Mountain Biking - % of mountain biking is bike? % is rider?

fill in the blanks. How do you guys feel the percentages should work out? This is assuming the rider has decent bike.. Say (hardrock) The reason I ask is becuase I recently rode with a few "Equipment is everything type of people" And frankly, their riding didn't impress me.

Now for the bonus question:D

I'm trying to figure out if I should fork out the cash for a "serious" bike. I started biking heavily about 4 months ago when i bought a hardrock sport. I've been riding hard religiously at least 4 times a week since. I am extremely proud of what I have been able to accomplish since that time. I'm in the best shape of my life. I went from not being able to make it up a 1 mile climb without stopping, to conquering a relatively steep 6 mile uphill climb at the same pace with people that have been biking for years. And I still feel like I have a long way to go before I am satisfied with my conditioning.

The only complaint I really have with the bike is the drivetrain, along with the fork, I feel like this is a part of the bike that needs improvement. I hear a lot of talk on this forum about the Hardrock. Some say it’s a great frame to build around. Others say it’s overrated. I’m considering upgrading the drivetrain and fork and sticking with this bike for a while. I’m also considering just going all out and buying something serious. If I was to switch out these two things, is there anything specific that you guys would recommend?

Also, say I wanted to buy a new one, and I want to spend say $2k. What would you recommend?

I believe that it is 85% rider, 15% bike.

As far as upgrading goes do it because you want to and it is fun, not because of how much faster it will make you. If you are not into racing there is no need to go all out for a bike. The bike you have now is great, until your riding ability is actually hindered by the bike I wouldn't really worry too much about it.

As far as the drivetrain goes, what components do you have now? Also, what fork do you have?

Oh, as far as what bike for $2,000 what kind of riding do you do? Do you want hardtail or full suspension? Is weight important to you?

I am a minimalist, and therefore do not need much in the way of bells and whistles to make me happy. I'm not concerned with weight, and the quality of the components need not be 'top of the line,' as long as they're decent. My favorite bike is my Giant Rainier (one of three bikes). I have changed to a rigid fork, added bar ends and maintained her. That's it. I feel (for me) that anything above $700 for a bicycle is excessive, so I guess my answer is about 10% bike, 90% rider.

25% bike 75% rider, you have to be able to have shifting, reliable braking, good suspension, and proper fit and configuraion. There is a line where you start to reach the exponentioal increase of price vs performance of the rig, I think for a hardtail it's about $700, FS about double that.

Oh yeah, my 85 - 15 does not go for x-mart bikes and bikes of that quality. I am assuming that even the lower quality bike has "decent" components.

I'd say the percentage is 85% rider and 15% bike. You need a reliable bike to get from point A to Point B, but the rider is the engine and navigation of the machine.

I too have a Hardrock Sport. Like you I have owned my bike for a few months and I love it. I have gained stamina, increased fitness, and I've lost a little weight too :). I feel that this bike is a worthy starting point to build up from, but economics do need to come into play. If you're looking to spend $250 or more on the fork, plus $100 or more on the drivetrain, it's time to start looking at a nicer bike. After all, the Hardrock only costs about $340 to start with. A Rockhopper starts at about $500 or so, and would be a logical step up. It'll have a better fork and upgraded drivetrain, plus the brakes and other components will be better as well. Another thing to consider is that you'll be getting a nicer frame too.

I think that my Hardrock is serving me well, but I want to upgrade my fork, wheelset, drivetrain, brakes, etc. I looked at the cost and decided that it'd be cheaper for me to ride on this bike for a while and buy a higher end bike when the time comes.

My advice for you is to ride the Hardrock until you feel you're really outgrowing it, then buy a nicer rig that fits your riding style. If you're mainly a XC rider, and it sounds like you are, then look into a FSRxc or something of it's ilk. You did say that you've got a larger budget to work with.

25% bike 75% rider, you have to be able to have shifting, reliable braking, good suspension, and proper fit and configuration.

I'd say around 20% bike and 80% rider but among quality bikes, you won't see the bike playing that much of a factor. But, when I ride my old '88 Peugeot MTB, I can't get any flow going on the same singletracks I ride my RH on. The Peugeot has old (and different) Sachs Huret shifters, crappy old cantilever brakes, and plus the frame geometry just doesn't feel right. So I wouldn't say your new bike isn't holding you back. Just ride it and upgrade the parts as you break stuff.

fill in the blanks. How do you guys feel the percentages should work out? This is assuming the rider has decent bike.. Say (hardrock) The reason I ask is becuase I recently rode with a few "Equipment is everything type of people" And frankly, their riding didn't impress me.

Now for the bonus question:D

I'm trying to figure out if I should fork out the cash for a "serious" bike. I started biking heavily about 4 months ago when i bought a hardrock sport. I've been riding hard religiously at least 4 times a week since. I am extremely proud of what I have been able to accomplish since that time. I'm in the best shape of my life. I went from not being able to make it up a 1 mile climb without stopping, to conquering a relatively steep 6 mile uphill climb at the same pace with people that have been biking for years. And I still feel like I have a long way to go before I am satisfied with my conditioning.

The only complaint I really have with the bike is the drivetrain, along with the fork, I feel like this is a part of the bike that needs improvement. I hear a lot of talk on this forum about the Hardrock. Some say it’s a great frame to build around. Others say it’s overrated. I’m considering upgrading the drivetrain and fork and sticking with this bike for a while. I’m also considering just going all out and buying something serious. If I was to switch out these two things, is there anything specific that you guys would recommend?

Also, say I wanted to buy a new one, and I want to spend say $2k. What would you recommend?
This is easy. Mostly rider without a doubt. So long as the bike won't break and kill the rider. This is not like NASCAR. This is like motocross. Ricky Carmichael, Jeremy McGrath, Jeff Stanton, David Bailey, and other motocross greats could take a bike out of the showroom and spank the competition.

It depends on the difference in the bike. My current bik is a 6+ year old hardtail with aobut 1-2 inches of front travel, my next step up will be huge. I am constantly held back by my bike because of its crappiness.

My dad rides a fully suspended bike with good v-brakes etc.., he will be stepping up to something like a fuel 80 with hydraulic disks, deore xt etc... His step up will not affect his riding that much.

The rider:bike ratio ranges depending on the bike!

Im thinking closer to 30% bike and 70% rider. Yes you need a good rider to perform well but....even the best wont be very pleased if he tries downhilling with this:


http://www.cbike.com/images/05col_ct2PR23bici.jpg

Two years ago, I bought the infamous Trek 4300. Since, I've gotten progressively better at biking and have been in MTB race events and getting into triathlons. With my riding skills getting better, I've done so many upgrades that only the frame is stock.

I can't put a percentage on it because skilled riders should have the sense to get a bike that matches their needs.

Assuming the riders are all on high quality bikes built for the type of riding to be done, I'd say 85% rider, 15% bike. I doubt the best rider in the world on a heavy piece of junk could outride a good rider on a high quality bike over a fairly challenging course.

It depends on the type of riding, XC I'd say about 30-70, you need a relaible and reasonabley weighted bike for that. For DH depends on what level, for the really really good guys aka Rennie, Peat, Gracia....... If they had any of the top level bikes ie M1/3 223, Sunday, V10 anyone of them could win on any of those bikes, for these guys it is closer to 5-95. But for us meer mortals I'd say 30-70.

However one thing I have noticed, one of my mates came off a 2002 Bighit Comp with biglink and Boxxers. He was ok at races but was never good. Finishing around 13th. Then He got a new bike, actually he got the same bike as me but with Dorado's. First race with it he came 3rd. He is now a consistant top 3 finisher.

Hahaa I was just gonna say "it depends on the type of riding"...I agree with hopper 100%...I also believe the bike is partially a mind game. I know 100% I would be faster on a new v10 with its super long plush travel. Is it the bike or my mind gaining that level of confidence to turn it up a notch. Probably both, but either way the bike helped push me there. I don't find this same level of 'bike' need doing xc.

That said a good pro would still be a good pro, he might be a little slower, but he would still smoke anyone :)

I would say 85% is the rider, and 15% the equipment, assuming at least that the rider has the right category of bike. I have a really cheap moutain bike and I'm still one of the best bikers for my age in my local area (granted I bike the more than most people though in my local area too, so it's not exactly the fairest comparison and I don't mean to brag).

I believe that it is 85% rider, 15% bike.

As far as upgrading goes do it because you want to and it is fun, not because of how much faster it will make you. If you are not into racing there is no need to go all out for a bike. The bike you have now is great, until your riding ability is actually hindered by the bike I wouldn't really worry too much about it.

As far as the drivetrain goes, what components do you have now? Also, what fork do you have?

I like the idea of upgrading my bike. I've done performance upgrades on my cars, so naturally the bike should follow.. I like the idea of being able to go faster, as well as being able to stop faster! I’m not sure how I will know if my ability is being hindered by my bike unless I ride better/different setups.

Here is a copy/paste of my bike’s specs from the specialized website.

• A1 Premium Aluminum frame with 3D box gusset DT/HT, forged dropouts with reinforced disc mount and eyelets, replaceable forged alloy derailleur hanger, designed for 100mm travel fork
• RST Gilla T5, 100mm travel suspension fork with preload adjust, coil/MCU spring
• Specialized Mobius alloy stem, 10-degree rise Alloy 38mm rise handlebars, 9 degree sweep
• Wide-range Shimano 24-speed Acera drive train, 11x32t
• Lightweight Truvativ X-Flow alloy crankset with capless bolts
• Alex DH-20 double-wall black rims with machined sidewalls, sealed alloy hubs with alloy QR
• Specialized Enduro Sport all-terrain tires
• Medically proven Body Geometry Sport ATB saddle


Oh, as far as what bike for $2,000 what kind of riding do you do? Do you want hardtail or full suspension? Is weight important to you?

As far as my riding style, I guess I like to do a little bit of everything. I enjoy uphill climbs as well as dropoffs, small jumps , and downhill riding. I was an avid BMX rider when I was a kid, and that is something that I think will always stick with me. That being said I’d like a frame with a relatively low stand-over height. One of the things I like about the hardrock frame is the clearance that the slope gives in that area. There have been times where I’ve been riding and have taken some pretty hard hits and wondered if a FS would have helped in that situation, at the same time, I often wonder if it’s really necessary. So to answer your question, I guess I really don’t know yet. :o I don't feel that my bike is overly heavy but I guess for certain situations, a bit lighter wouldn't hurt.

I am a minimalist, and therefore do not need much in the way of bells and whistles to make me happy. I'm not concerned with weight, and the quality of the components need not be 'top of the line,' as long as they're decent. My favorite bike is my Giant Rainier (one of three bikes). I have changed to a rigid fork, added bar ends and maintained her. That's it. I feel (for me) that anything above $700 for a bicycle is excessive, so I guess my answer is about 10% bike, 90% rider.

I like that philosophy, I however am a weak man who nearly always gets sucked into the trap of consumerism when it comes to these types of things.


25% bike 75% rider, you have to be able to have shifting, reliable braking, good suspension, and proper fit and configuraion. There is a line where you start to reach the exponentioal increase of price vs performance of the rig, I think for a hardtail it's about $700, FS about double that.

Noted. Thanks.


I think that my Hardrock is serving me well, but I want to upgrade my fork, wheelset, drivetrain, brakes, etc. I looked at the cost and decided that it'd be cheaper for me to ride on this bike for a while and buy a higher end bike when the time comes.

My advice for you is to ride the Hardrock until you feel you're really outgrowing it, then buy a nicer rig that fits your riding style. If you're mainly a XC rider, and it sounds like you are, then look into a FSRxc or something of it's ilk. You did say that you've got a larger budget to work with.

I was looking at an FSR the other day.. Nice bike.

As long as the bike is generally the right type for the conditions, it's like 10/90. I'm assuming that means that if you're on the road, you've got a road bike, or if you've downhilling, you've got a downhill bike. The difference between different downhill bikes isn't gonig to be much more than 10% probably.

This is easy. Mostly rider without a doubt. So long as the bike won't break and kill the rider. This is not like NASCAR. This is like motocross. Ricky Carmichael, Jeremy McGrath, Jeff Stanton, David Bailey, and other motocross greats could take a bike out of the showroom and spank the competition.

I agree. I've always felt that way about snowboarding as well.

Im thinking closer to 30% bike and 70% rider. Yes you need a good rider to perform well but....even the best wont be very pleased if he tries downhilling with this:


http://www.cbike.com/images/05col_ct2PR23bici.jpg


Yeah after my downhill ride with this rig I look forward to some freestyle and drops. I cant wait, I hope they make knobbies for this :-).

fill in the blanks. How do you guys feel the percentages should work out? This is assuming the rider has decent bike.. Say (hardrock) The reason I ask is becuase I recently rode with a few "Equipment is everything type of people" And frankly, their riding didn't impress me.

Now for the bonus question:D

I'm trying to figure out if I should fork out the cash for a "serious" bike. I started biking heavily about 4 months ago when i bought a hardrock sport. I've been riding hard religiously at least 4 times a week since. I am extremely proud of what I have been able to accomplish since that time. I'm in the best shape of my life. I went from not being able to make it up a 1 mile climb without stopping, to conquering a relatively steep 6 mile uphill climb at the same pace with people that have been biking for years. And I still feel like I have a long way to go before I am satisfied with my conditioning.

The only complaint I really have with the bike is the drivetrain, along with the fork, I feel like this is a part of the bike that needs improvement. I hear a lot of talk on this forum about the Hardrock. Some say it’s a great frame to build around. Others say it’s overrated. I’m considering upgrading the drivetrain and fork and sticking with this bike for a while. I’m also considering just going all out and buying something serious. If I was to switch out these two things, is there anything specific that you guys would recommend?

Also, say I wanted to buy a new one, and I want to spend say $2k. What would you recommend?

Instrumental analogy ...

You can put a beginner music student on a Bach Stradivarious and it won't make a lick of difference. But give that same student a beat to hell horn that doesn't function properly and they will never learn anything. But than again, the great jazz legends often learned on horns they found in some dumpster in New Orleans, so go figure.

You do need decent equipment. But you don't need the "best equipment". You need equipment that is appropriate for your style of activity. An Ice Hockey forward should not be wearing figure skates.

On the flip side, an expert using a student horn will be frustrated. They are used to a level of fine control and performance that doesn't exist in a "basic" model.


So yeah, 85/15. But it goes with a lot of caveats. If your bike doesn't work right, all the sudden that 15% inflates to 50%.

Here's an interesting thought to ponder (to me, anyway): I've got 20+ years of pretty solid mtb experience. I recently changed my pedals. I am thrilled to discover my riding ability (hill climbs, etc) instantly increased by a minimum of 10%, maybe 20%. It could be something else but I don't think so. Theories?

Here's an interesting thought to ponder (to me, anyway): I've got 20+ years of pretty solid mtb experience. I recently changed my pedals. I am thrilled to discover my riding ability (hill climbs, etc) instantly increased by a minimum of 10%, maybe 20%. It could be something else but I don't think so. Theories?
changed to what kind of pedals? clipless? your efficiency might have gone up :D

30% bike 70% rider

"This is easy. Mostly rider without a doubt. So long as the bike won't break and kill the rider. This is not like NASCAR. This is like motocross. Ricky Carmichael, Jeremy McGrath, Jeff Stanton, David Bailey, and other motocross greats could take a bike out of the showroom and spank the competition."

I really have to disagree with the NASCAR comment. First of all I really dont think you could take Jimmy Johnson or Dale Earnhardt Juniors car and go win a race. Motocross is the same thing. You have to realize that EVERY type of racing has this, there is no perfectly fair way to hold a race. Even IROC(International Race of Champions) has cars that are not exactly the same. And I'm pretty sure the Ricky Charmichael switched brands of bike lately, which is probably where your point is coming from, that he can win on anything, but that is exactly how NASCAR is so your basically contradicting yourself. Chevy does not win every race, either does Ford or Dodge.

Actually when NASCAR was first started the cars literally WERE off the showroom floor. No modifications allowed.

90% rider if xc speed is the issue maybe even more. However a higher quality bike is a different riding experience. for example when I first started riding I had a crappy trek that was too big for me. When after a few years I got a nice bianchi there was almost no increase in speed. However, not feeling like the bike was fighting against me and riding a bike I really like instead of hated made a huge difference in my enjoyment.

"This is easy. Mostly rider without a doubt. So long as the bike won't break and kill the rider. This is not like NASCAR. This is like motocross. Ricky Carmichael, Jeremy McGrath, Jeff Stanton, David Bailey, and other motocross greats could take a bike out of the showroom and spank the competition."

I really have to disagree with the NASCAR comment. First of all I really dont think you could take Jimmy Johnson or Dale Earnhardt Juniors car and go win a race. Motocross is the same thing. You have to realize that EVERY type of racing has this, there is no perfectly fair way to hold a race. Even IROC(International Race of Champions) has cars that are not exactly the same. And I'm pretty sure the Ricky Charmichael switched brands of bike lately, which is probably where your point is coming from, that he can win on anything, but that is exactly how NASCAR is so your basically contradicting yourself. Chevy does not win every race, either does Ford or Dodge.
You are totally wrong and missing the point. I am not contradicting myself at all. In NASCAR a lot has to do specifically how a car is running/setup and pit crew because all of the top guys are pretty good.

In motocross, it is different. What RC did with a new bike brand has nothing to do with what I am talking about. Ricky Carmichael would be capable of beating other top pros with a bike off the showroom floor that was setup for him. For example a $6k motorcycle with the right spring rates...that's it. He could beat the other top pros who have factory bikes worth $50k.

That, my friend, is domination. Rider talent above everyone else.

First you say that in NASCAR theres the way a car's setup and running. Thats the same in motocross. "because all of the top guys are pretty good" if all the top guys were good they would be pretty much equal, so no advantage there to who has the best equipment. And if RC could win with a 6K bike he would rather than having a 50K bike. The point of racing at that level is to make money. Guys don't shell out millions of dollars just to win for the satisfaction in it.

Let me break it down for you:


First you say that in NASCAR theres the way a car's setup and running. Thats the same in motocross.
No... it is not


"because all of the top guys are pretty good" if all the top guys were good they would be pretty much equal, so no advantage there to who has the best equipment.
What are you talking about....?


And if RC could win with a 6K bike he would rather than having a 50K bike.
No....he is a FACTORY RIDER


The point of racing at that level is to make money. Guys don't shell out millions of dollars just to win for the satisfaction in it.
I don't really see your point here either?

How much is the bike and how much is me? Hmmm, let me see . . . The best bike in the world will not make me a better rider. It may increase my confidence and my self image encouraging me to push my own limits but my skills and endurance have to be earned the hard way. How do you get to Carnegie Hall? Practice, practice, practice.

To answer the question, very little goes to the bike. A better bike can make for a better ride, but a better rider? That has to come from the rider.

How much is the bike and how much is me? Hmmm, let me see . . . The best bike in the world will not make me a better rider. It may increase my confidence and my self image encouraging me to push my own limits but my skills and endurance have to be earned the hard way. How do you get to Carnegie Hall? Practice, practice, practice.

To answer the question, very little goes to the bike. A better bike can make for a better ride, but a better rider? That has to come from the rider.
thank you

On the flip side, an expert using a student horn will be frustrated. They are used to a level of fine control and performance that doesn't exist in a "basic" model.



I think you asked the wrong questin for what you want to know. A nice bike won't make you better.

But you might enjoy riding a nicer bike better. I agree with the quote above. The question you need to ask is whether you will appreciate better componentry and a better frame. Are you skilled enough to discriminate? Probably, but probably not to the extent that you need to spend $2,000. But none of us could really guage that, though.

90% Bike, 10% Rider.

assuming the bike is not a piece of crap and is of the proper type and correctly fit and properly maintained, etc... (i.e. no wall-mart bikes -- not your dad's sister's bike that is too small - the brakes and shifting work - and not a road bike for a downhill race):

95% rider and 5% bike.

i.e. in an XC race where riders are on bikes between $400 and $5000, the winner can very well be on a $400 bike.

or in a road race where riders are on bikes from $300 to $10000, the winner can very well be on a $300 bike

or in a downhill race where riders are on bikes from $700 to $20000, the winner can very well be on a $700 bike

or from another angle: you can put joe-schmo on the most expensive bike and he's still not going to beat Lance riding a $400 no-name road bike in the Tour de France or win a dohnhill race!

on any individual ride, i'd say 5-10% bike, the rest rider.

over any period of time, though, the bike becomes much more important. As an example, take my low-end trek 3700. When I took it to the moutains, it worked just fine. I could keep up with my buddies on their expensive rigs.

Now, 8 months after I bought the bike, it is completely useless. There's almost no parts left salvaging, except I think I'm going to go outside and take the reflectors off the wheels and put those on my commuter.

Durability is a major part of more expensive mountain bikes.

I'd say at least 90% rider.
Look at it this way....if you put two people of different skill and endurance levels on the same bike, who would win? If you put the guy will less skill and endurance on a superior rig, who would win? Outside of mechanical failures the rider is 100% responsible for production.

fill in the blanks. How do you guys feel the percentages should work out? This is assuming the rider has decent bike.. Say (hardrock) The reason I ask is becuase I recently rode with a few "Equipment is everything type of people" And frankly, their riding didn't impress me.

Now for the bonus question:D

I'm trying to figure out if I should fork out the cash for a "serious" bike. I started biking heavily about 4 months ago when i bought a hardrock sport. I've been riding hard religiously at least 4 times a week since. I am extremely proud of what I have been able to accomplish since that time. I'm in the best shape of my life. I went from not being able to make it up a 1 mile climb without stopping, to conquering a relatively steep 6 mile uphill climb at the same pace with people that have been biking for years. And I still feel like I have a long way to go before I am satisfied with my conditioning.

The only complaint I really have with the bike is the drivetrain, along with the fork, I feel like this is a part of the bike that needs improvement. I hear a lot of talk on this forum about the Hardrock. Some say it’s a great frame to build around. Others say it’s overrated. I’m considering upgrading the drivetrain and fork and sticking with this bike for a while. I’m also considering just going all out and buying something serious. If I was to switch out these two things, is there anything specific that you guys would recommend?

Also, say I wanted to buy a new one, and I want to spend say $2k. What would you recommend?




if nothing else I bet Rayin likes your AVATAR. seriously its mostly rider and a better bike just can take more stuff as you get more daring and either take faster lines,bigger hits ,higher jumps, or if you crash a lot, the better equipment will handle it better( ex 5" fork can take bigger hits without bottoming than 3")

I'd say its closer to 40% bike 60% rider when it comes to downhill... have you ever tried to ride anything super technical on a 1995 hard tail... I have an 05' V-10 and I have respect.

Im thinking closer to 30% bike and 70% rider. Yes you need a good rider to perform well but....even the best wont be very pleased if he tries downhilling with this:


http://www.cbike.com/images/05col_ct2PR23bici.jpg


If anyone ever took such a beutiful bike off road, I would shoot them myself.

I know things along these lines have been said before, but I refuse to put a blanket percentage on it. Why? Too many variables.

I have far more experience skiing than I do mountain biking, but I kind of think this operates the same way: Before I moved out west, I had very little experience in powder skiing. I also had skis that were designed for packed snow. Bottom line, they don't have much float to them. So when I tried to learn to ski powder, it was harder to acheive the same results, I'd imagine, than if I had powder skis. However, having powder skis wouldn't have made me a better rider. And now that I've learned how to ski powder (alright) on my current skis, I could probably rip with dedicated powder skis.

Assuming you don't have any catastrophic failures on your bike while riding, and you a setup designed for the type of riding you do, equipment is almost non-important. There's a guy I work with who rides a very old Redline with no front brakes and 1.3 inch tires. It's an unforgiving, uncomfortable ride. And yet he rips out there. Kicks my hindquarters no matter what bike I'm on.

i'd say it's more the rider, but to a smaller extent, the bike. I can still whip my friend's a** when we trade bikes, even though his is 20 lbs heavier and 20 years older. I'm in better shape. A better bike bike will just make you a little faster, make the ride a little sweeter, and leave you feeling a little better.

I'd say its closer to 40% bike 60% rider when it comes to downhill... have you ever tried to ride anything super technical on a 1995 hard tail... I have an 05' V-10 and I have respect.

before all the new bells and whistles there was a thing called BIG tires with low pressure. when I was a kid there was no suspension and we did stuff Id never think of doing now, like take the chain off the stingray( you know the super high tensil steel, and coaster brakes) and blast down the biggest curviest hill we could find. street or woods it didnt matter. and yes I used to take my Schwinn 10 speed( the "sunset red" one that must have weighed 60 pounds) into the woods and over rocky terrain as well as ramp jumping or hopping ditches