This brings up a question for me. I started riding in the mid 90s on a rigid bike with 26" 2.0s/1.9s and tread that would be considered semi-slick by today's standards. I didn't ride the most challenging trails, nor was I a particularly talented rider (hasn't changed much). These days I'll ride things without trouble that I would have had to think hard about before, I'll miss a drop that on 26s would cause an OTB but on 29s I just roll down.
Having said that, most people don't feel that buying a decent bike with modern geometry, proper rubber, a dropper, etc. is a crutch that should be avoided. Being underbiked vs. being overbiked is a thing that people discuss, but _everyone_ used to be underbiked. We're safer now and I'd argue most of us are having as much or more fun than in those old days.
I actually agree with your argument Vik, but I'm trying to understand how I can rationally agree with that argument, but also agree with the premise that better (meat powered) bikes that make harder things easier are perfectly reasonable and shouldn't be shunned. The one thing I can think of is that my bike choice doesn't impede your bike choice, but if I ruin a feature that ruins it for everyone. Where I ride, most ride-arounds don't alter a feature or prevent it from existing so perhaps I'm misinterpreting that term, or maybe they're not as much a problem as altering features and otherwise changing the trail in a way that effects everyone, even if many people here seem to feel similarly about them.
Also, to Deniz's point, I wholeheartedly agree that there's no shame in walking things. There are plenty of things that I'll walk, even if I've been riding them consistently, simply because I'm too \[tired | not feeling it | mentally focused on other things| etc.\] and don't want to come home injured and go to work injured. I've got mouths to feed and bills to pay.
March 17, 2022, 2:03 p.m. - shenzhe
This brings up a question for me. I started riding in the mid 90s on a rigid bike with 26" 2.0s/1.9s and tread that would be considered semi-slick by today's standards. I didn't ride the most challenging trails, nor was I a particularly talented rider (hasn't changed much). These days I'll ride things without trouble that I would have had to think hard about before, I'll miss a drop that on 26s would cause an OTB but on 29s I just roll down. Having said that, most people don't feel that buying a decent bike with modern geometry, proper rubber, a dropper, etc. is a crutch that should be avoided. Being underbiked vs. being overbiked is a thing that people discuss, but _everyone_ used to be underbiked. We're safer now and I'd argue most of us are having as much or more fun than in those old days. I actually agree with your argument Vik, but I'm trying to understand how I can rationally agree with that argument, but also agree with the premise that better (meat powered) bikes that make harder things easier are perfectly reasonable and shouldn't be shunned. The one thing I can think of is that my bike choice doesn't impede your bike choice, but if I ruin a feature that ruins it for everyone. Where I ride, most ride-arounds don't alter a feature or prevent it from existing so perhaps I'm misinterpreting that term, or maybe they're not as much a problem as altering features and otherwise changing the trail in a way that effects everyone, even if many people here seem to feel similarly about them. Also, to Deniz's point, I wholeheartedly agree that there's no shame in walking things. There are plenty of things that I'll walk, even if I've been riding them consistently, simply because I'm too \[tired | not feeling it | mentally focused on other things| etc.\] and don't want to come home injured and go to work injured. I've got mouths to feed and bills to pay.