[Closed] Overbiked/Underbiked Wombling free !?

Went from a 150/140 bike to a 140/120 (now a 140/130 with different linkage).

3 years worth of geometry and shock improvements more than made up for the reduction in travel. Pedaling ability was much improved.

I'm going to follow this with interest as I'm somewhat torn between the Ripmo and the Ripley.

I'll start planning a Ripley but wonder if I want a beefier fork than a 34. If I'm going to run something like a 36, why not stick on a Ripmo instead.

Still, at least the quandary saves me actually spending any money.

There's no such thing as underbiked just underskilled. 🙂

I think the 34 fork is the limiting factor on the Ripley. I'm all for shorter travel, lighter and more playful bikes than dead feeling enduro sleds, but i'd always want a bigger and stiffer (oo-er) fork out front.

Yep definitely under skilled ! From all the reading I’ve been doing about the Ripley, it runs well with a 140 fork. It’s about 200g weight difference between 34 and 36 forks

I had a Altitude, which I very much enjoyed riding. I then bit the bullet and tried 29 inch wheels.

I am currently on a Norco optic, which is 20mm less front and 25mm less rear travel than the altitude.

It is a better, more engaging, fun experience throughout. Less travel is more fun in my book (unless you spend all day in bike parks or doing steep super gnar!).

I don't think you will regret the change to something with less travel. As mentioned, its more skill level than bike travel, as you can ride a hardtail on the steepest of gnar, if your skill level allows.

I went from a 26" Giant Reign 170/170mm with coil at both ends to a 29" 140/130mm Geometron G13.

In a 25 mile round the peaks there was about 30 seconds where I needed all that travel.

After a year on the Geometron I was faster on that than a full DH bike in Whistler. Its not slowed me down or limited the riding I do. Its just been more versatile.

Which is why I don't need a DH bike : )

Weirdly watched a youtube earlier ... quite possibly due to my recent riding.
Not including DJ/BMX I've got 100mm HT through 170/160

My first real MTB (in a decade) was the XC HT... I dumped for a T-130 .. that then got 140 on the front but could never get on with the ultra long seattube.. then a Mega @160/160 ... this was great for a few weeks then started to feel dead...90% of my riding
Then I got an old Aeris at 160/150 or 160/140 and stuff came back alive though I increasingly set the back up at 140... especially FOD/Cmwcarn

Now the mega is 170/160.. and any concessions to weight gone... full chain guard, 4 pots, 36.... and mostly used as a skills compensator when I'm following Jnr... Last year we went to North Wales and rode Dyfi, Revs and Antur and I took the Aeris and Mega. For reasons of space the Aeris was on the back seat on the drive back and we spent a day at FOD. Arriving with a 10yr old we were later than I wished and I ended up just using the Mega... I just felt over biked all day. Somehow I missed swapping bikes at lunch and the day was very underwhelming...

Since then I rebuilt the XC HT ... and after riding bigger and bigger bikes and features for a few years it's suddenly more capable and fun that I remembered. When I built it up I figured as it wasn't worth selling it was going to be fun to use it until I broke it but I've now rediscovered a love for the bike and making something less challenging fun again rather than just chucking a bike that's way more capable than I am at a trail.

I ride my 33lb enduro bike (Privateer 161) on local xc rides, for me its a better fit than my trail bike, so sold the trail bike (Reactor 290). Still have the Scout 290 hardtail, ride it occasionally on local stuff.

I do and don't buy into the overbiked thing, you still end up the the same wheels and a proper fork and a bit more travel comes at a small weight penatly. Buy a bike that fits first and foremost.

Have a couple of sets of wheels for the bike and swap out tyres as needed. I have a set of wheels with Minions on, then another set with xc tread.

I do and don’t buy into the overbiked thing, you still end up the the same wheels and a proper fork and a bit more travel comes at a small weight penatly.

It's not so much weight for me... it's simply one takes away a lot of the challenge/fun.
I'm off out soon... local ride and taking the XC partly because I got 10 miles on road to get there but at least equally because when I get there the stuff that's "interesting" I have to jump or trail hop on 100mm 32's would be completely rollable on 170mm 36's and 160 on the back.

Buy a bike that fits first and foremost.

Weirdly during the last weeks my only reason to ride something bigger is when the 10yr old steals my medium XC. I've even swapped cranks for some solid ones and drilled a second set of pedal holes... so he'd rather ride a bike too big thats less capable than his own 160/150... (he can also drop me on the road as it's got a 36T on the front which might also have something to do with it)

Have a couple of sets of wheels for the bike and swap out tyres as needed. I have a set of wheels with Minions on, then another set with xc tread.

Oh... yep... that's my excuse for getting dropped.
TBH we swapped bikes on fireroad for 10 mins and he wanted the fast rolling tyres back PDQ.

I think you should be rational and consider that if your skills are holding the bike back, then maybe switching to a less capable bike may just make things more difficult for you. Unless you're really using the wrong tool for the job. You likely won't push a ST bike to its limits either as others have said.

It's a trade-off, would you rather make climbing easier and descending harder, or keep things the same? You may however find a bike that you're more comfortable on all around and go better everywhere.

I don't think it's too unreasonable to lug around that little extra travel/geo for when you need it, it's not like a 160mm fork is any heavier than 140 like-for-like.

I like the principle but I think in practice, the components you fit are decided by the work you want it to do not the travel, and that means that other than bob, there's often not a lot of difference between long and short travel. It's not like the old days where long travel bikes were all either wobbly heavy messes, or totally compromised for the actual job and basically just XC bikes with delusions of grandeur.

I ride a 160/140 29er most of the time and if I was to replace it with a 130/130 or similar, it'd have the same tyres, same sort of wheels, same brakes, same dropper, the frame'd weigh about the same... Yes it'd bob slightly less, but not much because that stuff is proportional not absolute (ie, 10mm less travel on a 140mm bike just changes the pedalling by 1/14th)

The hardest part was never building big hoofing bikes that ride like mini dh bikes, Patriots and the like have done that forever... It was about building big bikes that can be used for anything. But they're pretty good at that now.

lewzz10

I think you should be rational and consider that if your skills are holding the bike back, then maybe switching to a less capable bike may just make things more difficult for you.

My skill level holds all my bikes back....
What I found though was one helps the other.
I ride stuff now on a 100mm HT without even thinking that used to be challenging on a 130mm FS... I used to be terrified of getting air on the XC now I go out of my way to find it...

Of course we expect to progress anyway... but I found "I could just get down that on the XC" really helps me go faster on a big bike whilst pushing myself on the big bike over a proper gap or drop then translates to me doing a small drop or gap on the XC I could completely mess up with no consequences on a big bike that would save me I probably wouldn't have tried (given a choice).

Yes, I’ve gone from 2015 model year Spesh Enduro 29 (160/155mm) to a first generation Cotic RocketMAX (150/140mm) to a 2020 Trek Fuel EX8 (140/130mm).

The EX has a boggo 34 fork while the Spesh had a Lyrik and Cotic a 36. I’ve had short travel trail 29ers before and found that for typical trail centre reds, they were a hoot, but could get a bit sketchy feeling on rough natural trails (Dark Peak and rocky Welsh stuff).  I’ve been very pleasantly surprised with the EX, it’s got the composure of the Cotic on the descents, but with more rear end grip, and the shorter chain stays give it a bit more of a lively feel.

For their weight, both the Cotic and Enduro felt to me like they climbed really well, but the EX is so much lighter (and the shock is so much better) that it feels almost ebike like in comparison. (Upgraded the wheels on the EX to some Stans Arch, but otherwise stock). On stuff like the red at Glentress and the milder routes at Inners, the EX feels quicker downhill. I think that might be down to the very neutral feeling geometry - there are no odd quirks with the handling or suspension and it’s confidence inspiring, but also got a poppy fun feel.

Yes, for descending really rough stuff at speed, the longer travel bikes were quicker, but as I’ve got nearer 60 years old, I’m a lot more risk averse than I was, and I’m definitely not a Strava warrior😆

i came to the realisation that, most of the time, I was lugging around bikes that were designed for harder riding than I was ever going to do. Personally, the EX has bought a bit of the excitement and pleasure back into riding that was lacking with the bigger bikes - but without it feeling that it’s gonna chuck me off on chunkier terrain.

I have a manitou Mezzer 37mm stanchion on the front of my Ripley V4 at 140mm travel it’s a brilliant fork & not that heavy but very stiff am about 92kg kitted up. Did think about the Ripmo but I also have a light wheel set for more XC riding & more trail/enduro for other times

I have a RipMo (V1) and the latest Ripley. They are very different bikes - certainly the way I've built them.  Unsurprisingly the Ripley climbs better than the RipMo (not just because it's lighter), it's noticeably more agile/quick to turn (run mine with a 130mm fork) and it's definitely not as stable/planted on the steeper/rougher stuff.

In terms of the OP, that's pretty much where I ride and I bought the Ripley because - well other than I liked the look of it - I thought it'd make the trails more 'fun'.

I'd actually compare it more to my SolarisMax in terms of how it rides against the RipMo. I'm not sure having HT/Ripley/RipMo makes that much sense but they all get ridden and I enoy their differences.

If i had to choose between the Ripley and the RipMo tho, I'd choose the RipMo. But not the V2 version!

Is it a case that you just don't feel you want to use the RM Altitude for stuff that would use up the travel, FoD has loads of stuff that you can push your bike on, the trails such as GBU, Corkscrew, Y2K, etc, as well as the off piste stuff everywhere would test the RM and use up that suspension with the hits, if you're hitting the blue/red then yeah, it's not going to really use up the potential too much.

Are you up for learning the skills on the downs (and fun stuff) to progress, or happy with all dayers and sticking to stuff that won't see you bottom out that much, that's the main thing here, if you want days of doing CwmCarn normal stuff then the ripley is more than enough, if you want to hit pedalhounds or y mynydd and progress then the RM is something that'll help.

I've mostly been riding a 110mm/130mm 29er with a Fox 34 in recent months.

It's brilliant and with it's modern geometry it can handle some quite chunky trails, surprisingly quickly. Especially when it borrows the burlier wheels off my enduro bike.

Part of the equation that has changed is that these days you can get short travel bikes with solid build kits and very descending focused geometry.

So, if the challenging descents are more about steep and high speed, than about big rock hits and drops, you can prolly do more on one of the new short travel bikes than an older long travel bike.

On the flip side, modern mid/lingered travel bikes pedal so well, there isn’t that much benefit to the shorter travel either, since most of the weight is in the pivots and bearings and components.

On the flip side, modern mid/lingered travel bikes pedal so well, there isn’t that much benefit to the shorter travel either, since most of the weight is in the pivots and bearings and components.

I actually have short and long-travel 29ers from the same brand at the moment, there's some truth to this in that the long-travel one is quite pleasant for long rides and climbs very well.

But the short-travel one (1kg or so lighter) really picks up its heels on flatter trails and has a more dynamic and engaging feel when you're pumping the ground to maintain speed.

Travel is not what it used to be, in terms of importance i think?

Modern "travel" is light, composed and really little penalty in-itself (if you can afford to buy it, on a budget, short travel is a winner!)

I'd buy a bike by Geo first and travel second tbh

I've downsized a lot (160/150mm bikes to 120/100).

One thing to bear in mind is that in order to get the springy, lightweight feel of the shorter travel bike, the whole build has to really be somewhat along those lines - suspension travel alone doesn't weigh anything or increase resistance, but heavy-duty kit fitted to it certainly does. You'll quickly narrow the gap between the long travel bike and shorter travel if they are both using the same wheels, tyres, gearing and so on. That's diminishing returns on making the change.

Second thing is that shorter travel bikes just won't be built for the same treatment. Getting a lighter frame/parts and brutally slamming it into things isn't going to last long (ahem). Appreciate there are exceptions to this, but something to consider.

There are always trade offs, but some bikes are better at giving you the feel you want while you accept these. It might also be easier if you are smaller/lighter as you can use lighter kit with fewer breakage risks.

Think of where you ride, what you ride, and how you ride it.

Or ask yourself, do you like to climb up stuff really fast and cover long distances over XC terrain really fast? If so get a shorter travel bike. A modern 120 / 130mm 29er will climb better ans still be just as capable as a 160mm enduro rig from a few years ago and fly up the climbs.

I’ve downsized a lot (160/150mm bikes to 120/100).

One thing to bear in mind is that in order to get the springy, lightweight feel of the shorter travel bike, the whole build has to really be somewhat along those lines – suspension travel alone doesn’t weigh anything or increase resistance, but heavy-duty kit fitted to it certainly does.

This... And it's the reason I've just purchased another bike to build as suggested... I don't want to compromise my 150mm travel 29er FS bike by fitting lighter components, so it's sticking at just over 32lb and I've bought a 120/100mm 29er "Downcountry" (bloody marketing terms, I really don't like this one but it has picked up so much momentum it would seem!) FS to build up around 27lb to compliment it.

I'll purposefully be building it with a more XC bent, but at 90kg and a 2nd FS bike, it's not gonna be dripping in cost-no-object kit... Tyres will be lighter and faster, but still use an XC insert in the rear at least. Think 180/160 rotors and slightly slimmer brakes, as opposed to 200/180 on the longer travel bike. Will still run a dropper, but probably just a 125 rather than 150/170. Bars will be 760mm and stem in the 55-60mm region, rather than the 780 & 40mm stem on longer travel bike. Will be sticking with 1x12 as I have the kit spare already, but it's things like the frame, the fork, wheels & tyres where the biggest weight differences will occur anyway.

The idea is to have a dedicated bike for most of my XC/trail riding that will also do for the occasional Marathon style event, or I could (if inclined) do an XC race on it and it would only be my pace holding me back and not the bike. Then keep my longer travel FS as it is, for days out riding bigger terrain and leave it setup with bigger grippier tyres at all times.

At 48 I don’t know whether I’ll ever get the skills to do the serious stuff that would make the altitude shine and that is why I’m thinking of going short travel 29.

My fave kind of trail is flowy berm trails, anything with drop offs and steeps gets the ol’ sphincter twitching.

Anyhow I’ve listed the altitude for sale, if it sells then a Ripley will be on its way...or I could buy the Ripmo v1 frame from start !!

At 48 I don’t know whether I’ll ever get the skills to do the serious stuff that would make the altitude shine

Don't write yourself off... Many of the guys I ride with have only developed those skills in their 50's themselves! One of my good riding mates is 63 now, but only started riding MTB properly when he was about your age now, and he's won the 50+ category at the Megavalanche twice outright!

If you want to learn and progress, you will find ways to do so... That said...

My fave kind of trail is flowy berm trails, anything with drop offs and steeps gets the ol’ sphincter twitching.

That's absolutely to be commended, too many people get caught up trying to ride stuff beyond their skill level and not having any fun as such. Ride the bike that best suits the trails that you ride, rather than the ones you aspire to. You will have more fun as a result, and that's the point after all!

As an aside, 10-15 years ago, I was mostly rocking around on quite long travel bikes, certainly the use they had didn't warrant the travel. I went back to basics a bit, Hardtails mostly and shorter travel FS bikes for a while. I got some coaching, started riding with faster people, started riding trails that pushed my boundaries a bit, got a bigger travel bike etc etc... But then in the last couple of years, I've come back from that a bit again too, ridden a bit more traditional XC type stuff and a bit less of the Enduro kind of riding that had become the norm.

I always find these over/underbiked questions to be tricky.

First, people generally look at that from the perspective of travel. Travel can say very little about how a bike pedals and how all-round usable it is. Some enduro bikes like the AM9, the Ripmo or the Rallon pedal really really well, specially when paired with lighter wheels and tyres.

Secondly, it depends a lot on what you really value as a rider. Someone might be underbiked for 90% of the year, but if that 10% remaining on the Alps trip is the overwhelming highlight of his year, then why not?

My first advice when someone comments about feeling overbiked is to install lighter/faster tyres, removing a steering spacer and consider lighter rims. IMO, a good pedaling enduro bike ia better on an all day epic than a light short travel trail bike is on a really rowdy trail

If I always choose 4 pot over 2 pot brakes and larger rotors, 30mm carbon rims with WT exo or exo+ tyres and feel the need for a 36 over a 34, is there anything else that could be done to make a lighter build?

The above just screams Ripmo over Ripley, doesn't it?

Sounds like you know what you want to do, can't say i've heard of anyone being disappointed in the ibis, the RM is a lovely bike, but i know what you mean, you do feel guilty at times having so much travel and kit, i have 2x 170/160 enduro bikes and struggle big time going out for normal rides with folk, like the normal FoD trails or CwmCarn, but it does the job for me when i hit the DH stuff or try daft things, otherwise i'd be doing the same!

If I always choose 4 pot over 2 pot brakes and larger rotors, 30mm carbon rims with WT exo or exo+ tyres and feel the need for a 36 over a 34, is there anything else that could be done to make a lighter build?

The above just screams Ripmo over Ripley, doesn’t it?

My Ripley has 4 pots, Newman SL.A35mm rims, DHF 2.5 3C on the front and Rekon 2.4 TR on the back. It does have a 34mm fork tho. It's quite a lot lighter still than my RipMo.

They ride differently regardless if the kit is similar. To me, that's a good thing. Which one is better? I dunno, depends what your criteria is!

Thanks for the feedback Alex. That's the million dollar question though.

Hard to answer.  Last two climbs today on tired legs, was really glad I was on the Ripley. Looking at a new gap jump, would rather have my RipMo.  If I'm on what passes as my game the Ripley is more 'fun' in a lot of the trails here because it's more agile. But if I'm not the RipMo will save my arse when I inevitably get it wrong.

I've ridden the RipMo over 3,000km tho and the Ripley 650km. And the RipMo has been to some places where I've been quite scared. So I probably trust it more.

Yeah anyway Dunno 😉

RIPMO FRAME ONLY
£3,299.00 - Sold Out

Jeez! anyone else amazed how expensive it's all got lately?

Not sure if you've bought anything yet, but if not - update on my Ripley

https://flic.kr/p/2jegMHy

I spoke to a number of suspension tuners and the view seemed to be tuning the Stock Evol was going to be £200 ish and it wasn't going to return that value. Couldn't get a DVO Topaz which might be a blessing (see below) so went with a CCDB-IL.

There's no V4 setup on the Cane Creek config app so we've put a 'base' setup on it and I'm going to borrow a shockwiz off a mate once I've had a couple of rides/tweaks. Initial 'new bit' tests up and around the local field suggests this feels a whole lot plusher/better damped... however..

.. any test is someone compromised by the fact I've had to change the fork as well. My DVO Sapphire has always felt like it's not plush at all.  Sprung (suspension specialist) had it apart and found the bushings were over-sized and actually starting to remove metal from the stantions!

So they're off to Warranty and Jake from sprung lent me a set of 'Formula Selva's' which are entirely new to me but feel pretty butch. And plush now I've found the negative air spring.

Anyway thought it might be of interest. Really looking forward to seeing how much difference it makes. It definitely has never felt 'right' front or back since I bought it.