Is it the Bike or the Rider?

I'll say the bike is more important than the rider.
 

When you're talking recent WC times - the bike definitely matters, rolling resistance/traction/braking on the tires matters - you cant extract the two at the pointy end. 
 

Then theres sponsorship - you have to get to the races - And if somebody with a big marketing budget and underdeveloped (shitty) bike is the only way you're making it to the races you donwhat you gotta do. 

sponsirship based equipment maters a bike that hangs up, tires that dont mesh with the riders style, thats what the sharpies are for - right? 
 

still - rider>bike. All day. 

Taking into account how talented a rider must be to get to a competitive place in the world cups and how far the bikes have progressed, I would guess that it is 70% rider's mental ability, 20% rider's physical ability, and 10% differences in frame and component technology in the present day. I have no data to support those percentages other than gut feel. 

To expand on the guess above, I feel like a rider that's in a bad spot mentally will never be able to approach the track speed where they are at their physical limit, or the limit of their gear. Once, they work through that mental block, they start to approach the limits of their mobility, power, and endurance before they can fully reap the rewards of any tech-based marginal gains. And finally, once the rider is as mentally and physically fit as they can be, the frame and components they are on will start becoming the make-or-break fractions of a second that would make the difference between being just off the podium or winning.

Let's say there is a perfect bike for a given rider's size/proportions and riding style, then they could get 100% of their potential from that bike. There is no bike that will make a rider better than their skills (mental and physical), but having a bike that doesn't fit will keep the rider from reaching their potential. So that is to say a bike can't make you better, but it can certainly hold you back.

You also have to keep in mind that the rider may not be able to get on the perfect bike, and likely they don't even know what bike would be best (this is why they test so much, to try to find that ideal). 

At the end of the day though, for the guys near the top, that last 5% is mostly mental. Being confident on the setup you have goes a long way. Any lack of confidence is going to cause problems, regardless of how well-suited the bike is to the rider. I remember Cathro talking about this confidence factor on CathroVision, where he often said something along the lines of "all of the lines are fine, and which ever line you feel most confident on will probably be fastest."

I think this forum (and industry in general) makes too much fuss about the frame design.  I think the fork is as or more important than frame, your front wheel has to steer and do the majority of the braking.  
 

Id rather race a good fork over a good frame if I had to choose.
 

But to answer the question- it’s 90% rider 10% bike. And any rig out on the circuit can get you 7-8% with proper setup and tuning. 

As you’ve stated, it’s somewhat of an unanswerable question, because I think it’s a bit of a “which came first” question. The rider has to be comfortable on a bike to go fast, but does that comfort come from adaptation/learned habits or some specific characteristics that a certain bike has? I think most riders are chasing predictability, but how does something become predictable? You have to experience it and adapt, but to experience and adapt, you first have to ride a bike with a certain set of characteristics. I think it’s why we often see riders struggle the first year they switch frame sponsors, and that the end result is they get comfortable on the new bike, or the bike gets redesigned to better suit them. 
 

Now speaking on a broader range of riders, all the way from complete beginner through to top level pro, I think you get a bit a flip flop in bike/rider mattering. My opinion is that for a beginner and a pro, the bike is more important. For the beginner with little to no skills, having a bike that does the things it should helps them feel confident quicker. And for the pro, they know exactly how they want the bike to react, and so if it does exactly that, they mentally feel confident and can push harder, but the bike has to be capable of them pushing that limit too. But for most people in the between those 2 ends of the spectrum, I think the rider is the bigger factor, and I strictly take this from personal experience of riding with buddies who have seemingly poor bike set up, but absolutely rip. Sure, getting their bike set up better will help, but they’ll still be faster than most on a worst bike setup. 

Taking all the MTB disciplines into account, it's the rider.  The question never designated DH, Enduro, or XC.

90% rider, 7% tires/brakes/suspension, 3% everything else in a World Cup setting.

Personally changing tires and adjusting to the limits of control is much more time intensive than swapping frames. Imagine doing that at WC level.

It's the bike.

Definitely not that bike

Lefthand glory days

Longtime NE Patriots coach Bill Belichick is a polarizing figure in American sports, but there's this quote he said that I love and can't get out of my head, "Coaches don't win games. Only the players on the field can win games. Coaches can lose games, though."

That's what I think about bikes in competition. Bikes can't win races, but they can lose races. As such, my goal in setting up a bike is that it doesn't lose me the race, i.e. mechanical drag or inefficiency, mechanical failure, flat tires, inconsistent or unpredictable performance, major unpleasant tradeoffs, etc. Basically if it has bearings that roll, tires that hold air, and suspension that goes up and down, I think that's 90% of the battle. After that, it's about rider comfort and predictability.

I think anyone chasing "marginal gains" is really chasing a psychological advantage for their athlete. Remember in 2014 and then later in 2017 when every single team did offseason testing on 27.5 bikes and then later with 29" bikes, and they always said "Our testing shows this bike is 3 seconds faster on a 3 minute track?" But then Ratboy kept winning on 26" wheels in 2014, and Gwin kept winning on 27.5" wheels in 2017? The riders won those races and their bikes didn't lose the race.

it's often said that it's the driver who makes the machine go forward, not the other way around ... but take the best driver and give him the worst bike and you'll see the result ! in cars it's the same thing, the best driver with a car that doesn't go forward won't manage to win ! So yes, the bike is important in this mechanical sport ! and some bikes don't perform as well as others, and don't necessarily match the driver's riding style or size. Benoit Coulanges, for example, took a long time to find the bike that enabled him to win a World Cup. He'd been a TOP 10 rider for a long time, but the bike just wasn't right for him. 

I also think that riding the same bike for a long time and upgrading it regularly is the perfect recipe. Semenuk has been riding his Ticket for 14 years. I'm not sure he'd be as comfortable if he changed bikes every 5 years...

Great thought experiment. Like others have said, I think the bike and rider aren't inseparable as the feeling on the bike plays into the rider's confidence and mental game, which is at the center of race performance. If the suspension kicks weird, or the bike is too steep and nervous, its probably the out-and-out performance of the bike that is slowing the rider down, but how that feeling impacts their confidence, which in turn influences their physical approach to riding (leaning back more, not attacking, etc.). Noise is a perfect example. There is no mechanical reason chain slap should make a bike slower, but I am confident that if we all tested a silent bike vs. a 'shopping chart' bike (same settings and parts) we'd go faster on the silent bike. I recall an old SRAM video with Hart and Neethling testing clutch derailleurs saying something to this effect when clutch derailleurs came out. Noise is distracting and makes it feel like we are going fast and out of control, even if we aren't. The human factor matters a lot. 

The other element that is probably pretty important is matching rider size, body shape, and riding style to the bike. A small, light rider may get along with a bike that has a shorter chainstay and a compliant rear end, whereas a larger, taller rider on the same model of bike may struggle because the front/rear balance is off and their added weight means the rear end is now flexy and unpredictable, not compliant and aiding traction.

Not so much for DH bikes, but I think seat tube length on Enduro bikes was pretty key a few years ago. I don't care how good your suspension design is, if I can only fit a 125mm dropper on the bike, I'm going to struggle compared to a bike with a 170 or 180mm dropper. 

It's 95% the rider. Case in point: Jackson won World Cups his first-year Elite on the new V10, while Greg struggled all year to find a good setup. Or for you Moto fans: Chase Sexton battled with the Honda the past two years, while Jett Lawerence moved up to 450s over the summer and went 22-0. 

I've watched plenty of really talented riders hop on different bikes and go really fast. Shit, Dakotah beat me on a Morpheus multiple times. The sweet sauce is understanding setup, having resources (like the ability to evolve a bike to match one's style), and mental strength. 

It's interesting- I've had this discussion about IROC-style racing since the 90s, and I would still love to see it happen!

Back then I think there was probably a bigger difference in a DH bike's ability to make it down the track in one piece, and a lot of teams were repainting M1s...

Of course in those days there was a LOT of speed left on the table- until Gwin came on the scene, I don't think many riders were doing a high level of fitness training. Now, just about everyone is hitting the weights and road bikes in the off season.

Now that bikes and bodies are closer than ever, it would be interesting to see where the skillsets lie by leveling the playing field even more.

In cheekiness: It depends on what rider and bike you are talking about. If the talker likes the frame brand but not the rider....then it is the rider. If the talker doesn't like the frame brand but likes the rider.....then it is the bike.

Recent examples of this proliferated in the forums here and also the pods: (Insert Mondraker rider name here) vs Mondraker, (Insert Intense rider name here) vs Intense, Troy vs Canyon, Danny vs Cube. 

Looking into my crystal ball: Minngnar vs high pivot norco, (Insert Mondraker rider name here) vs Mondraker. 

Kidding but only kinda. 

Oh man. I wonder how many beers have been drank trying to figure this one out? Every sport that requires a participant to utilize a tool while in competition will always have an element of "is it the athlete or the quality of tool that conjures greatness".

Basketball has shoes

Golf has clubs

Skiing has skis

With respect to mountain bike racing, the machine is probably one of the least important parts of the equation relative to every other form of mechanized racing out there. This isn't to say its meaningless, but its a lot more meaningless than your F1 car is to your success as an F1 driver or snowmobile is to your RMSHA racer (how is that for a weird analogy?). The irony is we all get so sucked into the nerd side of things and love to make this comparison, especially in the off season, all the while ignoring stuff that really counts. IE, XYZ racer gets on a better training program, cleans up their diet, starts sleeping more, gives up booze, finds a stable relationship bla bla bla. 

Being David and myself have talked about this extensively when on road trips or whatever, its no surprise we feel the exact same about the proportions of how meaningful the athlete is relative to the bike. What is so weird (and cool) about mountain biking is how ubiquitous all the components are. While there is some special sauce with some rider's bikes, everyone ultimately has access to the same stuff. Hell, even the custom valving is "accessible" to you as a privateer if you are willing to hire a suspension tuner and spend some time trying different stuff. Don't misread, I know there are a few riders out there with extra special stuff, but don't forget sometimes these blackbox type projects send them the wrong direction. 

The power of placebo is a hell of a drug. And I'd wager this has more to do with going fast (at this point) than almost anything at the pointy end of the spear. If you really believe your rig is the best, and you actually are comfortable on it, you will indeed go fast. If you don't feel comfortable on it, even if its quantitatively the best thing since the knobby tire, you'll never go fast on it. 

 

I love these type of topics.  Okay, this is just my opinion, so please don't attack me and burn down my home like they do on Pinkbike forums.

My opinion is that its 50% rider skill and 50% bike. And my reasoning for this is as follows.  Remember when Sam Hill was on the Iron Horse Sunday. He was almost unstoppable on that bike. And when you gel with a certain bike, you ride better and faster. Simple as that. Remember when Sam showed up to DIRT magazine's famous 1:04 DH test track? (I'm aging myself here...)  Sam showed up, told the magazine that he would only need 3 or 4 runs to beat everyone's quickest times down that track.  And he did, by a big margin. That's how fast and comfortable he was on the Iron Horse Sunday.  And when he started riding other DH bikes, he never quite gel with them because they were bad designs. Those are his words, not mine.

And other point I like to make is about the Commencal DH Supreme V4. I've met riders and friends that ride this bike. And they all say the same thing. They post faster times on this bike than any other bike they've ever owned. And a lot of the websites say the same thing about this bike, its fast and makes you a faster rider.  So what I'm getting at is that is this. You can take a super skilled racer and put him on a bad frame design. They'll make it work. No doubt. But when you put that same racer on a bike they feel confident in. You'll see some amazing race runs.

Sam Hill's 1:04 run: Earthed 5: Sam Hill on the 1:04 (youtube.com)

I would be much slower without my bike, that much is certain. 

Well, I struggled to keep up with Justin Leov the one time I rode with him.

He was on an old flogged-out XC bike. With a fork that wasn't working properly. And plastic soled XC shoes with the wrong cleats for his pedals so he couldn't actually clip in.

That told me all I need to know.

5% ofa 3 minute run is 9 seconds....so I could see it being even more than 95%?  Does the bike make difference between between having what it takes to win a WC or just cracking into the top 10? That's the real question imo. I'd bet any of todays top WC dhr's would dominate a grassroots local DH event on a Super 8 with bald tires...so obviously it's mostly rider.  

Last year Chase, on a Honda, was the the fastest rider in the world in SX and won the title. Then he got injured at Hangtown and was off the pace for outdoors, so I'd disagree with this example.  

The rider

Peaty did that video riding a current V10 and a 2007 V10 and was 6 seconds slower at Pleney on a 3ish minute track?
 

Obviously hes not elite top 30 fit anymore, but it gives an indication that its less than what you'd think.

Great call. That was an awesome video. 

As many have pointed out in this discussion already, a top rider can have good results on any bike. But I would say that all other things being equal, the bike is actually what can push you over the hump towards that podium finish or even the win. Or put another way: to score a top ten finish at a World Cup, you have to be one of THE best racers in the world, and that's all on you (skill, training, mental game, etc). But within this (very) elite group of riders, can the bike make the difference between a top ten and a win? Absolutely.

I have a good example to illustrate this. I was at a press camp for a new DH fork a few years ago, and the organizers had brought a bunch of different DH bikes to use for the testing (with the same suspension components of course). For the first few laps I rode the Commencal Supreme. I was riding with two other journalists, and as the elder statesman of the crew I would routinely slot in at the back of the group There is a particular stretch of trail just after getting off the lift, blue graded but with a bunch of rocks and roots on it. It was easy to roll, with no real room for rider error. Riding behind the other two journalists in this section I would constantly have to drag the brake a bit, as the Commencal I was on seemed to just generate and carry more speed here (with no conscious effort on my behalf to go faster, other than pumping the trail and steering the bike as called for). After lunch, we all started swapping bikes, and lo and behold, with the two other bikes (each a World Cup worthy frame) I rode that day, I now found myself having to add a few little pedal strokes on that same section of trail to keep up with the guys in front of me. While this was far from a scientific test, it showed me beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Commencal could create speed where others did not. Now if you extrapolate this 300 meter section of track to the whole race, it's easy to see the cumulative effect of that free speed...

70% rider and 30% bike.

To answer the OP question, I don’t believe Greg can get on Loic’s bike and win or vice versa.

I’ve heard stories from a suspension data guy who tested with twin brothers on the same bike and brand suspension. At the end of the day, the settings were different based on the rider’s feel and riding style.

It's funny that you mention this. 

I was at Trestle Bike park several years ago during a family vacation. Took my younger bro to the bike park and he loved it. 

Finally got to demo DH several downhill bikes. I rode a Santa Cruz V10, a Pivot Phoenix and a Commencal Supreme. I would say this was in 2018.

I was following a local I met on the chairlift down a flowy blue trail. This was my first run on the Commencal Supreme, and actually was my first time riding a full 29". my bike at home was a 27.5 Canyon Strive. This rider was definitely quick, but this Supreme was just generating speed so quick. I had to hit the brakes to not rear end the guy.  It was fast, just like you said. The other bikes I tested were not the same. More nimble though!

If you’re good enough that it’s the bike, you’re already the rider. 
 

whoa

I think it’s only ever the bike at the far reaches of the rider curve.

[x] rider

[ ] bike

That’s it folks. This forum is done.