[Closed] cynic-al's "oh no, we've run out of ideas, what can we sell now" award thread

is the UK equivalent 'bridleway bikes' or 'fire road bikes'?

As an aside, I don't know where the idea that bridleways are all unchallenging comes from...

I don't know where the idea that bridleways are all unchallenging comes from

Neither do I, because nobody said that.

Cheered my lunch break up no-end

Maybe we should run a STW betting syndicate on what the next big thing will be?

I must admit - i didn't see 650bollox coming

11 speed was inevitable

35mm handlebar - WTF?

How about a 'extendible stem' - a bit like a dropper post, but it gets longer to climb and shorter whilst descending?

Folding handlebars, so when everyone is running 1050mm wide bars, you can get between the trees?

Left sided powertrains - I bet Shimano are cooking that one up to take on Sram and their fat/thin chainrings!!

What else is in the pipeline???

Apparently there's a new trend (or marketing push) in the US for "gravel road" bikes. I suppose "fire road mincers" doesnt sound so intrepid...

Basically it's a cross bike. Or a road bike with bigger tyres.

OK so I may have been overly critical.

The way I heard about it (via The Spokesmen podcast) was that bike companies were pushing the bikes for recreational rides on unpaved roads.

Well that's definitely what they're pushing. The number of people who can do long endurance races is tiny compared to the cost of developing the bikes.

Can I have an orange 5 26 er please?

If you really wanted one, you'd have bought it by now/before they were discontinued.

[quote=chakaping ]OK so I may have been overly critical.
The way I heard about it (via The Spokesmen podcast) was that bike companies were pushing the bikes for recreational rides on unpaved roads.
A bit like CX bikes over here then?

Can I have a product that has 'on the fly' adjustment?

This way I can feel like I've been pimped by a 70's style woman-beater.

Atlaz, I think what they're doing is promoting bikes under acceptably 'racy' or cool imagery for people to take notice, then people think ooh, a bike for pootling on traffic-free roads.. nice. Blame minimal attention spans or background noise, I don't know.

I must admit to having a little chuckle at this thread; if anyone wanted to know what to sell to middle aged men, this site would be an ideal starting point. From kitchen knives, coffee makers, coffee, beer, shoes, wellies, and on into the minutiae of bicycle design, it's a bloody gold mine.

To then sit and read folk criticising the latest attempts to sell you stuff is ironic in the extreme.

[i]the cost of developing the bikes. [/i]

Now that does sound like marketing BS

Strip mud guards and rack off a Dawes galaxy (Or similar). Fit suitable tyres. Enter race.

[i]CX bikes BB's are too high anyway. [/i]

You sure? They seem about the same height as on road bikes to me (although I've never ridden a "real" CX bike.)

[i]How about a 'extendible stem' - a bit like a dropper post, but it gets longer to climb and shorter whilst descending?[/i]

I invented that already.

*hunts through photobucket library*

Here we go. The prototype
[img] [/img]

DezB- I'd buy 4 of those but your cable needs to route through the stem top cap, it needs to be hydraulic as cables are useless for everything, I need the remote to mount between my lh shifter, my reverb remote and not interfere with my garmin mount, my I phone holder and my £70 titanium bell

and whats that face plate all about!

^ Needs to lose the gaiter too. What were you thinking?

.no one is forcing you to buy it

Are you new here?
Can I have an orange 5 26 er please?

Why would you want last years model?

How about a 'extendible stem' - a bit like a dropper post, but it gets longer to climb and shorter whilst descending?

Yeah I'm in for that

DezB - Well, I'm not buying that stem unless its 29er specific.

Why is the remote cable so long? I'm out.

Shouldn't that stem have a boxing glove on the front of it ?

How about a 'extendible stem' - a bit like a dropper post, but it gets longer to climb and shorter whilst descending?

I made an extendible stem for my Design Technology GCSE back in 1994/5. I got a 'D'.

Stupid idea.

Threads that go over [b]100![/b]

Ahem. Electric self-adjusting suspension anyone?

Aracer, yes, I still don't see any ip conflicts between our chainsets.

It pisses me off no end, especially Giant with their new "standard" for tapered steerer sizes. No, no and thrice no.

Not surprisingly, there are no Giant bicycles at PJM Towers.

Ten years ago, hydraulic discs, full suspension and riser bars were a novelty so we all jumped ship en masse. But back in those days, top of the line Fox forks could be had for less than £500, XT cassettes could be had for less than £30 and it was an affordable indulgence.

Today the bike manufacturers have become victims of their own greed, which is why they've all gone 650b overnight. Aside from marketing BS, can anyone tell me where a bike of five years ago is fundamentally flawed compared with a bike today?

A five year old bike is no less capable than a new one. People just like to follow the current trend dictated by the media. Like shimanos new SK group set including shimano 150mm forks....excited? Well there's no point... I made it up, but for a split second some people reading that will be planning to buy a new bike and deem their old one obsolete.

All cutlery-based innovations should be given short shrift.

Gps based shifting will be soon. Next logical step for the e suspension tech. Still use less m7nd.

Aracer, yes, I still don't see any ip conflicts between our chainsets.

Sorry - I was being dim when you mentioned IP before and couldn't work out what you were on about. No there aren't any IP issues between the chainsets - the point I was making is that in both cases you only see 4 arms on the crank, and the only way to do that without infringing Campag IP is to only have 4 points of support for the chainring (when 5 points is probably better from an engineering POV for largish chainrings).

To be fair they clearly have put a bit of thought into the engineering - I was going to complain about the arms not being equally spaced, but actually having them spaced as they are makes sense as there is less unsupported chainring at the points of highest load. Still marketing led though I'm sure (as a properly trained engineer with an understanding of the commercial side - I did a summer placement in marketing - I do acknowledge the value of marketing, but only through gritted teeth!)

A five year old bike is no less capable than a new one.

Well, a 2013 trail bike will have better geometry and probably better damping. It might be made of carbon fibre and it'll have through axles both ends.

BUT... there wasn't much further to take it, hence the superfluous new wheel size and marketing omnishambles.

better geometry

OK, some people might prefer a 150mm bike "all mountain" bike with a 69degree head angle, but I'm glad things have moved on.

EDIT: But I'd happily accept that XC race bikes probably haven't changed to nearly the same extent in five years.

[b]different[/b] geometry

different [b]=[/b] better

From which we can deduce:
650b [b]=[/b] best

And that the day of the penny farthing mountain bike cannot be far off (see how well the front wheel rolls over huge obstacles, while the rear wheel retains its agile nimble handling).

<marketing mode off>

I'm surprised they're making such a big deal. My FSA K-Force cranks are 620g including rings and BB.

As for the folding of the rings, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that is bullshit (excluding crash damage and manufacturing defects).

First bit I agree with.

Last bit I'm not so sure, I've an SL-K compact (rarely use the 36, but the 50 to 13-27 seems the perfet range for me), the chainrings are as flexy as a paper plate, they rub the mech under load, and have developed a permenant bend ov about 3mm. And I'm no Caverndish!

On the other hand those rings are pretty light (IIRC the cranks are ~DA weight, the extra lightness is in the rings), so 'normal' shimano rings would be fine.

And cost wise the HT2 rings are silly, but I don't think I've ever worn out an outer ring on the road bike (commuter excluded) so it's a non issue?

Any 650 specific saddles yet? really need one of those 😉

And that the day of the penny farthing mountain bike cannot be far off (see how well the front wheel rolls over huge obstacles, while the rear wheel retains its agile nimble handling).

See, this is the bit I don't get. The front wheel needs to steer, so the gyroscopic effect matters. The front wheel also has more suspension generally, so has less need to roll freely.

So doesn't 26" front, 29" rear make a lot more sense than the other way around?

The 26" front wheel gives you faster, more responsive steering, the larger back wheel removes the need for rear suspension.

The 26" front wheel gives you faster, more responsive steering, the larger back wheel removes the need for rear suspension.

Maybe, but then you get longer chainstays, which also slow the steering down.

It's been done before

[img] [/img]

Well, a 2013 trail bike ... It might be made of carbon fibre

So might a 2007 trail bike.

bencooper - Member

So doesn't 26" front, 29" rear make a lot more sense than the other way around?

The 26" front wheel gives you faster, more responsive steering,

I know you're joking, but... Seriously, who wants faster steering? I've never in 20-odd years ridden a single mountain bike that needed faster steering, they all turn exactly as fast as my hands go.

Big front wheel, small rear wheel makes sense in the same way that suspension on the front but not the back makes sense. But the most important thing is, it looks silly either way.

29er saddle takes the cake, do we also need 29er shorts to go with it?
anything 650 related is a close second, please, go away
hydraulic or electric derailleurs

honourable mentions:

140mm disc rotors, and mega lightweight all air no metal disc rotors
cannondale leftys
millions of headtube standards
bars over 750mm, enough already

I've never used it - and it's already been out a few years - but I really never saw the point of Shimano's Ice Tech brake rotors/pads.

And user reports seem to suggest the rotors can be a bit of a PITA.

bars over 750mm, enough already

Hmmm, I went from 750mm to 780mm on my DH bike this summer and I won;t be going back.

🙂

do we also need 29er shorts to go with it?

I know you're joking, but... Seriously, who wants faster steering? I've never in 20-odd years ridden a single mountain bike that needed faster steering, they all turn exactly as fast as my hands go.

I'm being serious for once. Of course the bars turn as fast as you steer, but with a larger wheel it takes more effort to turn the bars. Isn't it better to have a bike you can flick between obstacles, rather than having to muscle it through?

bencooper - Member

Isn't it better to have a bike you can flick between obstacles, rather than having to muscle it through?

i'm a pathetic 11stone weakling, steering a 29er takes more force than steering a 26er in the same way that lifting a sandwich takes more force than lifting a bag of crisps.

i'm a pathetic 11stone weakling, steering a 29er takes more force than steering a 26er in the same way that lifting a sandwich takes more force than lifting a bag of crisps.

In the same way that a 29er rolls better than a 26er?

Both rolling resistance and steering speed are proportional to wheel radius - you trade one off for another.

Real innovation:

Something that makes more people want to ride.

Something that transcends the 'lighter, cheaper, more durable. Pick two' rule of Keith.

A tubeless system that works without you having to carry a tube and pump.

Something that helps prevent theft or increases the chances of recovery.

The rest is just bollocks.

Pointless standards and meaningless change just put people off.

The bike industry is now at the point the camera industry was pre digital:
The producs were pretty much perfect. Error was due to the user rather than the machine.

I would have expected the next big thing to be ebikes, tbh.
A worhwhile innovation that could benefit countless numbers of people.
A tipping point in the fundamental relationship between car drivers and other road users isn't that far away, this could really help to push us toward that.

Instead, we have the obviously cynical, lazy pile of toss that is 650b.

We need people who are actually prepared to take risks and innovate, rather than prey upon our inherent gullibility.

bencooper - Member

I'm being serious for once.

I don't believe you.

You're a framebuilder, you know the relationship between rake, trail, head angle and wheelsize.
I've never heard anyone say they can't get a frame built that steers quickly enough for them.

bencooper - Member

Both rolling resistance and steering speed are proportional to wheel radius - you trade one off for another.

'trade off' suggests that faster/lighter steering is a good thing.

is it?

it [i]might[/i] be if steering a 29er was hard work, but it isn't.

i've found that i need to lean a 29er a little more to make 'the same' turn, i reckon this makes it more fun.

better rolling, and more fun cornering? that's not a trade-off, that's win-win.

A tubeless system that works without you having to carry a tube and pump.

crazy idea - have you tried a tubeless repair kit and a couple of co2 cannisters?

A co2 cannister is still a pump.
Just less environmentally friendly but easier to carry.

And a repair kit is far more inconvenient than a tube. 🙂

At what point do you start counter steerering though? 😉

Aside from marketing BS, can anyone tell me where a bike of five years ago is fundamentally flawed compared with a bike today?

This

and I definitely agree that geometry is different not better.

Or were manufacturers holding back the new superior geometry all this time for a reason?

You're a framebuilder, you know the relationship between rake, trail, head angle and wheelsize.
I've never heard anyone say they can't get a frame built that steers quickly enough for them.

But how many people said "I don't think my fork steerer is stiff enough" or "I wish I had 11 cogs at the back instead of 10"?

Fine. 😀
Make one and see how many you sell.
These were quite popular:
[img] [/img]

But, as you know, you don't need a smaller wheel to get quicker steering. 🙂

My Mrs still uses non oversize bars.

We both run 9 speed 1 & 1/8th inch headtubes, and front QR's.

Amazingly, we still manage to enjoy ourselves. Weird huh?

A tubeless system that works without you having to carry a tube and pump.

I would have expected the next big thing to be ebikes, tbh.

prey upon our inherent gullibility.

I would have expected the next big thing to be ebikes, tbh.

I think it probably is. I think the bike industry is probably looking to new markets (blue ocean strategy, bleugh) as i think rustys not far wrong

The producs were pretty much perfect.

E bikes are becoming a bit of a night mare on my commute though. To go 20 mph+ on a push bike you have to reasonably fit - and one might assume you have spent some time on a bike getting fit and have picked up some bike handling skills/ general awareness. Not so with e bikes, it's almost weekly i almost crash into some old duffer on one doing 20+ on a shared use path, with no idea how to control it, no sense of looking ahead, and anticipating, no slowing for the blind corners. bonkers.

I would have expected the next big thing to be ebikes, tbh.

E-bikes have been the next big thing for as long as I've been doing them - 15+ years. Lots of companies have dived head-first into the market, and been badly burned.

Logic dictates that eventually they might be the next big thing - so maybe this time 😉

Any more so than Tescos or Coca Cola or X Factor does? Gullibility or magpie tendencies that link into the performance focus of the industry.. a rider's tendency whichever side of the counter you're on. They feed each other. If none of us cared about 'better' performance, being the shredder of the group ride, having new sht etc, consumerism and egos, maybe we'd all be on rigid bikes with between 1>9 gears and big tyres still. Preaching to the converted to you though maybe.

You're right. Sort of. 😀

I don't care about having new stuff, or being the fastest rider.

I want to be happy.
Riding bikes in the hills with my partner and my friends makes me happy.

I do care about bike design though:

I want it to be fun and agile, affordable, safe, comfy, repairable and as simple as possible, because complexity for it's own sake annoys me.
And I'd prefer it to be elegant, in both appearance and engineering too.

So I ride a steel hardtail with discs, carbon bars, foam grips, high volume tyres and forks that I can tune to my preference.

No lock on grips - pointless when my comfy foam grips don't slip.
No rear suss - I'd only go faster, not be a better rider.
I prefer the compromises of a hardtail.
No hydroforming - butting works well and straight tubes look nicer.
Not many alloy frames lighter than my Mrs's Easton Ultralight Rock Lobster and that uses straight tubes.
No adjustable travel forks - never felt the need.
No dropper post - I can shove my arse over the back of the seat just fine & the unreliability, unecessary weight and inherent ugliness are a compromise too far for the riding I do.

I'd be interested to try a full carbon frame, wider headtube, a carbon seatpost & thicker axles, just to see if they are worthwhile.
If so, fine, I'll spend the money.
And I want a bottom bracket that I don't have to change twice a year.

I'll also go tubeless when the wheelsize thing has settled down.
Might try hub gears too.

As to the rest, not interested.
Apart from a Jones.
I'd really, really like to try a Jones. 😀

A tubeless system that works without you having to carry a tube and pump.

Current tubeless systems with sealant are just about as close as a typical bicycle chain is to working without having to carry a chain splitter and a quick link. I tend to carry all of those, but if I was going to leave the chain splitter at home to avoid carrying excess unnecessary stuff, then I should probably also leave behind the spare tube on the same principle - it's only really the idea that I'd be tempting fate which puts me off.

I was going to mention Jeff Jones as a good example of someone taking risks, being innovative and still being seen as either a brilliant chassis engineer, ergonomic designer and out-there rider-designer-builder, or a snake-oiled nichemonger selling expensive differences for the sake of it, depending on your tastes. But I was wary of going on about his bikes again.

Not ridden one yet, but people I trust have and love them.
Same with the Cleland/Highpath bikes.

I've a lot of time for Surly's innovations too - interesting bikes that appear offer significant advantages in simplicity and durability whilst remaining true to sound engineering principles.

I had high hopes for the Genesis Fortitude too, but the minimum frame size of 17.5 ruled that out.

aracer - Member

Current tubeless systems with sealant are just about as close as a typical bicycle chain is to working without having to carry a chain splitter and a quick link. I tend to carry all of those, but if I was going to leave the chain splitter at home to avoid carrying excess unnecessary stuff, then I should probably also leave behind the spare tube on the same principle - it's only really the idea that I'd be tempting fate which puts me off.

I'll try some 819's when the current 719's give up.
But they've lasted over 7 years without incident, so I can't see it happening any time soon. 🙂
Don't trust Stans. Too many stories of soft rims for my liking.

Re geometry- the best handling bikes I've ridden were all designed in the last few years, and I don't think it's a coincidence, they're all new-school, slack and low but balanced.

I'm being serious for once. Of course the bars turn as fast as you steer, but with a larger wheel it takes more effort to turn the bars. Isn't it better to have a bike you can flick between obstacles, rather than having to muscle it through?

True, but at anything more than walking/jogging pace the bars aren't turned more than 5-10deg?

Most people complain that their bike is too twitchy and needs to be lower/slacker/longer, which is odd as a 29er effectively gives you steep twitchy angles, but the wheels add more and more stability as you pick up speed (as well as the naturaly long wheelbase resulting from the longer forks and chainstays).

Do the slacker, lower bikes feel as natural for XC pootling as older designs?

I'm happy with wide bars and shorter stems, but lower BB's?

What about pedal strikes?

Re geometry- the best handling bikes I've ridden were all designed in the last few years,

The best handling bike [i]I've[/i] ridden is the Ti replica I had built of my old '93 Orange Clockwork, albeit with the geometry modified to accommodate a 100mm fork.

I think it's interesting that many perceive the best-handling bikes to be recent ones. Geometry is free and easy to experiment with yet we've been riding off-road for 25 years or more in reasonable numbers, it can't have taken this long to have got geometry 'right'. It's more likely we get used to things and adjust slowly, the physical / muscle memory adjustment process gets in the way of trialling very different geometries and evaluating them fairly and quickly, and what we expect from a bike and what we do with it evolves slowly. Also, we all like different things.

I have a patriot 66 and a Cannondale prophet. Both about 8 years old. Will new bikes be that much better? They now have wider bars/shorter stems/better forks and can still hold there own both up and downhill. I have always wondered what bike I would get next. Mostly when I am not riding my and am at work.

Personally I would much rather have an easy to take off Power link and 9 speed than 10 speed any day. I have a 29er but I think I should of got a cross or road bike instead as, although it is fast and have got me a few KOMs or bettered the ones I already had, it is not as much fun for messing around on which is why I ride mountain bikes anyway.

I think it's interesting that many perceive the best-handling bikes to be recent ones.

I believe that's because current riding trends and magazine tests are biased towards rattling downhill in the lumpier areas of the country. Ripping your legs off whilst ducking and diving through the trees on a quick steering xc bike through level woodland trails just isn't fashionable at the moment.

Also, it's the expectation of what we perceive our hobby/pastime to be and how it's marketed to us.

An extention of hiking?
A fashion statement?
A sport?
Excercise?
Road riding, but different?
Transport?
A thing to be enjoyed in an of itself?
An adrenaline rush?
A bonding activity?
A method of establishing heirarchy, whether through performance or the display of wealth?
A means of self improvement?

All these things influence the bikes we ride.

Mudguards anyone?

Complex thing, the bicycle. 😀

A very interesting thread, btw.

[quote=jameso ]I think it's interesting that many perceive the best-handling bikes to be recent ones.
Bear in mind that the original mountain bikes (well, the ones the Californians claim to be the original) had no "science" in their initial design. It was mainly "what's available". There was no magic number-crunching in coming up with 26" as a rim standard. One would have expected/hoped that as our understanding of physics and human physiology improved then bicycle design would take those things into account.

Technological improvements such as new materials and our understanding of older ones should also allow us to design bikes better, with fewer compromises.

Whether that means we can keep up with the 2-wheeled equivalent of Moores Law (how come it's always 20% stiffer and 20% lighter?) is another matter.

MB, agreed. What's more fun for most after all.
Scotsroutes, also agreed, wheels aside there was plenty of thought going into Ritchey and Cunningham etc's frame designs in the 80s too, they did evolve from clunkers though. So it's all been step by step stuff apart from very few step-change designs. OT in a way, but annoying new standards and 650B are a part of this process, it's just the difference between an easy, free angle change and a whole new F+F for a slightly bigger wheel.

I didn't mean old bikes were better or low/slack isn't any use, just that the slow evolution says it's about 'used to' as much as 'better'.

Technological improvements such as new materials and our understanding of older ones should also allow us to design bikes better, with fewer compromises.

They have.

I don't think anyone would seriously argue that sloping top tubes, discs, lightweight helmet design, suspension forks or wider bars weren't significant advances.

Geometry hasn't changed much though - the Rover Safety pretty much defined how humans interract with a diamond frame, didn't it?

As others have said, maybe the next true innovations (in cycling, not cycle design) will be the way we integrate bikes into everyday life on our hilly, wet little island.

Rusty Spanner - Member

Do the slacker, lower bikes feel as natural for XC pootling as older designs?

Mine does... I just finished building up a Soda as a "proper" xc bike and tbh, it just feels fairly pointless, it's only a couple of lbs lighter than my Ragley, it's much less capable, a little better at some things and massively worse at lots of things.

Having said that I reckon it's probably fairly hard to make a bike as slack as this work well as an allrounder, not many companies seem to have managed it.

Good thread, things to think about. People seem more annoyed by 650b than 29. Is there room / demand / need for 3 wheel sizes? Are we at the point of betamax V VHS video players?
On a slightly different track what "innovations" have fallen by the way side after being sold as the next must have?
Dual control flippy floppy ahifters! IS brake mount how many chain device mounts?
My feelings are it wont all last. Much as the bike companies push lots of different wheels sizes etc some will get dropped as they will only keep what sells the biggest numbers.

[quote=NorthCountryBoy ]Good thread, things to think about. People seem more annoyed by 650b than 29.
26 and 29 were always different enough that (most) folk could see each had its advantages and disadvantages and most manufacturers were happy to have both in their ranges. The reality is that 650 is so close to 26" that it's hard to accept there is any real advantage for most riders - and yet we are not being given a choice.

I DONT mind new things. Horses for courses.

I do mind cancel existing/this is the new standard within 1 yr etc.

Its business pushing on us not consumers showing gradual change.

[quote=hora ]I DONT mind new things. Horses for courses.
I do mind cancel existing/this is the new standard within 1 yr etc.
Its business pushing on us not consumers showing gradual change.
Agree. Think of handlebar diameters; when 31.8 was introduced it appeared gradually and it's only recently reached the point that stems for the older diameter are now hard to come by.

scotroutes - Member
...and yet we are not being given a choice.

No choice?

What about "keep riding what you have and get off the 'must buy new stuff' treadmill?

My feelings are it wont all last. Much as the bike companies push lots of different wheels sizes etc some will get dropped as they will only keep what sells the biggest numbers.

Yep, and the one that's dropped will be 26" imo. I bet the number of people racing for the 'big, new thing' far outnumber the people that refuse to buy because they feel conned. Add to that the amount of people that'll buy 650b because it's what's in the shop and they want a complete bike so compatability isn't an issue, and the fact that most companies have dropped most of the 26ers already and the writing's on the wall.

Not sure where I stand on it tbh. I can see why people get upset but can't say it gets me too over excited.

Here's an idea for manufacturers. I suggest that in the interests of maximizing perofrmance both on the ups and the downs they start selling manservants.

Think about it. You walk into your LBS and say "My good man, I would like to purchace one of your finest XC bikes, your finest downhill bike, and a gentleman's gentalman."

Then, next time you go out riding you use the XC bikes for the ups and the downhill bike for the downs while your man servant uses the downhill bike for the ups and the XC bike for the downs.

The beauty of this is that, with the current generation of pros about to retire you can probably pick up a Fabien Barel, a Cedric Gracia, or maybe even a Steve Peat for less than the price of a Santa Cruz V10 carbon. Of course, they would have to change their names to something like Duckworth, Smithers, or Benson.

I'm sure that the UCI would even allow you to race using your mansevant if you [s]bribed them[/s] made a generous unrelated donation.

The problem with riding what you already have (and I fully intend to), comes when your frame breaks, and you can't just replace it, but have to buy matching 650B forks and wheels. A much more expensive/lucrative (depending on your purchasing/retailing side of the fence)proposition.

Don't know about anybody else but I'm really disillusioned with MTB'ing at the moment. Ive just read the latest issue and none of the bikes reviewed inspire me.
As a shortarse big wheelers are useless to me, new forks wont fit either of my frames and i feel like I've been excluded from the new bikes. At least with 26" bikes i had a chance of finding a bike that fitted me, not a chance with 29'ers. A brand new bike i bought in 2010 is already that obsolete that finding replacement parts is already difficult.

Stuff it, going out on my road bike.