[Closed] What breaks when you're under-biked?

Likelihood is, unless you're smashing into rock gardens at speed, nothing will break.

You'll just not be able to go as fast/make as many mistakes. You might get a few more pinch flats with less travel.

I don't think it will be about breakage, its more that it will be less capable and require more rider input or be a bit slower etc. You wont break a XC type bike in the Lakes just simply riding it there, you'll just find its a bit more sketchy.

You may break it if you start doing road gaps on it though.

surfmatt, is that you?

You...if you don’t pace yourself on the rockier bits.

Back from Morzine on a trail bike.

Damage report:
Maxxis tyre - slashed
Hope tech enduro wheel - 2 broken spokes
Rear brake rotor (hope 180mm) - cooked
XT rear mech - cage broken (unsure if vibration or rock strike)

Fork and frame (Pike and Bird 120LT) seem to be unscathed

The suspension 'lessens' the bumps that you feel...so more suspension should means a comfier ride over bumpier stuff.

120/130 is absolutely fine for rough stuff, but you'll need to accept a bumpier ride for you...so unless you absolutely tank it into some very big things and completely mess it up, your bike is unlikely to break. That isn't to say it won't be stressed massively, but the suspension will absorb some of the bump and lessen the severity of it.

More travel tends to make climbing hills a pain, but does make the downs and the bumps far smoother.

A hardtail would be fine if you had extreme riding skills as you'd be able to lessen the size of the bumps with your skills - you'd likely get tired quicker though as you'd have to be working yourself and your bike far more.

Result with less suspension is slower speeds over rough stuff as it then comes down to how quick you can react and absorb the impacts yourself.

(The above all makes sense in my head, but reading it aloud, it doesn't sound quite so sensible...so I'm expecting this to be ignored as wrong as it probably doesn't sound like it does in my head to others!)

You'll be pushing each component closer to its breaking point. A lighter bike will flex more for a given force. Things will break more frequently, bearings will wear quicker, forks will become creaky noodles.

Whether or not that is a realistic concern for you is a different matter. If you don't break stuff often then you probably can go lighter and see how you get on.

What I will say, though, is that I found riding a heavier, more robust bike quite liberating. I went from a light FS build (Yeti ASR-5) to a heavier enduro style bike. It meant that I could never blame the bike as a reason to not hit a drop / jump / harsh line at speed. Sometimes I miss being able to thrash the bike up climbs but whilst I love a good techy climb, overall I prefer riding the enduro bike. Obviously YMMV.

Having just jumped back on a 100mm hardtail having spent 2 years riding a 165mm enduro bike I'd definitely say the person is most likely to break I feel broken and I'm only bloody 29.

I'd say tyres and wheels are most likely to fail when used outside their expected type of usage, the rest of the bike will be fine.

So maybe get the lighter bike and a second set of heavier wheels and tyres for when you want to smash through rocks.

“Do they ever actually break in those situations of are they just a bit noodly and rubbish.”

Noodly and rubbish! More fatiguing on the rider. If alloy they’ll die sooner from fatigue but probably not for years and years and years.

It’s tyres and rims that seem to suffer most. Foam inserts help a lot with that!

Avoid cheap light wheels or upgrade to something more substantial. I've killed more rear wheels than front. Lightweight tyres puncture and tear more easily and there's less material for sealant to wedge itself into when there is a puncture. Lightweight tyres deform more easily so higher pressure needed. Suspension wears quicker due to greater stresses.

whats a downcountry bike ?

Good set of durable tires on most mid travel bikes go a long way to forgiving mistreatment.

That said the angles (pending skill level) will likely let you down before the travel limitations.

You’ll just not be able to go as fast/make as many mistakes

That's the answer. Less bike just means you adjust your riding accordingly. I'm quite happy to do that but some get annoyed by it. I've done things like the Torridon loop full suss, HT and fully rigid. I thoroughly enjoyed it on all 3 and would repeat it on any of them. As a certain w***er once said, it's not about the bike.

So if I’m doing Helvellyn descent, or Kill Bill in Finale, or Rocky Road in Tignes on my 120/130mm XC/Trail/Downcountry bike, what is it that will actually break?

No.
HTH.

Things tend to break if you crash a lot, hit things badly (heavy landings and so on), or actually hit things (trees!). If you're getting a 120/130 travel bike and are using it as you describe i don't think you'll be in too much danger of breaking things, you'll just have to deal with normal stuff such as wheel buckles, gear issues and so on from clunking bits of the bike off rocks and stuff, just as an enduro rider would.

The whole under/over bikes thing is a bit of a myth, unless you're actually pushing the limits then it's really just down to riding you're not skilled enough for, i know my limits, hence why i have an enduro, i couldn't hit the stuff i want on a 120/130mm bike as it requires more skill (or confidence), having something that's slacker and feels more solid going downhill is what gives me confidence, without that i'd have to learn the skills more!

After years of experimentation, I am really happy on a hardtail with 130mm up front as my only mountain bike.

I am strictly a rubber side down, fast trails kind of rider. Not interested in getting airborne or slamming down descents beyond my capability. My rides tend to max out at 2-3 hours given family commitments, so I don't get too fatigued anyway.

A modern geometry hardtail should remain fairly classic and last longer than a suspension design. If it was me with your budget, I would invest in a decent frame, fork and wheels and fit something fairly disposable in terms of drivetrain and contact points.

In terms of what breaks, I actually find less breaks on a hardtail because you are more aware of the trail and avoiding big hits. A suspension design 'suspends' the rider from the harshness of the trail, but at the expense of the bike itself. You are simply less aware and in some ways ride with less finesse if you are dependent on the bike's travel to make up for your poor choice of lines or absorb the trail. Energy has to go somewhere.....

Unless you really abuse your gear, or there was a manufacturing fault, frames rarely break, but stuff wears out or gets crash damaged. If you buy well, the manufacturer should sort out any frame related issues. The rest is just disposable ultimately.

I like the security of a slightly over built bike and I'll happily trade a kilo or so overall for the relative certainty that stuff won't break.

My Switchback's not the lightest bike but I'm confident I'd struggle to break it.

what is it that will actually break?

You?

Noticed when in the US a while back that Yeti were demoing gnarly builds of lower travel bikes with upgraded forks, shocks and wheels. I demoed and don’t think the compromise was worth it, especially on a bike park. That said they seemed very confident letting me smash a demo bike and didn’t seem concerned about things breaking. For riding over slick rocky trails I definitely see the appeal though. Maybe my skills were just not up to it.

Brendon in a x country bike

I used to ride Warncliffe DH trails on a GT Avalanche with 100mm Recons. Only time I ever broke bits of the bike was when I smashed my rear mech on something and it destroyed my rear wheel!

But I've ridden the same trails on beefier bikes with more travel since then and its much nicer. You might just get rattled about a bit more on a lighter bike with less travel.

Decent brakes would be good though.

As others have said, you'll likely run out of ability before anything really breaks. You may get unlucky and break a perishable part like tyres or mech but nothing else.

If really concerned and looking to build this bike, you could just use beefier parts, for example instead of a fox 34 or whatever rockshox offer you could run a 36 or Lyrik with a smaller airshaft at 140mm, you could still run EX511 rims so your shorter travel bike would be burlier.

As above. Also, there is a distinction between an 'underbiked' bike and a poorly engineered bike that focuses on weight loss over anything else. I like to be significantly underbiked, I have a modern trail bike that is very good but bores me, so it barely gets ridden - most of my mileage on a range of terrains goes down on a 20lb carbon everything 29er. Its light but achieves it's loss through good engineering, so when you look at the bike there is no obvious weak point that leaps out as a concern compared to a heavier bike. Ignoring consumables the bike has been solid for many years fairly rough usage.

But- and its a big butt - what breaks is...if I don't get the tyre pressures and fork spot on within a few PSI, my hands and wrists will take a beating, see also: feet, ankles, lower back.

whats a downcountry bike ?

You remember a few years ago you owned a mountain bike that did most of what you wanted and wasn't ridiculously burly and dull to ride uphill?

Then the MTB industry realised that they could make loads of money pushing bigger, burlier bikes that would be great downhill but only okish uphill. So they really pushed the new Enduro bikes and everybody rushed out and bought one.

So now everyone has a New enduro bike, the industry has come up with its latest big thing.....

Downcountry

Which is basically the old bike you previously had before you went out and bought an enduro sled

sounds to me like you might want to try a gravel bike, something like a Fustle Causeway should do the job

ounds to me like you might want to try a gravel bike,

based on what?
I'm intrigued why you concluded a gravel bike is what I need .

I don’t think it will be about breakage, its more that it will be less capable and require more rider input or be a bit slower etc. You wont break a XC type bike in the Lakes just simply riding it there, you’ll just find its a bit more sketchy.

You may break it if you start doing road gaps on it though.

+1

With the possible caveat that you might want to fit appropriate tyres. I'd happily (perhaps uncomfortably and a little slower than a FS) ride my Scandal down the rockiest descents, but if I was going out all day to do that I'd fit wide rims and 2.5" tyres. Both for performance and longevity (at the expense of weight). If I was going to ride a trail center I'd probably prefer 2.2" tyres and appropriate rims to make it a bit more sprightly.

I like the security of a slightly over built bike and I’ll happily trade a kilo or so overall for the relative certainty that stuff won’t break.

My Switchback’s not the lightest bike but I’m confident I’d struggle to break it.

Depends how you look at it, does a component need to be 1%, 10% or 100% overbuilt. The rims on my summer gravel bike are 150g each lighter than the winter one (and wider too). The winter one is no more reliable for being 50% heavier, it may be 50% stronger too, but I doubt I'll exceed the strength of the summer ones either. It's just cheaper.

Then the MTB industry realised that they could make loads of money pushing bigger, burlier bikes that would be great downhill but only okish uphill. So they really pushed the new Enduro bikes and everybody rushed out and bought one.

Totally agree with you on this. It's an unconventional opinion but the type of bike the industry has been marketing in the last decade has resulted in the next logical step of adding a motor to compensate for the poor climbing and pedal performance being legitimised. I come to this conclusion from having had a nice classic mid travel, sharp angled, FS allrounder a decade ago that blows the socks off my modern trail bike for actual riding feel and balanced handling that climbs as well as it descends - I could happily climb for hours on end on technical alpine climbs and it be pleasurable, I find most LLS modern bikes make climbing a chore and only really come into their own down super steep terrain. This sort of thing looks a bit dull on marketing shredits though huh.

If I was in the market for a new FS bike something like the new Epic Evo would be very high on the list, pretty sure that would feel good on a wide range of riding.

contrary to most of the above, I've snapped 5 frames, most of which were freeride/enduro type things ridden a lot on DH courses. I built them up with mostly dh components, used to get through a lot of wheels but it was the frames that went before anything else

Modern bikes climb better, and pedal better... if you ask me.

Anyway, in answer to the OP... cooked brakes and dinged rims.

You remember a few years ago you owned a mountain bike that did most of what you wanted and wasn’t ridiculously burly and dull to ride uphill?

Then the MTB industry realised that they could make loads of money pushing bigger, burlier bikes that would be great downhill but only okish uphill. So they really pushed the new Enduro bikes and everybody rushed out and bought one.

So now everyone has a New enduro bike, the industry has come up with its latest big thing…..

Downcountry

Which is basically the old bike you previously had before you went out and bought an enduro sled

Sounds like you know everything already, so I'm not sure why you're asking the question?

Left clavicle in my experience.

TBH most bikes these days are pretty tough. If you’re ‘Brendog’ good you’ll just have to be a bit more careful of line choice. If you’re like the rest of us it’ll become too uncomfortable and scary and you’ll want something more capable to ease your path.

Wasn’t always like that, I was witness to a heated exchange in the LBS between a Stumpjumper FSR owner and the shop owner about a warranty frame replacement refusal because he’d been seen riding the local DH track on it. If they still make a Stumpy it’s probably a 160mm Enduro bike that would take that shit all day long.

Tyres first, generally- just because they're most in contact with stuff that tests them. And then, rims, for the same reason and sometimes immediately after the first. Brakes, maybe, but that depends on the choices you've made- there are light, strong, reliable brakes out there. And thereafter, it's more or less whatever bit you land on when you crash.

Most stuff is actually very durable even on light bikes, if you're doing big hucks to flat then that'll strain just about anything but for most things light parts will still cut it. It may not perform too well mind.

Rocky Road in Tignes

First time I went to the Alps I took a 100mm hardtail, because it was the only bike I had. It was horrible.

Stumpjumper FSR

So I hired a Stumpjumper FSR (the 130mm Fox 32 29er). The hire shop in Les Gets were clearly happy that it'd survive. I liked it so much I bought one. It survived multiple trips on greens and blues with the odd easy red, but I broke a spoke on one of the reds. The mechanic in Morzine felt it a little too lightweight for downhill riding.

The only bikes I’ve broken recently are short travel bikes (Trek Fuel EX & 2 Yeti SB130’s).

I was trying them as the ‘one bike’ solution and in short, for me it doesn’t work. Racing them just ends up breaking stuff.

So I’m back to 2 bikes now. A big 170mm 29 enduro bike, which actually pedals surprisingly well, given its size, but it is a big bike & when it has appropriate tyres on it needs the terrain to work.

And a new Fuel EX 9.9. Which I’ve purposefully kept as a lightweight trail bike so I’m not tempted to do something silly and race it (much).

If it was a one bike solution for me, something around 150mm would be it, with a couple of sets of wheels with suitable tyres on, depending on what I was doing.

What would break, with decent kit, probably wreck a wheel doing something silly, but I wouldn’t expect it to fall apart...

You can get a downcountry bike down Dolly wagon, but it will be a lot less enjoyable than having something sturdier. The angles are steeper, the frame will flex more, the rear may not take anything above 2.2., dropper may be limited to 125.

In response to your query, I reckon you'll get through more tyres rims and frame bearings.

I have an Oiz and an Occam. Sounds like you need an Occam.

Mind that everything these days has lockout. So you can go big and still climb.

There might of course be some correlation between the weight and strength of a bike frame and its components and the weight of the rider?

An 18stone rider on a super lightweight xc short travel bike may not maintain the integrity of the bike in the same way a 10stone rider might on the same rock strewn downhill section of a trail.

Perhaps.

Riding an unsuitable bike will over stress it and it will fail quicker.having a combination of bikes is best. I always ride a suitable or over built bike that I know I won't be stressing. I don't mind a bit of extra weight.thats not to say I am always overbiked though.

After years of experimentation, I am really happy on a hardtail with 130mm up front as my only mountain bike.

My rides tend to max out at 2-3 hours given family commitments, so I don’t get too fatigued anyway.

I don’t remember setting up a second account and typing this, but I must have done. A nice steel HT is the best compromise in my opinion. Can take a lot of abuse and with modern geometry they are extremely capable. I’ve tried various full suspension bikes and always end up selling them and coming back to a nice steel HT.

i'm considering a Tallboy with a fox 36 140mm, will i be "over forked" and should i just stick to a 34 or pike..

it seems the newer enduro bikes will soon be fitted with 38mm forks.

Just add to you skills over a period. i did loads of stuff on my 80mm very race geo hardtail (from 2007) when it was the only bike i had including most of the harder trail centre stuff in wales (had a fair few OTB's though when biffed by the saddle with no dropper or quick release). I'm a heavy rider and nothing broke but i could defo feel the flex in the bike.

You just have to choose your battles

i’m considering a Tallboy with a fox 36 140mm, will i be “over forked” and should i just stick to a 34 or pike..

it seems the newer enduro bikes will soon be fitted with 38mm forks.

https://www.pinkbike.com/news/throwback-thursday-jared-graves-world-champs-medal-on-an-enduro-bike.html

When Graves raced his enduro bike at DH world championships he upped the 34 (that he raced enduro on all year) to a 36

Funkmasterstep +2, although I'm less bothered by the sterl bit...

My 26" HT did a week in the Alps, does Highlands etc. The newer 27.5 with 2.3 tyres does even better.
I'm eyeing up a 29er HT that can take fat tyre and is comfy (e.g. Cotic Solaris) as a further 'do it all' bike.

My current 27.5 HT spent last night chasing a 150mm Specialized FSR around rocky Comrie Croft, overtaking two 'Enduro' bikes in the process.

Its no a super techy descent like Helvyllen but he still looks underbiked to me...

Depends if you're doing proper techy, rocky rides. 3 years ago I took a 130mm 29er Canyon around the 4 passes, it was fine, but I had to nurse it round really, I wouldn't want to be doing that too often.

Most modern big travel bikes pedal uphill really well, it's the rider that's the weak link IME.

Most modern big travel bikes pedal short distances uphill really well, it’s the rider that’s the weak link IME.

FTFY

That's the thing, my Spec Enduro is amazingly good at short difficult climbs. But it is just too tiring to do long days with big height differences and long mileages. I've done Doctor & Cut Gates Loop on it and Staveley 3 passes but really would find it limiting on long rides. I want something that is capable enough to enjoy the descents, but swift enough for me not to be range limited.

PS. Loads of other good input in the posts above. Will try to reply presently. Loved the Orange at Morzine vid.

Most modern big travel bikes pedal uphill really well, it’s the rider that’s the weak link IME.

But the same rider on a short travel, lighter bike would do better. So the bike is a factor.

FTFY

47 miles offroad in the Galloways last week would suggest there was nothing to fix.

But the same rider on a short travel, lighter bike would do better. So the bike is a factor.

Which would be the case if your ride had no balls out, techy descents.

I love how there's folk on here who can't see the irony in them branding enduro bikes as some sort of marketing scam, whilst cracking open another bottle of the downcountry cool juice, it's hilarious!. 😆

Stumpjumper FSR

So I hired a Stumpjumper FSR (the 130mm Fox 32 29er). The hire shop in Les Gets were clearly happy that it’d survive. I liked it so much I bought one. It survived multiple trips on greens and blues with the odd easy red, but I broke a spoke on one of the reds. The mechanic in Morzine felt it a little too lightweight for downhill riding.

I should have added this would have been a 2005/2006 ish Stumpy, as far as I remember he cracked the frame on the road drop at Cwmcarn.

Which would be the case if your ride had no balls out, techy descents

Which sort of takes me back to the exact point of my first post.... which bits on a light bike will break if I take it on something a bit to gnarrly for its purpose.

Not sure why you're getting so het up?

PS, whilst 47 miles is a good ride, it's not huge. Just because you managed it doesn't make it a good tool for proper long rides

/escalation 🙂

Lol, not het up mate, didn't mean to come across that way.

I reckon tyres and rims as others have said take a battering, but they're both considered consumables tbf. Rims on my Bronson are a mess, really need new ones.

Edit - nice edit, though at no point did I say it was huge.

So, if I buy a bike that is too light/short travel/ fragile for the type of riding, what’s the financial downside?

Depends entirely on what your riding style is. If you don't smash into things (it doesn't sound you do) than probably nothing will break, we're lucky nowadays that generally speaking components actually work, and are pretty resilient. I'd be more concerned about stuff like shock links and bearings and the like.

Edit – nice edit, though at no point did I say it was huge

Busted 🙂
Shame I didn#t manage to correct the "to" to "too" at the same time as my stealth edit.

I got all agitated by your post, but couldn't work out whether that was because I was totally in disagreement or because I was violently agreeing with you.

Vive L'internet

I had a StumperJumper Evo and an Anthem 29er. I preferred riding the Anthem just because it was more lively and easy to ride on tamer stuff, however it also made a number of funky noises that indicated it wasn't a massive fan of being thrashed round a trail centre. The Evo was just a bit too much for my local stuff (Bedgebury/Thetford) but could certainly stand the abuse.

Doing it again, I'd go bigger travel but lighter - probably a carbon frame, lighter wheels and stuff. I hate pedalling heavy bikes about, especially when there's a bit of road/fire road involved. A stronger Anthem (without the 27.5 seatpost) would be ideal but this type of set up is in short supply and crazy expensive

I suppose in answer to the actual question, if you built a bike to cover distance more than gnarr (something like an epic all airsprung with 120mm-ish max travel and lighter wheels and tyres?) I'd still expect the wheels to be the parts that first showed signs of damage if you get a bit enthusiastic with the rocks and roots...