- Do you buy a bike to hide your weaknesses or to show off your strengths?
I tend to buy bikes that I like and worry about the other stuff afterwards.
I’m a pretty average rider and accept that I’ll never use them to their full potential but if I like the way the ride (and look!) I’ll buy one.
I bought my Rune for a variery of reasons – I liked it, it had around the amount of travel I was looking for, it was one of the few frames in my budget and it could be used with 26inch wheels because I didn’t want to have to buy wheels, tyres and forks too.Posted 3 years agowwaswasSubscriber
My weakness is I can resist everything except a bargain.
Having said that mostly my bikes seem to all start moving towards the longer travel end of their intended range so I guess that’s me compensating. Except the rigid singlespeed. Although I’ve put a dropper post on it (which has made it really rather good through wooded singletrack – it’s sometimes faster than my 140mm FS bike).Posted 3 years agoD0NKSubscriber
Good question, would be interested in people’s answers tho not many taking it seriously so far. Personally I reckon I’m about evens in descending v climbing, but I enjoy downs more so get a bike more geared towards them so normally as burly as I can get while not being a complete pig to pedal up/along the required distances.. A nice light efficient would be nice for longer rides with less technical descending, meaning to build up a sprightly climber for a while but normally end up with something not quite as gnar and a pound or two lighter than usual instead of a proper fast bike.
I suppose my weakness is I don’t earn enough to buy the latest fancy kit….
doesn’t have to be latest kit (or mega-bucks) to be either up or downhill orientated tho does it?Posted 3 years agoroverpigSubscriber
If you don’t want to think in terms of strengths and weaknesses, you can approach the same question in terms of fun and enjoyment.
Do you tend to look at bikes that will make the bits of the ride that you don’t enjoy more bearable or do you go for bikes that makes the bits you find fun already even more fun?Posted 3 years agoD0NKSubscriber
Aye maybe a better question, “accentuate the fun stuff or minimise the crap/boring stuff?”
Are there many great climbers who are nervous descenders tho? Will be some but would have thought the majority would be the opposite* or all rounders.
*totally understandable considering descending is pretty much universally appreciated whereas uphill is an acquired taste.Posted 3 years agoroverpigSubscriber
Say, for example, that you are a pretty strong climber but a nervous descender. Do you buy a nice light XC bike so that you can climb even faster and accept that you will always be slow on the way down, or do you buy a big bouncy skill compensator to try and make the downs a bit more fun (given that you’ll still be at least average going up).
Or, say that you struggle to keep up with your mates on the climbs, but kill them going down. Do you buy an XC bike to help you stay with the pack going up, or a big sled so that you can really thrash them going down.
In short, do you tend to buy bikes to enhance the stuff that you are already quite got at or to compensate for your weaknesses?Posted 3 years agorobinlaidlawMember
I choose a bike to be most fun for what I want to use it for. Accordingly I’d never buy something that prioritised climbing above all else as climbing is never much fun. It’s a balance, biased towards the parts of the ride that I enjoy most. That happens to be the bits I’m best at but it’s fun not performance that makes the decision.Posted 3 years agoNorthwindSubscriber
Suppose it works like this… My strengths are in the things I do most, which are the things I like most. My weaknesses are in the things I do least, because I’m not that into them. And my bikes are all built to do the things I do most not the things I don’t really dig. So yeah it’d be daft for them to do anything else really.
These days a good bike can cover all the houses though so it’s not like you have to overspecialise- my everyday trailbike is built for bombing down stuff but all it took was a tyre change to solo the Glentress Seven on it.Posted 3 years agoteaselMember
I built up a bike to suit what is 95% of my local riding terrain – so I opted for a lightweight 100mm hardtail. I’ve used a 6″ FS on the same trails for years and I can honestly say that it’s a joy to be rid of the heavy, sloppy-arsed beast.
Gravity runs are where I excel but I’m weak on the climbs so, to a degree, I went for the current choice because I wanted help going upwards. But the main deciding factor was the honing of my riding on a rigid hybrid on and off road for the last seven odd years. I liked the riding postion and the the weight so wanted something with similar contact points and a similar weight but with fatter tyres and front suspension. So that’s where I ended up.
I know someone who has numerous bikes, most of which are very lightweight. It never made sense until he explained his need to be first to the top. He was never that good going down because he used to bottle it too often. The bikes afforded him the excuse for being slow on descents or, on a few occasions, a total refusal to even drop into a bomb hole. Not mocking, just seems a bit weird to not admit you don’t want to do something instead of finding excuses. I rode a few of those bikes and hammered them – none broke.Posted 3 years agobikebouyMember
Say, for example, that you are a pretty strong climber but a nervous descender. Do you buy a nice light XC bike so that you can climb even faster and accept that you will always be slow on the way down
^^ This, but then I’ve never been a fan of going downhill. I Love climbing.. 😀Posted 3 years agoKryton57Subscriber
I have a do everything 120mm FS which is more than in need for 95% of my riding , and a lighting 100mm hard tail for backup/racing.
As my strength is best described as “Le Rouleur” I changed both to 2×10 with a 40/28 and 34/12 to allow me to ride along the flats at speed. As I’ve got fitter though I’ve found by accident the 28/34 combo tends to get me up hills quicker once I’ve got my rhythm.
teasel – Member
I know someone who has numerous bikes, most of which are very lightweight. It never made sense until he explained his need to be first to the top. He was never that good going down because he used to bottle it too often. The bikes afforded him the excuse for being slow on descents or, on a few occasions, a total refusal to even drop into a bomb hole. Not mocking, just seems a bit weird to not admit you don’t want to do something instead of finding excuses. I rode a few of those bikes and hammered them – none broke.
Hasn’t worked when I’ve ridden with him. 😉Posted 3 years agocrashtestmonkeyMember
+1 D0NK, surely you buy a bike that you think excels in the sort of riding you enjoy, which may play to your strengths but isnt “showing off”?
I built up a bike to suit what is 95% of my local riding terrain
I did the opposite. I built a bike that will excel in the sort of big riding experiences that memories are made of, but that is still useable on my local terrain. I dont want a bike that will excel in the Chilterns*, but in France Spain, Switzerland, Turkey, India, Colorado, Morocco…
*you probably have more interesting and worthwhile local trails!Posted 3 years ago
The topic ‘Do you buy a bike to hide your weaknesses or to show off your strengths?’ is closed to new replies.