[Closed] Longer, lower, slacker...have manufacturers been taking the pee pee a bit ..

You've not met Geoff then?

No, only read the thread in which he came over a bit of a nobber.

even down that same descent would actually probably surprise you how capable it is

Hehe. Niche-fans say stuff like this a lot. You'd be surprised.. it's not as bad as you'd think.. no, maybe, but it's still not as good as a proper bike is it? (general statement - never ridden a Cleland)

and you'll likely not find anything that could climb up a tricky technical trail like that quite like a Cleland

That intrigues me more. Having a stratospheric bottom bracket probably helps a lot. The tyres aren't particularly big though. Maybe in 1984 they were, but they are tiny now.

No, only read the thread in which he came over a bit of a nobber

I think eccentric is the accepted term 😉 he is a lovely person in, ah, person. But does have quite a dry sense of humour which maybe doesn't come across that well in forum posts.

Hehe. Niche-fans say stuff like this a lot. You'd be surprised.. it's not as bad as you'd think.. no, maybe, but it's still not as good as a proper bike is it? (general statement - never ridden a Cleland)

I tried hooning down a rutted gully on the Cleland, straight after trying the same thing on my krampus. It was certainly different, but actually after getting used to the very different handling it did very well. It's not designed for fast downhill speeds, but with a bit of adjustment in riding style it worked very well.....that leads me onto your next point....

and you'll likely not find anything that could climb up a tricky technical trail like that quite like a Cleland

That intrigues me more. Having a stratospheric bottom bracket probably helps a lot. The tyres aren't particularly big though. Maybe in 1984 they were, but they are tiny now.

It is an amazing climber, even at nearly stalling speed I was able to crawl up a near vertical (well maybe 45 degree) bank. The low gearing helps, as do the eccentric pedal axles, so you get more leverage at the bottom of the stroke, and the really low tyre pressures - about 5-6 psi I think Geoff said.
True the tyres aren't plus size or fat, but he runs 2.5 29er DH tyres (with motorbike innertubes in, he seems to distrust tubeless setups) so plenty of grip, especially with the low pressures.

@ nickc -

I reckon I could ride down a 3 inch deep stream on my enduro bike pretty easily

The point is he rides down, up, sideways, all at a constant speed of about 5-6 mph, but never putting his feet down. I tried following him through ruts and puddles, and a couple of streams on my Krampus, and just ended putting my feet down all the time.

even down that same descent would actually probably surprise you how capable it is

I'm intrigued. I reckon you could probably ride it down steep stuff but I can't imagine it corners well at speed.

and you'll likely not find anything that could climb up a tricky technical trail like that quite like a Cleland

That intrigues me more. Having a stratospheric bottom bracket probably helps a lot. The tyres aren't particularly big though. Maybe in 1984 they were, but they are tiny now

Steep high bike, easy to keep your weight forward and the front wheel down (or lift it when you need to according to Geoff), easy to change direction and pick a line.

The Geometron climbs like a steamroller - front wheel glued to the trail - but that, and the wheelbase, make it hard work to pick a line through a rocky climb.

I'd rather a fatbike for the steep rocky stuff, I reckon.

never heard of Cleland before, good that's ok to admit!

They remind me of the bike radiant of a land Rover for some reason.

I mean that in a good way! 🙂

Niche-fans say stuff like this a lot. You'd be surprised.. it's not as bad as you'd think.. no, maybe, but it's still not as good as a proper bike is it?

I can't imagine it corners well at speed.

You're still both thinking about riding it for stuff its not intended for...

I doesn't corner all that well at speed no, but it's not for that kind of riding, that's proper MTB not woodland bimbling, same with the 'proper bike' comment. For woodland bimbling and the stuff it's designed for it is better than a proper bike. One of the best analogies is 'Pony trekking but on a bike' It will just keep going and going and going anywhere you like....

I'd rather a fatbike for the steep rocky stuff, I reckon.

you might be surprised 😉

FWIW, I don't own a Cleland, and I doubt I will anytime soon as it doesn't suit the kind of riding i (mostly) do at the moment*, but that doesn't stop me realising how good they are at what they're supposed to do, and the 'you'd be surprised' bit might have a smiley, but you genuinely probably would be, they are surprising bikes.

* The amount of people who I see riding around woods and trail centres on big bouncy slack and modern MTBs, who then only bimble about at a bit over walking speed would suggest there are plenty who do, it would also suit the people who take their hybrid/commuter because they want to ride offroad a bit, but then get put off because it's hard and you 'need an MTB'

You're still both thinking about riding it for stuff its not intended for...

I doesn't corner all that well at speed no, but it's not for that kind of riding, that's proper MTB not woodland bimbling

No, I get your point and I'd really like to ride one, but the original discussion here was (I thought) about whether incremental changes in MTB geometry were manf's taking the piss. I think mtb geo is matching what (many) people want to do with it. We were discussing different bikes for different jobs.

I had a Geometron for a few months and found it incredibly capable for a particular type of riding but too compromised (for me) in other areas. My Helius AC (140mm, but with modern geometry, long TT, wide bars) descends at speed better than any other bike I've had on properly steep rocky trails but is still fun to climb up technical, trails-y, rocky climbs. I've ridden every iteration of the AC for the last 15 years and it is the most capable. However, I'm really enjoying riding my Argon TB29 these days as well - it feels sufficiently different to the Helius to be a contrast. In the Surrey Hills I can get up and down the same stuff but in a different way.

I reckon I'd have lot of fun on a Cleland in the right environment.

I think mtb geo is matching what (many) people want to do with it.

But also shaping what people do. Bikes and biking are leading each other.

I'm sure there are plenty of riders that are on entirely the wrong bike

Yep. I have ridden a fixed gear, brakeless track bike for last 5 years on exactly the same off road routes than I used an MTB for in the past

It is a handful on some sections but very fast on uphill fireroads. I love it and don't plan on changing but would not recommend it and don't say it is the answer for all...

simons_nicolai-uk - Member
I had a Geometron for a few months and found it incredibly capable for a particular type of riding but too compromised (for me) in other areas. My Helius AC (140mm, but with modern geometry, long TT, wide bars) descends at speed better than any other bike I've had on properly steep rocky trails but is still fun to climb up technical, trails-y, rocky climbs.

but the original discussion here was (I thought) about whether incremental changes in MTB geometry were manf's taking the piss

Yeah, as usual thread drift... 🙂

I think mtb geo is matching what (many) people want to do with it.

I think you're right on the money in that regard, modern bikes are evolving to enable the kind of riding some people want to do, and those bikes are becoming exceedingly good at that, but what I think is also happening is that the middle ground 'normal' MTBs are being sidelined in the push for the extremes. I don't think they're taking the piss, but I do think they're guilty of focusing on $SHINY_NEW_TRENDY_THING and pushing it at the expense of other stuff, while simultaneously not having the balls to make big changes, hence incrementally small changes being repeatedly shouted about.

A good example being BB height, someone else mentioned not being able to find a modern bike with decent ground clearance, that's actually a real problem for some, I have had some older bikes with high BB's over the years, and on some rides I genuinely miss them, especially for some very technical rocky climbs.

Is this making sense? The extremes are very very good for the extremes (at both ends), but the danger is that ideas from the extremes are driving the middle ground into a place it really shouldn't be, we've actually been here before several times, in the 90s with steep short and narrow, in the 00's with 'freeride' and long travel but heavy bruiser bikes, and now to some degree with super slack and long.

I think this is partly why Gravel became a thing, general all purpose [b]A[/b]TBs dissappeared at the back end of the 80s really, and most of us getting into offroading followed the wave through 90s Xc to 00s travelmonsters and beyond, those of us really into MTB have settled into modern trail bikes, they're great, but there's a significant number who have meandered back to ATB style bikes via 'Gravel'.

I think what the industry is failing to do to some degree is cater to mediocre riders doing mediocre riding, and is guilty of marketing the 'cool' stuff* an appealing to the kind of rider people wish they were, all berms and jumps and high speeds for everyone style marketing, rather than any of them standing up and saying "look at this bike that's ace for 'just riding around in the woods", probably because they'd never sell anything that way because people are fickle and have egos 😉

All of this is why I own so many different bikes, as I like riding everything 😳 they're all different and all good!

*It's all trendy backwoods adventurizing and stuff in the marketing blurb, where as most people use them for exploring the countryside and bridle paths, but that doesn't make a good poster ad does it... 😉

I think what the industry is failing to do to some degree is cater to mediocre riders doing mediocre riding

Don't think so. If I pop into Evans at lunchtime I'll see a showroom mostly full of commuters and £800-1500 ish hardtails, mostly 29er. These are ideal for general MTBing. The MAMIBAs who buy these enduro sleds to bimble on are the kind of people who will always spend MORE because it's BETTER. They probably own expensive DSLR cameras too. It's not that industry doesn't allow them to spend £1000 on a normal bike that's better suited - it is just happy to part them from their cash. Wouldn't you be?

Amedias, agree about Geoff Apps' ideas and his bike. At the speeds I see many riders going at locally the Cleland is a very capable bike, more so than an average enduro bike in plenty of situations. Like the slower, boggier or techier ones. Where it falls over -not literally- is that I doubt many would enjoy the ride feel as much. You need to adapt to any extreme bike design. We all ride what we like the feel of and it's subjective. I liked his bike a lot but I can see why it never took off.
Following Geoff over real natural terrain is a lesson in real all-terrain riding though, a lot of fun and way harder to keep up than you might expect.
In all this chat about modern geo etc all I'd say is progression isn't all-win unless it progresses in line with your own riding and actual ability. There's not many, if any, changes to a bike geo that don't come with trade offs.

Yes.

We've diversivied more than ever, now. There are loads more bike types than at any point in history, I reckon. This is good.

Just need to get people on the right one!

These Apps bikes are interesting, but we'd be a right bunch of knobs if we all went round riding our bikes randomly off the trails crushing vegetation and baby robins.

I don't think manufacturers have been taking the pee. evolution in Golf you watch for many years and wonder the same, but i think its just the way it is hybrid clubs, driver development, slow development to keep sales high instead of 1 big jump to a design that people wince away from and hurts sales.

My close to home example.

My wife had a 2012 1k cube hardtail and enjoyed it with its 530ish mm bars and high BB, but never did anything too aggressive as she never felt confident on it, roll on 6 years and she now has a 2017 Orange Crush and drops into bomb holes and small jumps with it. Is she concerned that a 150mm hardtail is too much bike? No. Is she aware of the geo difference and the implications on the bike? She is now that she has ridden it and feels confident on it to drop into things that previous made her feel she was going over the bars..
Low bb has seen her ground strike the pedal arms occasionally but a small price to pay for how the bike is making her recreational riding more interesting to her...

@jameso

oh yes, the Cleland is another extreme for sure, and I don't think it can or should be mainstream, but a few idea or watered down elements of it can and would make sense for normal riders.

In all this chat about modern geo etc all I'd say is progression isn't all-win unless it progresses in line with your own riding and actual ability. There's not many, if any, changes to a bike geo that don't come with trade offs

Well put, and I think this is key, it's about knowing your riding and what you [i]actually [/i]want/need

@Molgrips

Not quite what I'm on about Molgrips, I don't necessarily mean mediocre as in mediocre in price, I'm struggling to actually expalin what I mean, but I'll have another go...

The geometry changes get pushed downwards too, which was why all the 90s bikes from £200 up to £2000 were steep and narrow, there were still cheap options and but they were still shaped by the marketing and designs of the top end.

Same in the 00's we had long travel but high and steep freeride bikes at all price points, and very short travel full sus for XC, even when it was heavy and flexy.

Now, even cheaper Trail/Enduro bikes are Trail/Enduro bike shaped, cheaper XC race oriented models are still XC race bike shaped, and although there are hybrids and £1500 29er hardtails, they are still mimicking the more expensive version of that type of bike.

The MAMIBAs who buy these enduro sleds to bimble on are the kind of people who will always spend MORE because it's BETTER

This kind of illustrates my point, they're buying Enduro sleds because that's where the marketing/focus is, not because they do the kind of riding that requires it, and in many cases are both unlikely ever to and don;t want to, if it was just about money they could just as well buy a top end XC race bike, equally innappropriate for the riding they do. If they just want to spend money because expensive is betterer why can't they go and buy and exceedingly well specc'd, lightweight carbon bimbling bike? They can't because there aren't many of those...and if there were it probably wouldn't be trendy.

In road it's a bit different isn't it, the Sportive/Endurance bike market is evidence of that, a lot of development and effort into bikes for normal riding, not racing, not extreme, just the kind of riding most MAMILs do, and they've successfully marketed it, prior to that people were doing exactly what they do now in MTB, either making do with an inappropriate racing type bike, or shunning a light tourer/clubmans bike because it wasn't cool. Now they have exceedingly good and posh bikes for mediocre riding, and they're lapping it up, and rightly so IMO, those bikes are excellent.

Where is the general ATB, ride a bit of everything bike? There are a few out there but they're mostly an accident of the range rather than a feature, the big boys aren't marketing that kind of riding, they're marketing the extremes and pushing that stuff into the middle ground whether it's relevant or not, bikes getting lower, slacker and longer is good for the kind of riding where it's good, but why push it into areas where it isn't?

Am I making any sense?

@eb2429

Your wife is a great example of someone getting the benefit of a different kind of bike enabling the kind of riding she wants to do, that's an ace outcome and glad she's enjoying it!

We need to get people on the right bikes for the riding they do and want to do, rather than getting people on bikes that are for a different kind of riding than what they actually do, which can happen when the latest thing gets pushed to excess.

EDIT:

Just need to get people on the right one!

yes, this, very much this ^

~Am I imagining it or has there been a general trend in bikes over the past ?10-15 years to make bikes for ordinary riders, rather than extraordinary ones. F'rinstance:

- road bikes with sensible gearing options that are also made to the same standards and with the same materials as bikes for proper racers
- as above with non-racy geometry for sportives etc.
- 2x specific mtb geary stuff came in after years of people doing it anyway by sticking on a bashring instead of an outer ring and using a 3x front mech (this was before everything went wunby)
- long travel bikes that are not over-built for doing massive moves, so suitable for cautions moderately skilled people who don't go big, but like the excitement of speed over rough terrain.

When I got a 6" travel bike a few (OK over a decade) years ago, it was labelled a "freeride" bike and built to match - heavy to take the hits and short to perform the stunts. I used it for riding trails (I raced it downhill for a bit, but it was not entirely suited to that). Now you can get bikes suited to trail riding, long enough for a bit of safety and stability, a decent amount of travel. And not built for hucking off brick shithouses. You can also get XC race bikes, DH bikes, gravel bikes, fat bikes... not sure about the old-style "freeride" bikes, maybe nobody does that any more?

This appears all good to me. Apart from the eye-watering prices.

You know what, on reflection I think you're right greyspoke, that [i]is [/i]happening, it's definitely happened on the road side more, I guess the point is though that it's not happening enough in MTB, and it's not visible enough in the media and marketing, the focus is still very much on the extreme elements being the only way forward* even for the masses.

But I think that's the nature of the [s]sport [/s]hobby and might not ever change!

*whatever that means.

Where is the general ATB, ride a bit of everything bike?

Most bikes I see out on the trails under other people seem to be general purpose machines - 100mm 29er or 140mm 650b, that kind of thing. Bit of suspension, can be thrown down trails but also ridden all day.

Arguably they might be better off on a 29er hardtail with 100mm forks, but they aren't that far off. I reckon maybe 20% of people are really overbiked.

The MAMIBAs who buy these enduro sleds to bimble on are the kind of people who will always spend MORE because it's BETTER

This kind of illustrates my point, they're buying Enduro sleds because that's where the marketing/focus is, not because they do the kind of riding that requires it

Maybe what you are describing is a southern thing, but I see more riders out of their depth on inappropriate bikes than I do people under-utilising their enduro sleds.

Could be a bit of prejudice/wishful thinking behind those comments?

I've not ridden a lot in the Surrey Hills but when I have it has always seemed chock full of expensive bling.

Some of the trails in the SH warrant an enduro bike for average riders.

And it's a bit naive to assume the riders there don't also take their bikes to the Lakes, Scotland, Wales etc.

A good example being BB height, someone else mentioned not being able to find a modern bike with decent ground clearance, that's actually a real problem for some, I have had some older bikes with high BB's over the years, and on some rides I genuinely miss them, especially for some very technical rocky climbs.

BB height gets me as well. Bike park and trail centres are fine with a low BB but there are definite downsides on natural, rocky, trails. It is one of the definite upsides of 29ers.

all the 90s bikes from £200 up to £2000 were steep and narrow.... in the 00's we had long travel but high and steep freeride bikes at all price points, and very short travel full sus for XC.

Absolutely - 'trail' hardtails are fun for bimbling but most manufactuers hardtail ranges went straight from XC to freeride for many years.

And it's a bit naive to assume the riders there don't also take their bikes to the Lakes, Scotland, Wales etc.

No I know - it's just the proprtions that struck me.

No I know - it's just the proprtions that struck me.

It's Surrey, that's why.

Could be a bit of prejudice/wishful thinking behind those comments?

nope, pure observation, and I'm not in the South East.

Don't get me wrong there's plenty of people shredding on their modern Enduro bikes, but there's also an awful lot of, barely used and massively under utilised examples too, and I've got nothing against them at all, they're perfectly welcome to buy whatever bike they want, it's just that they seem to be compromising their own enjoyment by riding bikes that aren't ideal for their riding, and [i]something [/i]has made them pick that bike over another, but as long as they're having fun who am I to argue!

It sounds like you think I want to take something away from them, I don't it's the exact opposite, I wish there were more options and as much focus put on general riding as there is on next years model being a tiny bit more aggro or something.

The Sportive/Endurance market is a good comparison, where is the MTB equivalent?

Nobody has turned around and said "you know what, for general bimbling we've pretty much got the shape of these bikes nailed down*, lets focus on making them lighter, more reliable, and comfier rather than ever more technically capable (in terms of bigger terrain and faster speeds), that's already being covered by ---> Them bikes over there"

* maybe we haven't reached that point, maybe we have but haven't realised it yet?

I met a bloke on a bling Whyte (near Cardiff, not in the SH) and he had his fork rebound set so slow as to be basically useless. He hadn't even noticed or thought about it.

There is continual evolution because what we're used to changes. I have the same thing with my own static collection of bikes. I get them sorted, then I try out say, a wider bar, then all the other bars feel too narrow so they get changed. Then I want a shorter stem, so I shrink all the stems. Then I raise the front of one, then the others seem too low, and so on.

So as certain dimensions of bikes evolve, it causes what was once fine to become too short/long/steep whatever, so they change, and so it goes on in a positive feedback loop.

The Sportive/Endurance market is a good comparison, where is the MTB equivalent?

Nobody has turned around and said "you know what, for general bimbling we've pretty much got the shape of these bikes nailed down*, lets focus on making them lighter, more reliable, and comfier rather than ever more technically capable (in terms of bigger terrain and faster speeds), that's already being covered by ---> Them bikes over there"

* maybe we haven't reached that point, maybe we have but haven't realised it yet?

I think that's actually where the "Enduro" thing is leading to a certain extent; lighter more capable bikes built to suit a competition format which is actually much closer to "Average" riders general non-competitive use...

An Enduro bike does actually make a good "general purpose MTB", geometry and sensible weight pitched towards the same sort of riding has filtered over to HT's more now too.
10-15 years ago "Freeride" and "All mountain" bikes were sort of similar but based more on vaguely watered down DH Sleds...

The "Sportive bike" comparison stands there I think, Bikes built for endurance events, but also very good for MAMILs to trundle about on at weekends...

Indeed. There's a load of 150mm trail/enduro/whatever bikes around that are true all rounders, pretty much as they've got lighter than their equivalents 10 years ago.

My 150mm Bronson is quicker than my spectral 29er on all terrain, and every bit as capable as my 170 Capra was on the raggier stuff.

nope, pure observation, and I'm not in the South East.

Don't get me wrong there's plenty of people shredding on their modern Enduro bikes, but there's also an awful lot of, barely used and massively under utilised examples too, and I've got nothing against them at all, they're perfectly welcome to buy whatever bike they want, it's just that they seem to be compromising their own enjoyment by riding bikes that aren't ideal for their riding

Perhaps I was reading too much into your comment - and I'm going to hate myself for using this term - but it seemed like a bit of a straw man argument.

To your point about the lack of focus on improving the bimbling experience: Isn't that what B-plus was all about for a lot of people?

Personally I think 29in wheels have made XC bikes much more versatile, so you can happily bimble or shred on the same machine - my Cotic Solaris being a great example.

Or have I misunderstood?

The Sportive/Endurance market is a good comparison, where is the MTB equivalent?

Scott Spark 900 (92 or 930 please) or 700 series
Giant Trance
Specialized Camber
Cannondale something or other

just to name a few brands hitting that area.

Oh and that Cleland might be very good at what it does but it looks bloody awful.

The "Sportive bike" comparison stands there I think, Bikes built for endurance events, but also very good for MAMILs to trundle about on at weekends...

Yes, although I think a fair degree of effort is actually going into building bikes "for MAMILs to trundle about on at weekends" [i]as the primary purpose[/i] (whether the marketing say so or not 😉 ), rather than them being endurance [i]event bikes [/i]being used for that if you know what I mean?

I think you're right Chakaping, I've got an anecdote that backs up your assertion about B plus too, I'll expand when I have a little longer to type....

Either way I don't think manufacturers are taking the piss, I think they are paradoxically bound by the two issues of only being able to get away with incremental changes for fear of scaring people, but also only being able to market 'new/improved/radical' changes as a reason to change or upgrade.

just to name a few brands hitting that area.

This is obviously subjective, but in my eyes those bikes are all still way over into the 'proper MTB' rather than 'woodland bimbler' areas, despite how they might get used.

Perfect timing by PinkBike with a Giant Trance review

https://www.pinkbike.com/news/giant-trance-advanced-1-review-2017.html

On Enduro bikes the top racers seem to be moving towards bikes that are less usable for the 'normal' rider. This Enduro race season the bikes seem to have got longer and more are running coil shocks. They look more like DH bikes everyday.

Personally I think 29in wheels have made XC bikes much more versatile, so you can happily bimble or shred on the same machine - my Cotic Solaris being a great example.

Yes, although I think a fair degree of effort is actually going into building bikes "for MAMILs to trundle about on at weekends" as the primary purpose (whether the marketing say so or not ), rather than them being endurance event bikes being used for that if you know what I mean?

Well that's the thing, 'Enduro' is another marketing label now, just like 'Gravel' or 'Sportive' not everyone who buys an Enduro bike is actually an Enduro racer, the fella buying the bike two steps down the range with the same Geometry but an Aluminium Frame, NX Drive/brakes an X-fusion shock and no Dropper is still buying a [i]#Enduro[/i] bike, but one obviously pitched more towards everyday use and budgets.
The manufacturer will obviously call it something like [i]"Race ready"[/i] and doubtless point to the Carbon framed, Fox sprung, XTR covered bigger brother as being somehow the same thing but a bit lighter (and pricier)...

The other filter through is "Trail HT" type bikes, slacker, longer 29er/650B+ capable bikes which are very close in configuration to their FS Enduro Cousins minus the rear bounce and price tag...
Think Whyte 529, Bird Zero, that sort of thing, there's a definite #Enduro influence to bikes like those IMO, but they're not really being sold with the "Enduro" banner in the same way...

just to name a few brands hitting that area.

This is obviously subjective, but in my eyes those bikes are all still way over into the 'proper MTB' rather than 'woodland bimbler' areas, despite how they might get used.

They are proper MTBs I totally agree, but I would put that slap bang into that 'Sportive' MTB bikes that has been mentioned.

I see where you're coming from. Those bikes are to XC bikes what sportive bikes are to racing bikes, more relaxed, more comfy, less nervy.

Bikes like the new Spark or Fuel EX could be used for marathon XC or some of the enduro races I've done. Or stick some B+ wheels and tyres in and get bimbling.

I like this thread, definitely a cut above the normal bike bickering on here.

🙂

When I bought my an F.W.Evans ATB back in 1984 the only mountain bike rides in Britain were being run by Geoff Apps in Buckinghamshire. So I got a train out of London and took my bike along. It quickly became apparent that his Cleland bikes were much more capable than my Californian inspired 'Ritchey copy' when used in the very different and much wetter UK riding conditions.

In hindsight that was not surprising as Apps had taken his inspiration and geometry from motor-cross and trials motorbikes whilst the Californians had built their bikes based on the Geometry of US fat-tyre 'post boy' bikes, namely the 1930s Schwinn Excelsior which they chose primarily for its strength and durability.

33 years on and you still can't go to a bike shop and find a bicycle that handles mud as well as those early Cleland designs. It's not that these bikes were sophisticated just that the simple design solutions he used have been largely overlooked by mountain bike designers.
The one exception being his preference for large diameter wheels. However,the tyres he used were made in Finland and simply cost too much after being imported into America. Even though the American pioneers preferred the Finnish rubber to their homegrown 26" tyres, the 29" tyre project had to wait nearly 20 years before being revived.

Gary Fisher tells the story of The Geoff Apps origins of the 29er and 650b wheel size here:

I think you're missing the point with things like apps' bikes not being commercially successful.

They're not poorly performing, they may even be the perfect bike for what everybody does, but they're the worst bike for what most people want to do.

When you do your air handlebars down a particularly twisty bit of path are you Atherton or ambling?

People don't buy things because they're good at what they do, or we'd all be driving a metalic blue 90s Volvo, people buy self image and that's what manufactures have to sell to be commercially successful.

The comparison with "sportive" bikes says a lot, people who want to buy them will, by and large use them for riding they could likely do more comfortably and just as well on a sit up and beg shopper. They have an image of themselves doing fred wittons and the like but mostly they'll commute a short distance or do a pub/cafe ride at the weekend.

People who will ride sportives [want to] buy a race bike because "that's what wiggo rides" and they don't envisage themselves riding in the wiggle ride, they envisage riding the giro.

The difference on road is sportive bikes tend to come in cheaper than race bikes because, well, weight, and people can't bring themselves to spend 4k on the race bike they want. Likewise I'd wager price not practicality is the major factor for most hardtail sales (look at how many fs BSOs you see).

Of course the genuine enthusiast market, such as stw, is likely to know what suits what they do (even if we don't buy that) but we make up a fraction of sales so, as long as the folks on tv keep riding pinarellos and the mags keep saying longer slacker wider, that's what manufacturers will continue to make, even if it comes to the point of producing terrible product because they fulfill demand not create it.

There are of course pockets of people in all walks of life who are happy to be a bimbler, but for most of us it's at least subconsciously the domain of our dad and not something we'd aspire to do.

Practical is what you buy when you can't afford aspiration so expensive and practical don't mix.

apps' bikes not being commercially successful.

There's a bit of complexity to why that is though isn't there, a mix of historical circumstance, commercial constrains, some individual decisions and a lack of marketing, things could have been very different and off-road riding in the UK could have taken a very different path, it's not that they couldn't have been commercially successful, its that when standing at that particular fork in the trail in blustered MTBs with all the right noises, money, backing and a pre-existing coolness just at the right time and nobbled roughstuff and offroad trials right there and then.

so, as long as the folks on tv keep riding pinarellos and the mags keep saying longer slacker wider, that's what manufacturers will continue to make, even if it comes to the point of producing terrible product because they fulfill demand not create it.

That's the crux of it, and that's where I hope we don't ever end up, products being made simply because they will sell as it's 'the latest thing' rather that actually being excellent at what they do. Fortunately right now most of the stuff that sells well is also really rather good, even it not 100% [i]ideal[/i] for the riding people are actually doing.

Practical is what you buy when you can't afford aspiration so expensive and practical don't mix.

I would disagree with this a bit, there are some very expensive and very practical bikes out there that would never be used in a race, so aren't in the aspirational copycat category. Proof of that is the fact you can buy numerous comfort/endurance/sportivey road bikes well below the UCI weight limit and with more di2, Ti and Carbon than you can shake a seatpost at, both practical and high performance and NOT copycat race replicas, nor trying to be a one, a category all alone, I think similarities with MTB 'trail' bikes are valid.

Not copycat at that end you're right but I'd argue (wrongly probably) that those bikes sell exactly because they're aspirational not practical. People buying a 3oz cannondale aren't doing so because it's comfy [they maybe but I'm assuming they're horrible to ride] they're buying it because it's the best*. Equally they're buying a full di2 with adaptive cruise control (which would be pretty useful) because it's the dog's danglies not because di2 is better suited to their riding, even though it might be. The practicality of these machines is distant a second in much the same way a Porsche macan might be an incredibly practical car but people buy them because they're a Porsche.

@ dangeourbrain
"Practical is what you buy when you can't afford aspiration so expensive and practical don't mix".

I believe that the very reason that mountain bikes were phenomenally successful in Britain in the 80s & 90s was because they challenged the earlier popular assumption that most people only cycled because they could not afford a car or motorbike.

Homemade 'Tracker' off-road bicycles had existed in Britain since the 1950s but they were cheap and broke easily. Attempts to produce manufactured versions of these bikes also focused on low price and quality, the most famous variant being the 1981 Raleigh Bomber. The first mountain bikes by comparison cost four to eight times the price and were well engineered and capable of withstanding a lot more abuse.

Mountain bikes also looked distinctive to existing bikes and once they became generally regarded as expensive and new, they also became desirable and fashionable. Like Range Rover drivers most mountain bike owners had little intention of riding seriously off-road, it was the potential for adventure that sold them.

I however with my shiny new 1984 F.W.Evans ATB had the indignity of struggling to keep up with the Clelands and the added humiliation of having to stop every few hundred yards in order to poke out the mud where it was jamming the wheels or run down the hills because mud covered cantilever rim brakes don't work well.

As for the Clelands speeds I remember them as being relatively fast and not slow. Though as with MTBs in general you would get some riders who would like to ride fast and others that took their time.

If you do want to ride downhill quickly on a Cleland I recommend dropping the seat out of the way and then standing up 'on the pegs', knees slightly bent to absorb shocks and your weight to the back in the style of motor-cross rider.

I however with my shiny new 1984

I think in 1984 i may have been about old enough to have had a shinny new potty so i don't think i can render an opinion 😉

@dangeourbrain

I like to think that the people you describe are a vanishingly small minority, but you might be quite close to the truth there for a lot of them 🙁

I believe that the very reason that mountain bikes were phenomenally successful in Britain in the 80s & 90s

I think it was because they had triple chainsets. Your average cheapo road bike that was seen as an 'adult' bike was made to look like racing bikes on the telly (we called them racers) and they had 39/25 for their lowest gear on 700c. So most hills round town were quite hard work. MTBs made them rather easier and were comfier to ride too 🙂