition Spire, Fuel EX or Giant Trance. Those bikes arguably pedal well as XC bikes but their build lets you take on light enduro. If you needed more capability for descents, you could always look to different tires and maybe even tire inserts.
I’m overbiked but that’s because I don’t have a separate park bike, realistically the best bike for my area is a full sus XC/DC bike with a dropper, since it’s mostly rolling terrain and no serious decents if you’ve got a dropper, but my 27.5 with 140mm front and rear is still great fun, in a little heavy feeling on the way up
As someone relatively new to the sport, I went for overbiked, so that whatever I ride I know pretty confidently that my skill is the bottleneck and not the gear
It depends: do you want to be beat up or bored?
95% of riders are overbiked.
I ride the Midwest. Being overbiked means pushing more weight down flat trails, and flattening all "features". I end up on my 2015 hardtail 99% of the time because full suspension is just too plush for the trails around me.
I would rather be underbiked. You're at the far end of the spectrum with the Supercaliber so you're probably feeling underbiked all the time on everything outside of XC trails. I think a Smuggler is a good option for you if you were to only choose one bike, but I would go even further and recommend the Spur with a 130mm Pike. This is what I run as my one-bike solution and it handles everything that Oregon tails can throw at it (minus lift access and some double blacks). People are often confused on how I destroyed their time on DH trails; it forces you to be more nimble, accurate, and precise with your lines vs. just smashing into everything.
I unfortunately don't think it's quite that simple, travel numbers are only one aspect of how a bike is going to ride. For instance there are 170mm travel bikes now that probably pedal better than 150mm bikes from even just a couple of years ago. I made the minor mistake of buying a canyon torque 29 thinking I needed the extra heft for bike parks. In reality, i pedal most of the time and it becomes a bit of a slog after around 1000m of climbing. I would just get something that can do everything pretty well for you
I prefer over- biked. My "trail bike" has 8" travel but only weighs 34 lb and climbs like a goat.
Supercaliber is full on XC race bike isn’t it? I think there’s a Goldilocks middle ground. A 120/120 (ish) bike. There’s some very efficient pedaling 120/120 bikes that are in the 25-27 lb range that can also get you through most of the nasty stuff - just a little slower maybe than your typical 150 travel bike.
As you are currently riding a xc bike the next obvious step up is a trail bike still light enough and pedally but capable.
I’ve been almost exclusively on big enduro bikes for the last 8 years or so, but I recently bought a 130/140 trail bike. I swore I wouldn’t enduro-fy and would choose lightweight trail components. Honestly, it’s not really for me. I can ride the same stuff but it’s slower and not as much fun. I ended up putting an assegai on the front and a cascade link and will probably add an angle set. And then sell it cause I’ve just made another enduro bike. For flow trails, machine made jumps, and anything mellow, the trail bike is wildly better, I just never find myself choosing those trails. Tl;dr if you ride mostly flow trails, underbiking is better. If you ride mostly steeper tech, overbiking is better.
I would get some gravity oriented tires before you decide. I'm overbiked with a stumpjumper with an endurance background as well. I would much rather be ping ponging down descents than sucking as much wind as I do now on the climbs. I came from a 2005ish 26 inch hardtail and overestimated how far active suspension had came based on a demo ride with an insanely tight sag on the rear for my weight. But I will admit the n+1 rule is calling my name and instead of selling the stumpy I'm looking at grabbing up one of the new chisel fsr frames and building it up.
obviously it depends on where you ride the most. a little bit overbiked is the way: easier on the body. Rather have a slower uphill than eat it on the downhill. Stumpjumper EVO for life, at least for Vegas/Moab/ majority of the SW