Bike tech vs rider skill and your riding "philosophy" therein

Can we do this where there's disagreement but no mud slinging? So like "I don't like thing X because reason Y" without reason Y being some sort of put down or attack?

Recent articles/posts have me thinking again about how better gear is making riding better in many respects but also easier from some respects too. For example tires that are made of glue and stick to anything or super wide range cassettes that offer easier pedaling that what people ran back in the 2X days or suspension or brakes, etc, etc. There are for sure riders maximizing these advancements and riding in ways we probably never would have imagined a decade ago (and also risking greater harm in a crash - but that's a thread for another day) but has the typical rider actually gotten better in terms of riding skill or is is mainly the better bikes that have us riding better? It's the old buying skill questions. And yes, we can bring ebikes into this as well. Discuss or not, but let's keep it focused on the topic/posts and not make it about the person posting.

I definitely agree that it's possible to 'buy' skill by upgrading to the latest bike technology. I think some people buy e-bikes with this in mind, but from what I have seen it often doesn't work out. E-bikes help with fitness and speed, but you still need to learn how to ride. I've gone the opposite direction and built up a hardtail. It's arguably less capable, but more fun since it requires (and teaches) more rider skills.

Definitely the rider. Yes, the bike counts if it is really bad and breaks, but I have ridden a long time and have seen many riders on hardtails do sick lines, large drops (even to flat). I myself have gone to a hardtail (but have a big bike too) and "back to my roots" I have tremendous pleasure in it. Some days I am on, some days I am not, and the bike doesn't change, but the rider does.

Just like cars: yes, you can buy a Ferrari or Porsche, but if you have no driving skill to begin with the result is going to be poor. In turn, a good driver in a mediocre car is going to perform well as they know how to maximize the limits of the car they have. Put them in a really capable machine......

But in both cases, it makes for good marketing to push the machine makes the ride, and it seems to be working given the prices of bikes these days. A really interesting poll would be to find out how many bikes are actually ridden to their limits of capability. I suspect it would be similar to numbers done with high end cars too.

In thinking of the bikes we had 30, 25 and 20 years ago and the trails we rode (and considered normal) I think the slant is such that the limiting factor is definitely the trail today.  All trails were hard then, and breakage was common; cranks, frames as no manufacturer could forsee what was coming.  Today, trails are more tame (in general) but bikes have had time to catch up from years of "experimentation".  If most bikes today had to have a steady diet of Bookwus, Grannies, Crippler, Executioner et al I wonder how it would go.  Flow trails don't tax a bike like the aforementioned trails do.

Modern equipment can get you to a point, and probably more people are having fun on moderate trails like Bobsled or Expresso because of good tires, suspension and brakes. But as the lines get steeper, the trails get faster and the features get skinnier, the techniques and muscle memory only developed through experience are required, or you're going to have a bad day. 

And even with super low gears and sticky tires, how many riders try that climb on the BP on Fromme? I agree with Polymath, most bikes aren't being ridden to their capability, and probably won't because riding like that takes years of dedicated effort with blood and tears along the way. If the bikes made the rider, Grannies would be a lot busier.

I can only speak for myself, but I am for sure limited by my skill, not my bike(s). So I'd say in some ways the bike matters more for skilled people than unskilled people.

I know this because my Strava times up and down on a wide variety of bikes vary by only a tiny margin.

My times are about the same whether on an xc hardtail or a 150mm Enduro bike. I think it's actually a psychological limitation but I consider that part of skill (it may also be self preservation).

I have a certain speed my brain will allow me to go on a given terrain. In most cases I can reach that speed on any bike. (This is a fancy way of saying I'm slow regardless lol.).

No amount of bike will account for no skill. Just see any noob in the bike park on a rented DH bike riding berms seated. For that person more bike just means the possibility of going at speeds way beyond their ability to  control and putting them at risk. You can put me on Minnaar's bike and I won't achieve Minnaar's lap times.

If you're a moderate rider trying to advance your skills sometimes more bike really helps. Adding that extra little cushion to your margin of error can add confidence to try new moves, cornering faster, bigger drops, etc.

Posted by: craw

If you're a moderate rider trying to advance your skills sometimes more bike really helps. Adding that extra little cushion to your margin of error can add confidence to try new moves, cornering faster, bigger drops, etc.

This has certainly worked for me. For example modern low-slack geo helped me improve my riding stance and cornering technique. When going back on a more conservative geo bike I noticed that those skills translated to that bike as well.

On the other hand, recently I've been riding a shorter travel bike with the same geo as my own longer travel bike and it clearly exposed some sloppiness that had crept into my riding. Amazing what 20 mm difference in travel can do.

In the end, does it really matter? I just want to enjoy my rides. I've more or less figured out the type of bike that works for me with a good balance between encouraging me to put in an effort and providing me a margin of error for my lack of talent.

When I see a video like the one below I'm pretty happy with where we are now and have no desire to go back in time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzZkKE9Z35g

(edit: video won't embed is worth watching on youtube for a good laugh)

For experienced riders I think new, better tech provides marginal gains. We’re good enough to take advantage of the benefits but have a solid skill set that’s responsible for most of our abilities on the trail. 

For new riders I think the bike makes a bigger difference. The better bikes just allow the bike to get rolling down the trail much easier so it seems to get beginners over the initial learning curve quickly and with less stress.   More exposure and further into the woods than back in the day, but also on a more capable bike that’s easier to control and less likely to fail while you’re out there. 

What’s wild to me is how little actual skills work we do. I’ve lived and breathed mountain bikin for 30 years now but I’ve probably gotten less coaching on my skills than I did in a week of swim practice. I’ve recently done a coaching session and the improvements have been instantaneous and significant.

It's combination of everything for me. Better equipment has definitely helped me improve the end result over the past decade or so, but I've also become a more practiced rider over that same span. At the same time, I'm much more aware about things like overall body position, advantageous braking points, and entrance speeds for corners than I ever was before. I think that's more about how the actual sport has evolved as a culture, because I've never taken any formal coaching, but I've still been able to used the info around me to coach myself. I spent the first 15 years or so just mashing down the trail, not really thinking about what I was doing right or wrong, and that included 5 years of chasing DH racing glory. It was always just "ride by feel", which would improve to an extent with practice, but only to a point. If I would had applied a more methodical approach when I was spending all my time and money racing, I'm willing to bet that would have shown in the results.

Similar parallels with many sports. Larger racket heads in tennis and better materials. Fat and shaped skis. Modern hockey sticks. There was a CBC documentary on improved sports equipment. Mountain bikes started as a sport where we adapted what was available, cruiser bikes, to do what we wanted to do. Slowly as the sport grew, equipment was developed and frames made specifically for the sport but those frames initially copied the cruiser dimensions. We all know where we are now has developed over 45 years or so. 

At some point it’s almost like we lose sight of what gives us a thrill. I get a kick out of cleaning a hard climb. Same as cleaning a hard technical  descent. Flow trails aren’t technically challenging or they are technically challenging in a different way but they are fun. Kind of like a fast cruising run on skis on a good groomer. Often we look at speed as the indicator of skill. So we end up wanting bikes that are capable of speed. But if we look at thrill factor as the measure of fun, hardtails are more challenging to ride therefore the thrill and reward is greater. Which is faster? A Santacruz V10 at 50 kph on a big steep rolling drop or a Chameleon on the same feature?

One can certainly buy skill by getting a more capable equipment. Sometimes it simply allows riders to keep up with more skilled friends or go faster. I think it’s common to confuse making things easier makes a sport better all the time. To me, the harder a thing is, the greater the reward or feeling of accomplishment I get from doing something.

The “different types of fun/thrill” aspect of mountain bikin is a big part of why I still love it so. 

I got a new perspective on what qualifies as a “good” ride recently: I knew my body was limited and my skills rusty so on a recent ride I focused on remembering and practicing skills from a coaching session instead of shooting for riding fast/rad. Result?  skills improvement, no stupid out of practice/kinda broken guy crashing, and, since I was riding technically well, some actual moments of shredding slipped in there too!

VERY SATISFYING RIDE and ZERO focus on the gear the whole time.

Posted by: tashi

The “different types of fun/thrill” aspect of mountain bikin is a big part of why I still love it so. 

I got a new perspective on what qualifies as a “good” ride recently: I knew my body was limited and my skills rusty so on a recent ride I focused on remembering and practicing skills from a coaching session instead of shooting for riding fast/rad. Result?  skills improvement, no stupid out of practice/kinda broken guy crashing, and, since I was riding technically well, some actual moments of shredding slipped in there too!

VERY SATISFYING RIDE and ZERO focus on the gear the whole time.

I've found very similar results, through my self-acquired insight. There are many days, often but not exclusive to after-work rides, where I quickly realize I'm a little off. Whether that's due to being tired, fatigued, or just distracted by life things. I've found that if I let everything else go, and only focus on body position and braking points, I end up regaining my form really quickly and often end up feeling like a ninja by the end of it. The old me would probably just have slowed to a relative crawl and accepted my fate. 

With regards to "going the opposite direction" with tech and riding hard tails. I've embraced this as well, having added one to my quiver in '13 and have had one every since. But we shouldn't kid ourselves, these hardtails have come a LONG way too, and still reap the rewards of awesome geo/tires/inserts/brakes compared to mtb's of 10-20 years ago.

The better gear paradox extends to cars as well these days: it’s easy to buy a “better” car with an 8-speed auto that does a better job of controlling the engine than I ever could, traction, stability control, launch control, AWD, predictive braking, yaw control, 450hp, yadda yadda…but is that actually what you want?

Seems that car nerds are similar to the experienced hardtail fan - those wonder cars are awesome, but a car with a stick, enough power, connected feeling steering and handling and rear wheel drive is freaking awesome and an experience that would be seriously missed.

Edit: I second your opinion on what brought back the hardtail. I fully believe that the niner wheel saved the hardtail. Looking forward to trying one with LongLowSlack geo.

Hard tail with 140 mm fork vs 100/120 XC race bike.

I'm wondering which would be a better technical climber when you are not strong enough, or the hill is too steep, to be able to momentum or power your way up.

With the hard tail you don't have to worry about stuffing the front end and losing momentum as much, but then you have to actively un-weight/lunge/thrust the rear end more