I’ve been in the market for a new bike since my last one got pinched. I’ve tried Giant Anthem 29, Scott Genius, Saracen Ariel, Lapierre Zesty, Norco Sight, Stumpjumper Evo, Camber 29, Trek Fuel 29 and Orange 5. One thing I’ve noticed is that they’re all really good.

I know all the different standards can get annoying – especially the ones with questionable benefits – and the wheel size debate rages on, but the way I see it there is now a bike out there that will suit everyone’s riding style, physical dimensions and environment.

This.

12 years ago my bike had 8 gears, flexy alu frame, a rubbish rear shock, a fork with little/no ajustment, weighed as much as a moon, and had a rear V brake. Was considered a pretty good bike.

My new bike (when it FINALLY gets released) will have a carbon frame, 11 gears, an electronically controlled shock that works beautifully, fully adjustable forks and weighs as much as an xc bike did back in the day, despite having the same 6″ travel at each end as the bike above.

Yay technology!

Aye. It’s quite funny, some folks are so blind to it, their £2500 full suss is full of problems, it’s too heavy or too slack or steep or whatever… Sure, anything can be better but most bikes these days are fantastic.

Anyone who disagrees can borrow my 90s rigid for a week 😉

Yep. Although bikes on the whole look very similar to frame designs etc from 5-6 years ago, the marginal improvements everywhere are great:

Good carbon frames
1×10 / 1×11
Clutch mechs
Dropper posts
Reliable tubeless tyres

Bikes are great.

wonders how much £500 paid in 1992 for a rigid with cantis would get me now & agrees 🙂

Guy came in the LBS with a bike he paid £500 for in 1989. Heavy as hell, canti’s, rigid, horrible riding position….

…it was an imaculate (and I mean as new, had reciepts and everything) Stumpjumper. Reckon he could get a reasonable spec bike for the value of that now! (Chap had no idea what he had…)