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 - MemberCurrent 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 - MemberDo 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.
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.
Not the only person, i spend far more time on the road bike these days. I enjoy getting out on the mtb, but the BS that surrounds it, problem is it is creeping into the roadbike world as well.
The answer is to stop buying magazines that are all about shopping, and instead read something which inspires you to ride off road.
Or just arrange regular rides so that you do it by default.
100% agree with Alex Simon
This approach has worked very well for me, and as a result I don't seem to have fallen into [i]any[/i] of the many pitfalls that some are describing with obsolete standards etc
I think it's interesting that many perceive the best-handling bikes to be recent ones.
Maybe it's because tyres and suspension made this possible.
and as a result I don't seem to have fallen into any of the many pitfalls that some are describing with obsolete standards etc
How long have you been riding if you don't mind me asking?
Obsolete standards on my bikes include 1" headsets, quill stems, 28.6 handle bars, Look Deltas, Early Time pedals, V brakes, IS disc brakes and if you believe the hype soon to be joined by, caliper brakes, 9mm dropouts, 1 1/8th steerers, 26" wheels.
Inconveniences along the way include going from 46/36/14 chain sets to microdrive, 7spd to 8 then to 9 and at some point i will go ten and 11 as decent spares get rarer.
And in the time i have been riding what has changed about why i ride, f*** all.
35mm bars next......
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.
Not the only person, i spend far more time on the road bike these days. I enjoy getting out on the mtb, but the BS that surrounds it, problem is it is creeping into the roadbike world as well.
Similar here - the constant changing of standards whereby I want new bars and have to fork out for a new stem as well, is just putting me off... I'm tired of the constant hype and unavailability of parts that work perfectly fine and then can't be replaced. (although the classifieds are a good source)
I think the industry needs to get a grip on itself and stop innovating for the sake of it/pursuit of profit.
As Rusty Spanner said, the Rover Safety (1880's) was pretty much right first time. Other than suspension, they're the same design we ride now, and even full suss is just an adaptation... and to me, that simplicity and the fact I do almost all my own maintenance is one of the things that's attractive about a bike
'The answer is to stop buying magazines that are all about shopping, and instead read something which inspires you to ride off road'
I thought the same. ALL are geared to either subtle promotion and full on advertising
since about 1986 mrmo..
what you've described there is a handful of changes in the last 25 years..
hardly a plague is it?
Err 5 changes? No
There's been some changes, but parts are still available and very little has become completely obsolete
My point is, that as someone that has never really got into buying mags, with 2 or 3 new bikes over the years, and no desire to keep up with the Jones', I've not really been affected by this appalling blight..
Which has left me plenty of time to just get on and ride my bike 8)
Obsolete standards on my bikes include 1" headsets, quill stems, 28.6 handle bars, Look Deltas, Early Time pedals, V brakes, IS disc brakes and if you believe the hype soon to be joined by, caliper brakes, 9mm dropouts, 1 1/8th steerers, 26" wheels.
I was going to query 1" headsets on MTBs given I have a 20yo frame with a 1 1/8th (that did originally have a quill stem, but got upgraded when I bought a Rockshox Judy, which dates that change - though the 16yo tandem still has a 1 1/8th quill stem) however given you mention Look Deltas is that on a road bike? Though when was 28.6 ever a standard for handle bars (if you mean 25.4 then such items and stems to match are still readily available, and only obsolete if you believe they are). Caliper brakes presumably on road bikes, in which case I'll believe their obsoletion when I see it.
Inconveniences along the way include going from 46/36/14 chain sets to microdrive, 7spd to 8 then to 9 and at some point i will go ten and 11 as decent spares get rarer.
Ah - I still have a 46/36/24 chainset on my 20yo frame, along with 8sp drivetrain. Only one of my large fleet has 10sp!
the constant changing of standards whereby I want new bars and have to fork out for a new stem as well, is just putting me off.
Is that because you're buying into the latest trend for super wide bars? Otherwise I've not noticed a huge problem with getting bars to fit my older stem.
Just realised I've never owned an mtb with an even number of rear sprockets. Had 1, 5, 7, 9 and got an 11 speed on order.
I did have one 8speed bike, but that was a frame mounted 'gearbox' so doesn't count....
Ultra wide rims are coming. Don't think buying that new bling 650bollocks wheelset is going to save you from the future. Next year you'll be hearing in every mag and on every website your rims are too narrow and your tyres too wide. Don't believe me? Google it and then get ready to dust off those old 2.1" tyres ready for your new wide rims. Oh wait you can't they're obsolete 26 inchers
[quote> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23986212
...and relax
I don't think Monty Hall used 27" wheels
steve77 - and then they'll tell us we need new wide-rim-specific tyres.
You all worry far too much.
I can still buy decent quality parts to keep my 21 speed, 1" headset, 26" wheel, 26.8mm seatpost, non suspension corrected 1992 Orange Prestige on the road. Infact, it's in great nick.
To be honest 650 wheels bother me less then tapered steerers, 15/20mm Maxel etc. At least it's all up front and everyone knows about it rather then it happening by stealth. If you went from qr to 15/20mm forks you have to buy new wheels (unless you have Hope hubs etc). Nearly all the decent and well priced forks are tapered atm. I have 1 1/8th. All these 650/29er changes are nothing new, it's been happening for years. Even after all the changes you can still keep a 20 year old bike on the road with no problem at all.
End.
The best innovations make a really noticeable difference to the quality of your ride but don't force you to change anything else on your bike - e.g. dropper seatposts
If something unquestionably makes the bike better but is incompatible with a lot of other components people will still be enthusiastic about it - e.g. disc brakes are great, but meant we all needed new hubs/forks/frames
What is annoying is when a new standard is pushed out that is a marginal improvement at best, but is incompatible with the largest and most expensive bits of a bike. 650b is probably the worst example of that in years. It's annoying because suppose in a couple of years I want to buy new forks for my old non-tapered headtube chameleon frame. Yes I'll undoubtedly be able to buy whichever forks I want at full retail price, but when hunting for bargains or used ones there'll be a much more limited choice because of all the tapered and/or 650b stuff knocking about
I'll see your gravel bike and raise you a beach racing bike
[img] 
[/img]
Shamelessly stolen from BikeSnobNYC
The frame is based on (and replaces) their Cross Winner cyclocross bike. But, they tweaked it to make it more effective for the flat, sandy courses. The seat tube got steeper to bring you closer to a time trial position so you can lay down the power through softer sand. The head angle was slackened a bit to provide better stability. All of which sounds a lot like some gravel racers we’ve seen.
