Thanks 5lab but I'm in Norway so not really practical.
I've decided that once these forks go I'm hanging it on the wall (or I'm going to put 200mm dual crown forks on and pretend it's a DH bike).
I've decided to take matters into my own hands and start making my own frames out of plywood from now on. Take that bike industry!
Does anyone who is moaning about this:
A: Work in manufacturing
B: Work in import/export
?
I do both. It’s not the top-end pricing that bothers me because that happens in every single market sector - there’s always crazy expensive options if you look hard enough. But costs are going through the roof so affordable stuff will have to get more expensive (and it already has).
And I can’t see it getting any better as climate change screws up more and more things.
I remember in the mid to late night 90s a Cannondale Super-V DH was £3k. The media were so dumbfounded by this that it was “news” when Bill Gates bought one.
Fairly sure these were 4k. I remember because as a spotty teenager there was one in Hardisty cycles and it was burned into my brain as 'the most expensive bike I've ever seen'.
It was just like this...
I wouldn't thank you for one these days.
Once my current fork packs in the frame is essentially useless
RSF suspension can replace the tapered steerer of a new fork with a straight 11/8” one, I think.
But costs are going through the roof so affordable stuff will have to get more expensive (and it already has).
And I can’t see it getting any better as climate change screws up more and more things.
I think in a weird way this could be a good thing.
If the price of new bikes goes up then the pressure from consumers for parts to repair their older mountain bikes might force manufactures to provide parts (of course, those parts will be more expensive but hey ho).
Like I said, what makes mountain bikes so expensive is that they are essentially throw away items once the standards move on. Hopefully manufacturers will start to take maintenance and repair-ability more seriously going forward.
RSF suspension can replace the tapered steerer of a new fork with a straight 11/8” one, I think.
That's interesting. So I could get a new fork and replace the 1 1/8"- 1.5" with a straight steerer?
I mean, I will still bitch and moan about having to replace my 20mm hub with a 15mm hub but it sounds alright.
Depending on the price, of course.
A bike only becomes a "throw away item" if and when more modern bikes are noticeably improved, and/or a major part dies on it which costs so much to replace that the "might as well get a whole bike" factor kicks in.
A bike only becomes a “throw away item” if and when more modern bikes are noticeably improved, and/or a major part dies on it which costs so much to replace that the “might as well get a whole bike” factor kicks in.
I don't buy the noticeably improved performance thing, tbh. Full suspension bikes made since the mid-00s are still fine from a performance point of view (by that I mean there haven't really been any massive step changes since they figured out how to make 160mm travel bikes pedal up hill).
The question is, if I by a bike today, how long is it likely to be before a key part becomes obsolete.
This is a problem that seems to be unique to bikes or at least nothing else springs to mind.
You can buy an MTB for £400 or you can buy an MTB for £15k. They are both MTBs.
This
I managed to get out on the bike yesterday, 17 miles and the bike cost me 700 quid. Would I have been better off with a 10k "enduro weapon" - no, but it's all just the right tools for the job and how much you're willing to spend. The companies must have a market for 10k bikes or they wouldn't make them. Does seem a bit daft to pay that much if you're a weekend cyclist only going to bike parks, but that's just me.
You can pay 700 quid for a motorbike and it might not be a brand new Ducati but you'll probably have the same amount of fun.
The only time i've thrown bike parts away are due to breakages or wear, but i still keep them and try and reuse them, such as the XT mech i snapped in half off a rock, i've stripped it down, have the cage, jockey wheels, clutch and several other parts, same with cassettes and so on, repurpose them now and again. Only frame i threw away was a steel one that got wrecked, was a custom one as well :o(
I've just replaced my Santa Cruz TallBoy 2 with a new bike. I originally bought a TallBoy 1 in 2010, which got warrantied with a V2 and I rode this bike till this year. There is nothing on that bike I can't replace, supply issues aside.
Yes I can't buy a brand new set of wheels off the shelf due to the frame being 142 rather than 148 boost, but I have DT240 hubs on there which are still running perfectly fine 12000km later. I was running SRAM 12 speed on that bike with no issues. The standards movement only matter if you have to have the latest and greatest.
I decided that the more modern bikes have moved enough in terms of geometry and design to justify an upgrade, and see my new bike being used for a long time too. I don't foresee any issues with parts or major standards change for long enough that it is irrelevant.
On prices, you can see all the millionaire company owners of bike brands driving Ferraris or Lamborghinis from the thousands in profit they make from each bike? The economics of this is more complicated that.
The question is, if I by a bike today, how long is it likely to be before a key part becomes obsolete.
What do you mean by obsolete? Everything will be replaceable and/or reparable for at least 10 years, more likely 20 plus. There will be new stuff coming along as well, which might not fit your old bike... frustrating, but not something that puts your bike out of use.
I decided that the more modern bikes have moved enough in terms of geometry and design to justify an upgrade,
Although before those geometry and design changes you were happy on the bike you had. Unless you are racing other people with the most modern bikes (as a career and need to be competetive) then why not just ride/repair/maintain an existing bike.
The standards movement only matter if you have to have the latest and greatest.
No, the standards movement only matters if a key part breaks and no replacements are available (or are so expensive it makes more sense to just buy an entirely new bike).
“ I don’t buy the noticeably improved performance thing, tbh.”
Why does it feel like this is the opinion of someone who hasn’t ridden any recent bikes?
I’d rather ride a 29” hardtail with modern geometry and a good fork on anything from long XC rides to steep rough difficult descents than your old full-sus.
Why does it feel like this is the opinion of someone who hasn’t ridden any recent bikes?
+1
Or doesn't ride the trails I do.
What do you mean by obsolete?
Like my Mk1 Nomad.
It does look as though I can buy a modern fork and replace the steerer but the question is will it be worth it?
I'll have to buy a new fork and pay half the price of the fork again replace the steerer (and almost certainly void any warranty in the process).
I'll also have to buy a new hub. I could get away with sticking with 26" rims, I guess, but with tyre availability it might make more sense to just change rims and tyres as well.
Very quickly it becomes uneconomical to replace even doing the work yourself. If you rely on a bike shop then it doesn't take much for it to make more sense to just buy a new bike.
What happens if I do all that and suddenly one of the 102 bearing seats in the frame has been damaged?
On that subject, I think Starling makes frames that, to me at least, are designed to last for at least 20 years. If you look at how the suspension is designed with BMX parts for the pivots it seems like Joe put a lot of thought into making a system that will be economical to repair for as long as possible.
He is one of the few manufacturers that seems to have put much thought into the fact that people will still want to ride his bikes in 20 years.
I’d rather ride a 29” hardtail with modern geometry and a good fork on anything from long XC rides to steep rough difficult descents than your old full-sus.
So would I.
However, I'd also like to avoid doing my part to destroy the planet so if it's OK with you I'll keep riding my 'old' full-sus for as long as possible before I buy an new 29er to improve my strava time by 3%.
On my old full-sus I've ridden Fort William DH course and I've taken it on all day epics. Believe me, it's good enough.
Incidentally, my girlfriend's bike is a 2018 Giant Trance. I ride that whenever I get the chance. Maybe there has been a quantum leap in geometry since then, I don't know.
Or doesn’t ride the trails I do.
I keep forgetting that STW is the home of epic trail shredders. I need to be mindful of the sheer technicality of the trails you guys ride and how if you tried to ride them on anything built earlier than 2018 the bike would literally explode.
“ However, I’d also like to avoid doing my part to destroy the planet so if it’s OK with you I’ll keep riding my ‘old’ full-sus for as long as possible before I buy an new 29er to improve my strava time by 3%.”
This is an entirely different discussion. But the reality is that you can get a steel hardtail now that will last longer and have less impact on the environment over its lifespan than a carbon full-sus from a decade ago, cost less and be just as capable.
But obviously you can’t moan about that.
It all just boils down to consumerism and having to have the shiny new thing as it is so much better and your life will be ruined without it.
As I said, if the newly developed bike with different geometry never existed you would still be happily riding your old bike, so why not just ride the old bike and be happy with it?
This is an entirely different discussion. But the reality is that you can get a steel hardtail now that will last longer and have less impact on the environment over its lifespan than a carbon full-sus from a decade ago, cost less and be just as capable
Sure you can, but you can also get a 15K carbon full suspension that is going to be landfill in a decade because it wasn't designed with longevity in mind.
Like I said, Starling seem to be making frames with a view to long term serviceability. I don't see many other manufacturers doing that and to me that is what makes these frames expensive. It's not the up front price you pay but how long it is going to last.
It all just boils down to consumerism and having to have the shiny new thing as it is so much better and your life will be ruined without it.
This is what I find crazy. There are people here telling me, 'Oh, you couldn't ride the trails I ride on your "old" full suspension bike.'
I think people have a truly warped view of just how much gnar they are actually shredding.
I don’t buy the noticeably improved performance thing, tbh. Full suspension bikes made since the mid-00s are still fine from a performance point of view
I bought a bike of this vintage for a 'fun race' we did as a group. It was originally a £2k FS Trek. Its fair to say compared to a modern bike, its an absolute POS.
Was this topic not covered by Pinkbike recently? I though relatively bikes arn't any more expensive than they have been?
I bought a bike of this vintage for a ‘fun race’ we did as a group. It was originally a £2k FS Trek. Its fair to say compared to a modern bike, its an absolute POS.
You mean the charity shop bike you bought with original shock, fork, drivetrain, unbled brakes, 650mm handlebars, 100 mm stem, no dropper post, and age hardened tyres didn't perform well compared to a brand new bike?
Shocker.
RSF suspension can replace the tapered steerer of a new fork with a straight 11/8” one, I think.
That’s interesting. So I could get a new fork and replace the 1 1/8″- 1.5″ with a straight steerer?
I mean, I will still bitch and moan about having to replace my 20mm hub with a 15mm hub but it sounds alright.
Depending on the price, of course.
Yes Dave does that! Its a 1 man band (atm) though. Not sure on price either, but a fair few photos of him doing it on his FB page.
“ This is what I find crazy. There are people here telling me, ‘Oh, you couldn’t ride the trails I ride on your “old” full suspension bike.’”
I haven’t seen anyone saying that - it just sounds like your inner paranoia speaking. Modern bikes are easier to ride down (and often up) more technical trails, especially if you want to go faster. Doesn’t mean you can’t ride them on older bikes.
I’ve recently been coming to the conclusion that new bikes are almost too fast downhill for my meagre skill so maybe I’m safer on a gnarly hardtail whose lack of rear suspension makes it go slower but feel faster, paired with geometry that doesn’t try to throw you over the bars when you make a slight mistake.
I haven’t seen anyone saying that – it just sounds like your inner paranoia speaking.
Really? Read intheborders post immediately below yours.
+1
Or doesn’t ride the trails I do.
So sure, possibly hyperbole on my part to say people are telling me I can't ride the trails they do but the implication is certainly that if I rode the gnarly stuff he did I wouldn't be saying a Mk1 Nomad was good enough.
I think that's just someone who hasn't ridden a maintained and updated* mid-00s bike.
*On mine I'm on to my third shock and 2nd set of forks (3rd if you count the forks that are now on my Dialled Alpine). I replaced the 680mm bars and 100mm stem with 760mm bars and 50mm stem. Running a 1x drivetrain. The brakes are original but I've stripped the caliper down a few times so they feel like new.
My dad used to run his own car tuning business. He told me people thought he was doing performance tuning whereas he said that all he was doing getting the performance back to what it was when the car left the factory.
Absolutely, modern bikes are easier to ride. However, I think the step change in mountain biking came with the Nomad and other long travel bikes that could be ridden up hill. I also believe people who think the performance difference is night and day just haven't ridden well maintained bikes from that period.
"So sure, possibly hyperbole on my part to say people are telling me I can’t ride the trails they do but the implication is certainly that if I rode the gnarly stuff he did I wouldn’t be saying a Mk1 Nomad was good enough."
Is he saying that? Or is he saying that he feels comfier on a more modern bike on the more gnarly trails he rides?
I've had some bad crashes in the past, two of which have caused permanent physical dysfunction and one of which almost paralysed me from the neck down. In light of how badly wrong things can go when mountain biking, I'd prefer to ride a bike which gives me a greater margin of error and is less likely to send me over the bars when I make a mistake or the trail throws up a surprise. My hardtail is coming round to six years old so it's not exactly brand new (and has old-fangled non-boost hubs)
"However, I think the step change in mountain biking came with the Nomad and other long travel bikes that could be ridden up hill. I also believe people who think the performance difference is night and day just haven’t ridden well maintained bikes from that period."
I don't think there's been one single step change but I do agree that the companies that worked out how to use anti-squat to good effect whilst also getting leverage rates correct transformed longer travel bikes into much more versatile machines. Wasn't the original Nomad designed to take on pretty gnarly riding and hence had fairly progressive geometry? How would a more typical trail bike from then compare to now?
How would a more typical trail bike from then compare to now?
It would be near twice the price...
Wasn’t the original Nomad designed to take on pretty gnarly riding and hence had fairly progressive geometry? How would a more typical trail bike from then compare to now?
I really don't know about more 'typical' trail bikes from that period but that's why I consider the Nomad and others like it to be a step change in mountain biking.
To me the change was having a bike that could handle Fort William and do epic cross country rides as well. Prior to that having the same bike for both would have seemed impossible/highly inadvisable.
I got curious about what other bikes would have been in this class and found this round up (I forgot that 160mm trail bikes were called all-mountain bikes back in 2005).
Of course, none of these bikes would have been considered cheap or even moderately priced.
Edit: found this thread from a few years ago:
I think this quote sums up this period and this class of bike pretty well.
It was easy to get wrong, and cost a lot to get right.
Just had a look at some pricing and it seems a XTR equipped Orange 5 has more than doubled in price since 2009.
http://archive.orangebikes.co.uk/bike/2009/five_se/
ORANGEBIKES.COM Prices seemed to stay reasonably sensible up until around Brexit but then shot up and have continued to climb. I'm sure there are a whole bunch of reasons.
Slick snd slide in Macclesfield did a steerer swap for me a few weeks ago it was about £130. That was a straight swop not for a different size
In that list of best bikes from 2005, I had the Specialized S-Works Enduro.
Full XTR and other top notch components, cost £3600.
While it was totally capable of up/down it was also too tall and too short. The frame got sold a couple of years later - replaced, by an original 456Ti (which I've still got).
Just had a look at some pricing and it seems a XTR equipped Orange 5 has more than doubled in price since 2009.
in 2008* (when all the stuff was ordered) it was nearly 2 USD (which every overseas component, and the raw materials of the frame will be priced in) to the pound, compared to 1.30something now.
11 years of a few percent annual inflation also comes to 35 to 40% increase.
Combine those 2 things, and add a dropper post, and you are pretty much doubling the price
*2009 was the big drop, to roughly todays levels. did everyone complain about price hikes a decade ago?
“ *2009 was the big drop, to roughly todays levels. did everyone complain about price hikes a decade ago?”
Price hikes happened more slowly because currency hedging through forwards and options will have protected some of the importers from sterling’s massive drop vs the dollar (and you can’t raise your prices tons if others aren’t because you’ll end up earning per unit on too few units, and then have to sell them cheap anyway when they’re old).
The fall in cable (GBP:USD) is always underestimated when people talk about price rises here.
All the time people are willing to pay, prices will keep going up.
“ All the time people are willing to pay, prices will keep going up.”
Except that’s not how economics work. Competitors will always arise selling on lower prices to gain more sales, if lower prices are possible.
This is what I find crazy. There are people here telling me, ‘Oh, you couldn’t ride the trails I ride on your “old” full suspension bike.’
we’re people saying that? unless i’ve got my lines crossed you said that you didn’t buy the performance improvements on new bikes. in response to this a couple of folk said that they are better, one clarifying that it was certainly better in the trails he (she?) rides. you seem to be looking for an argument by putting words into peoples’ mouths.
i have 2 mountain bikes. one is 2 years old/on its 3rd summer(well the frame and forks are the rest of it is older) and one that is about 8 years old. the newer one climbs better, turns better, descends better. actually, the only thing the old one does better is wheelie.
but 15 thousand pounds for a bike is crazy. i also think that it’s questionable to be building bicycles (or perhaps anything, i genuinely don’t know) out of carbon fibre.
we’re people saying that?
I said it when someone said something along the lines of 'sounds like someone who hasn't ridden a modern bike' (I have and do) to which someone else said, '+1 Or doesn't ride the trails I ride.' (I can't say for sure but I'm 90% certain I have done and still do).
There probably was some miscommunication with people thinking I meant you could take 'any' full suspension bike from the mid-00s onwards and it would handle modern trails. I probably wasn't clear.
Round about the mid-00s manufacturers started to crack the code in how to make a 160mm travel bike that could still be pedaled up hill. There were still a great many who tried but failed.
Nowadays it's pretty unusual for manufacturers to get it wrong so if you take the 'average' 160mm trail bike from the 00s and compare it to today's bikes then yes, it's night and day.
However, if you take a bike from the mid-00s where they got it right, and you keep it in good condition, then it will still handle any trail you throw at it today.
My original point (made way back in the mists of time) was that when you look at the price of a bike you have to consider what it's working life is going to be. None of the early long travel trail bikes where they actually got it right were cheap. In fact, many of the ones where they didn't get it right weren't cheap. 3.5K to 4K is probably what you were looking at to have a bike that is still usable on today's trails.
So the question of whether 15K is too much for a bike kind of depends on whether this bike is an evolutionary leap and whether it will still be seen as a viable bike in 20 years.
Personally, I don't think this 15K Pivot will be. It's a nice bike but I don't see anything revolutionary or anything that's likely to be future proof.
The two brands at the moment who I wouldn't mind shelling out big bucks for (although maybe not 15K) are Nicolai and Starling but for different reasons.
Nicolai because you can do stuff like this:
NSMB.COM To me this is an evolutionary step. It's pretty much a full downhill bike that can be pedaled up hill although if trails evolve to the point where you need one of these I'm going to take up golf.
Starling seems to have been designed with a view towards longevity with the pivot design made from easily sourceable parts and the design that minimises the number of parts that can break or wear out. It's a bike that you can be fairly certain will still be easy to keep running for decades.
So am I looking for an argument? Probably, isn't that what we do here?
My issue with the £15.6k Pivot (apart from that it’s significantly cheaper in the US) and the other mega money range toppers from the big guns is that all the parts on it, while nice and top of the range, are all from mass market (relatively speaking) companies that produce 1000s of those things, so as nice as everything is, it just doesn’t seem intangibly ‘special’.
(The following isn’t meant to be a brag, but will come across as such, so stop reading if you are offended by such things)
I’ve built a few 5 figure bikes, around the same as the afore mentioned range toppers, and a lot of the parts are from small, niche manufacturers who produce very nice things in very small quantities, or straight up custom one offs. You won’t likely see another with the same spec, let alone a warehouse full of identical bikes. I get that not everyone wants that, especially folk new to bikes with a wheelbarrow full of cash, but still, guess thats down to you pays your money, you make a choice.
Another advantage of the ‘buy things that are made by the thousand’ is that you don’t have to wait for 2 years for stuff to be made I suppose 🤷♂️
There are people here telling me, ‘Oh, you couldn’t ride the trails I ride on your “old” full suspension bike.’
Well, there are people who can ride stuff on unicycles that I couldn't ride on any bike. A good rider on a 20 year old XC bike will still be able to ride some very difficult stuff very quickly, but that doesn't mean a modern enduro style bike isn't much more capable.
a lot of the parts are from small, niche manufacturers who produce very nice things in very small quantities, or straight up custom one offs. You won’t likely see another with the same spec, let alone a warehouse full of identical bikes.
1. I don't understand why anybody cares about this. If the bike works, ride it and worry about things that matter.
2. I doubt anyone else on earth has a bike with the same spec as this, even though the frame and parts are all high-volume stuff.
I said it when someone said something along the lines of ‘sounds like someone who hasn’t ridden a modern bike’ (I have and do) to which someone else said, ‘+1 Or doesn’t ride the trails I ride.’ (I can’t say for sure but I’m 90% certain I have done and still do).
Sure I could get down the likes of Gold Run or Date Night at Inners on my old bikes, but it wasn't fast, particularly comfortable nor pretty. I can though ride my modern 120mm FS down them, happily chasing faster friends. And based on last week, these trails are certainly rougher than the 'old days'.
I don’t understand why anybody cares about this.
I prefer to contribute to someone’s passion/livelihood, rather than a balance sheet.
