Upto 3.0 tyres were available years ago (10? Tioga 3″)..

No ta.

Tioga were DH tyres, weren’t they???

We are talking XC tyres here, around 850g, with wide rims and frames available too.

I ride a krampus with 29×3, and that rigid bike with a tired old 40 something on it is taking strava segments off the full sus kids. There is something in it for sure.

Trust me on this one. I will bang on about this til you all give in, just like you did with 29 😉

Oh I have just invented something.

The amazing stem that points forward 100% accurately. Simply put, splined steerer and stem, so that you no longer have to live with the nagging doubt that your bars are not 100% right.

We don’t have to roughly align our two crank arms, do we, so why stems?

I shall call it the eeeeer I dunno. How about “SPLEM” or “B-Head”

In which case Charlie, can I also request the bars with a key to centralise and limiting stops so that they cannot be rotated down too far (they are ‘riser’ bars or ‘flat’, not ‘slightly droopy cos I am not sure bars…).

charlie the bikemonger – Member

Why? The larger tyre has a tiny weight penalty for a significant increase in traction. So you can climb harder, brake harder, and most importantly corner faster. This is a serious advantage, and a lot of fun.

Even using big trailbike tyres, 2.4s and 2.5s, there are already some real drawbacks… More uncontrolled/undamped movement being the big one, you spend a fortune on well damped forks and suspension then ride around on a bouncy airbed. And width makes it harder to make forks and frames have adequate mud clearance, and isn’t always positive in itself in terms of cutting mud. (also I can think of half a dozen places from last weekend’s riding where a fat tyre wouldn’t ride the one good line on the trail as it was, funnily enough, ridden in by normal tyres)

I think an end to this ridiculous yearly cycle for new models from manufacturer’s. They should only bring out a new model when a technological advance requires it.

Otherwise, internal gear boxes is the biggest one for me.

I invented the splined steerer for OCDists ages ago. I just haven’t made it yet.

Right there on the wider tyres, I love RQ 2.4s for their size and would happily go a bit bigger. Don’t Tioga or Syntace or Syncros do a range of very wide rims?

Aye, these:

http://www.syntace.com/index.cfm?pid=3&pk=2548

5 years time, after we’ve all replaced 26 with 27.5, we’ll be told 27.5 is no longer supported and actually, 26 was the right thing all along..

FIFY

I’m hoping Shimano will come out with an electronic shifting 1 x 11

Missed the leak then? 2015 XTR…

Even using big trailbike tyres, 2.4s and 2.5s, there are already some real drawbacks… More uncontrolled/undamped movement being the big one, you spend a fortune on well damped forks and suspension then ride around on a bouncy airbed. And width makes it harder to make forks and frames have adequate mud clearance, and isn’t always positive in itself in terms of cutting mud. (also I can think of half a dozen places from last weekend’s riding where a fat tyre wouldn’t ride the one good line on the trail as it was, funnily enough, ridden in by normal tyres)

I don’t find tyres uncontrolled or undamped in the 2.5 to 3.0 range. I find they just get on with the job if you get the pressure right. I don’t spend a fortune on suspension, I don’t actually own any. Partly because it’s not needed in my neighbourhood, and large tyres are all you need round here.

Agree with you on cutting mud. But the larger footprint allows you to power through the mud, put more power down. This was well illustrated at SSUK at the mud fest that was pippingford woods. A pugsley with me and beer inboard hung at the front of the race for a few km. I had been lapped, and stopped for a beer, but I span along behind the fast guys for some time. They were having traction issues where I did not.

Width does not make it harder to design a bike, you just design it round the tyres. Cramming fatter tyres into tight spacers designed around 2.2 tyres is not ideal, but still can work well in the summer.

I’m lucky enough to have access to the newer surly bikes before many others, and we made the most of it. In a bunch of fairly unscientific, but reassuringly conclusive head to heads and rolling experiments we found that these tyres really are an advantage. The most dramatic being when two 29er full sus bikes with gears, could not catch two single speeds, a krampus and pugsley on a technical trails known as “franks tank”. And again when a salsa horse thief could not drop a 5″ moonlander at Ashton court. (I know it ain’t science but both times everything else was evenly matched, riding with familiar friends of damned near equal ability and fitness)

Link all the existing stuff together. Electronic shifting,cadence sensor and power meter.

What you could have then is auto gears. When pedal resistance gets less and your cadence goes up it upshifts. Then like wise if your cadence drops and resistance goes up climbing it down shifts.

It would be really trick if you could pre set you average cadence and max power output?

What do you reckon Dragons are you in? 😆

auto gears .. It would be really trick if you could pre set you average cadence and max power output?

At that point I’d rather have a clutch and a throttle )

Proper skills compensation. E.g. push button boost for a lazy manual or bounce for a bunny hop (maybe worked into the forks and shock to pop the bike up.) Maybe some sort of gyro for in flight stability when wheels are off the ground.

The problem with minimalism is that it only appeals to the cognoscienti.
See HiFi, photography etc.

Engineering simplicity just does not fit in with the mass market companies intended demographic.

The simplest and most elegant solutions are often sadly the most expensive;
Small batch runs and the almost mystical ability for niche designs to separate seemingly rational people from large amounts of money see to that. 😀

What bothers me about the cycling market is that the well made, everyday, do it all bicycle is now considered somehow unusual and priced accordingly.

Seriously. The very next big thing will be wider tyres.

Surly have 3.0 and 2.75″ tyres, so not as big as a fat bike tyre, a nice sensible middle ground.

Why? The larger tyre has a tiny weight penalty for a significant increase in traction. So you can climb harder, brake harder, and most importantly corner faster. This is a serious advantage, and a lot of fun.

Why this has not happened before is a mystery. Why are surly (a fairly oddball outfit) dictating the next big thing? (They were on the 29 scene very early) Maybe it’s because most bike companies would rather sell you expensive shit that breaks, shocks and electrics, and remote this and that gizmos.

Let me see….hmmmm….

1) Increased rotating weight, 2.5’s can add a pound of it over 2.3s.

2) Increased rolling resistance, why would I need more grip if I don’t need it? A set of 2.5 minions is the most I’ll ever need.

3) Increased lateral instability or tyre roll. Why would I want that when I can have softer compounds on the cornering part of the tyre?

4) Poorer mud performance for downhill applications, thinner tyres cut through and grip the bedrock beneath mud more efficiently. Larger tyres do not.

I’m with CtBM on this, bigger tyres are better

and for the conspiracy people amongst us. of we cant fit wider tyres in our current frames we’ll need to buy new frames…

I want the goldilocks wheel size. Something between 26″ and 27.5″ that will give me the best of both worlds allowing me to have the benefits of reduced rolling resistance but without the penalty of reduced acceleration and maneuverability.

Actually, I’m quite interested in larger tyres but I’d like to see larger tyres on smaller rims. I’m currently experimenting with a 24″ rear wheel with a 3″ tyre on my Nomad. It’s paired with a 2.7″ tyre on a 26″ rim up front.

One of the main reasons I want to see smaller wheels is because it will free up space and allow designers to play with geometry more. For the last few years there seems to have been a trend to slacken the head angle and reduce the chainstay length. A smaller rear tyre would allow that to be taken to further which might or might not work. It would be interesting anyway

You are all wrong, it’ll be this if it doesn’t stop raining..

Not so much dropper stems but maybe lever controlled angelsets… push a button to slacken for descents and another to steepen it up for climbs. Other brands have done this by messing with suspension travel front and rear (Bionicon and Cannondale) but the adjustable angleset is probably what most really want from adjustable geometry and arguably less complicated/messy leaving the suspension to what it’s actually for.

28″ wheels

Traction control integrated into a freehub – but which somehow retains pedalling effort so you avoid a TT/knackers interface when the back wheel spins out on a climb.

A dropper post which adjusts the angle of the saddle as well as the height. So when fully extended the saddle is about flat for highest xc peddling performance; and when fully reclined the back end of the saddle drops a few degrees for optimum downhill performance.

electronically adjustableon thefly gears and suspension , little motors to get you up the hill.corporate events for managers instead of golf.

Tom_W1987 – Member

2) Increased rolling resistance, why would I need more grip if I don’t need it? A set of 2.5 minions is the most I’ll ever need.

I remember people saying that about 2.1″ tyres.

charlie the bikemonger – Member
Oh I have just invented something.

The amazing stem that points forward 100% accurately. Simply put, splined steerer and stem, so that you no longer have to live with the nagging doubt that your bars are not 100% right.

Sorry Charlie, beat you to it a month ago – and got rubbished for suggesting it 🙂

Power steering & auto braking based on GPS linked to google maps. Electric assist for uphill so no need to pedal. Radar crash avoidance technology. Gyroscpic balance assist.
All you need to do is take your bike to the trail centre and send it on its way. You can then hang around in the shop/cafe drinking Machalattochinos until it comes back before proudly displaying it on the roof of the Audi for the drive home.

Zak Tempest starting a company called One-On?

Just about the only thing I can think of that hasn’t made a recent comeback is linkage based suspension at the front end. Girvin forks and Flexstems, anyone?

This thread is interesting…quite a few posts for new fangled improvements and some for more simple but fun things. I’m definitely in the “less is more” camp. I’ve recently gone to a fully rigid 29er and loving it. It’s shaken me to bits down some rocky desacent already and I’ve no doubt it was slower than my full sus. It was loads of fun though. It’s light, simple and cheap to maintain. So hopefully in a few years it will be possible to get some fun to ride but very simple bikes off the big manufacturers.

The gearbox! This just has to be sorted once and for all. Its a no brainer and will happen, then all you need to do is strap it into a fatbike and we’re all sorted. The Ultimate off-road bike!!
I thankyou…I’ll get my coat.

The gearbox! This just has to be sorted once and for all

Belt driven CVT with cadence/torque/incline sensors included, please.

to answer the original question, it seems to me that there are broadly two types of answer:

1) what is the industry going to push to get us all to keep spending more money?
2) what would actually improve riding?

The answer to (1) is bound to involve electronics – whether to help people up hills, change gear, adjust suspension, or all that and more

To my mind the answer to (2) is about reliability. Bikes already work well, and have done for some time. My 10 year old Heckler is great (partly thanks to a 5 year old PUSHed shock). It’s much better than a 20 year old MTB, but the difference between it and a new one is much less. The marginal gains in performance are reducing, and some of them (such as more gears) have been at the expense of robustness and reliability. People on here are extreme outliers in the bike world, happy to bleed brakes and adjust suspension, but most people (including many on here as well) just want something simple that works. I reckon decent, lightweight hub (or other sealed) gears and belt drives that really work in mud would be a big improvement.

Captain – wouldn’t you want a warning light to tell you when the variable service interval is up too, just like in your Audi? 😉

This thread is interesting…quite a few posts for new fangled improvements and some for more simple but fun things. I’m definitely in the “less is more” camp. I’ve recently gone to a fully rigid 29er and loving it. It’s shaken me to bits down some rocky desacent already and I’ve no doubt it was slower than my full sus. It was loads of fun though. It’s light, simple and cheap to maintain. So hopefully in a few years it will be possible to get some fun to ride but very simple bikes off the big manufacturers.

I hear you. I’ve got a 1997 fully rigid singlespeed Orange P7 that I ride to the shops. I sometimes take it out on the trails for a bit of fun.

The only thing I find myself wishing it had was disc brakes. I think that if there was one piece of technology I could have it would be hydraulic disc brakes. That and a bike with the right geometry would do me nicely.

😆

(As it happens, the service light on my Volvo came on yesterday. Need to book it in. 🙂 )

I think along with 3D printed parts, electronics are going to be big for drivetrain and suspension. 3D printers are going to be everywhere in a couple of years and there are so many applications in the cycle industry that I can see the majority of parts being 3D printed within the next 5 years.

4 pages and no-one has suggested electric motors? W’re all getting older, fatter, lazier and even the young’uns of the playstation generation want everything for nothing (apparently), so let’s have a battery pack and a motor to get up the hills and get are thrills for free on the way down!

(Version 2 with regen braking)

BruceWee – Member

The only thing I find myself wishing it had was disc brakes. I think that if there was one piece of technology I could have it would be hydraulic disc brakes. That and a bike with the right geometry would do me nicely.

I totally agree. I’ve said before that if I was only allowed one piece of modern tech I’d forget suspension and take disc brakes.

V8_shin_print – Member
4 pages which I clearly haven’t read, otherwise I would have seen that people and no-one has have suggested electric motors?

FTFY.

Probably already been said, but a decent bottom bracket standard that screws in, is HT2 axle compatible but internal with decent size bearings.

Essentially what they were trying to do with ISIS, but without the size constraint and with a lifespan longer than a week.