[Closed] When did mountain bike technology reach its peak?

How much difference is there between a bike from 2000 compared to 2010?

There's light years of difference.

Technology peaks an infinitesimal amount of time before the end of the universe.

HTH.

Well in 1885 Daimler put an engine in a bike, arguably we've just been a slow luddite niche ever since.

some progress is not as good as the older stuff matey.

I've got a 1999 full suss and a 2009 full suss, amongst many others.
The newer bike is definately faster but in some respects the 1999 is better, eg SqTpr BBs are much better than these pres-fit thingys.

Just after both wheels became the same size.

More use of carbon and stronger components. Stronger/Lighter essentially. But not that much (if you look at XTR) it hasn't got lighter really, just stiffer. Disc brakes are way better than they were 10 years ago, and a lot cheaper.

I'd say the main innovations are the forks and rear shocks. Suspension design is better in the mainstream with links that actually work. But designs like the 4 bar i.e. Turner (old 4 bar type) - the Horst link and the type on the Specilized are still running today. Patents etc and an existing working design made other companies innovate i.e. the DW link.

Bikes are better now, but mainly due to the works of RockShox and Fox, my bike would feel pretty much the same with 10 year old components, but change the suspension and it wouldn't ride as well as it does.

some progress is not as good as the older stuff matey.

Not progress then is it 😉

It hasn't reached it's peak yet!

Peak? Well that was sometime in 2123.

[img] [/img]

The very apex, IMO.

Square taper is fine, untill it snaps/bends or the cranks snap, or it wears out after about 12 months........

Costs £25 for SKF bearings to press into hollowtech cups, about the same as UN73 BB's, and IME last longer.

It peaked when the word colour or its plural were replaced with the altogether betterer "colourway".

Peaked was the wrong word 😉 Progression slowed.

There's a fair amount more marketing shite about these days and apparently even more mugs to hoover it up.

MTB "technology" such as it is hasn't moved a billion miles since the 90s..

cookeaa - Member

There's a fair amount more marketing shite about these days and apparently even more mugs to hoover it up.

MTB "technology" such as it is hasn't moved a billion miles since the 90s.

With all respect, that simply isn't true.

I also think that progression is slow - but there is some, in the main suspension forks and rear shocks are improving, look at the length of travel and weight for the relative prices

the next big leap is about to start tho - durable electronics in gears (transferring over from shimano Di2) and also the cannondale stuff in the suspension brain thingy

I'm gonna say that 29er isn't progress per se just different options, and not sure about hammerschmidt either, it's a posh sturmey archer in the BB

The biggest improvement has been the gradual evolution in bike geometry, coupled to improvements in suspension and lighter stronger "stuff" in general.

There is no doubt in my mind that stuff does not last as well as it used to - old mechs and bearings just lasted for ever. I am putting a 20 yr old multi thousand mile lx front mech on my bike as it is much superior to a more recent one that is on it

Modern suspension is so much better tho

[i]How much difference is there between a bike from 2000 compared to 2010?[/i]

Depends on what you count as difference, and what type of bike. I think there have been big changes in all mountain/trail bikes, but ones with more specific uses are much the same.
I've got a 2001 santa cruz superlight, 9 years on, the latest frame is a bit stiffer, and you can get stiffer forks, cranks and a slightly slicker gear change, but apart from that, the same bike with 10 years newer technology will still give pretty much identical performance for its intended task.
Ditto a SS inbred.

In the last ten years? Full suss is the biggie here as far as I'm concerned. Full suss bike have moved from wallowy, soft, energy spapping armchairs to lightweight, nippy, race machines that can climb as well as they can descend.

Componentry has moved on loads too. Disk brakes have moved from being a bit crap to pretty much standard (and a high standard), right across the board. Gearing devices are massively lighter and better than ten years ago. A modern bike with deore on now is up there with XTR from ten years ago, easy.

Hang on, we're talking 10 years not 15.

15 years ago elastomer forks with 2" travel were cutting edge, rear sus didn't work and no one ran discs.

10 years ago you could get a working full suss bikes with disc brakes weighing 24lbs which climbed pretty well and had 4" travel at each end.

Since then increased travel, but with retained stiffness seems to have been the biggest advance.

technology hasn't peaked.
The rate of change of development has certainy slowed.

For technology to have peaked, everything new out would have to be worse than the previous incarnation...

The main advance from 10 years ago is that super lightweight parts now DON'T break on the first ride.

The orange Z1's were more reliable given no maintenance than Fox forks of today.
Specialized FSR bikes rode well and still do.
Hope Minis worked fine, they still do.
Singlespeed steel bikes rode the same as today generally.

I remember when you could ride a bike for nigh on ten years plus without ever servicing any parts, I never oiled the chains even once, greased any bearing or cables, never even changed any brake pads.......yet now...

Is this progress one has to ask?

There have been no breakthroughs in the past 10 years at the level of disk brakes or suspension, it's rather that these innovations have been refined and made to work well and reliably.

In 2000 it was probably possible to buy a FS design that flat out sucked. I don't mean a Halfords special, but something from a reputable firm that just wasn't designed very well. You don't see this now AFAICT. Everyone seems to have worked out the basics of rear suspension (by trial and error) such that they all perform at least adequately.

I had a set of coda disk brakes in 2000 that could have been the subject of a class action lawsuit - dangerously unreliable. Nowadays you can get good disks even on a 3 - 400 quid bike.

+1 agree with TJ; suspension has become much more sophisticated= more bits to go wrong and very difficult to service?, (remeember RS Judy forks with elastomers?) and lighter but componenets have become less durable, and much less home serviceable (eg wheels with normal spokes, ball bearing cups etc).

Gear shifters too have made huge leaps fwd, from thumb shifters and down tube shifters to teh rapidfires etc (btw IMHO a huge step fwd with XTR shifters now with multi chage and dual action).

Bikes might have progressed but how come I'm slower?

Tyre compounds, but that is more likely down to the motoring industry pushing that forward.

The use of ceramics didn't seem to last long either, where are the carbon ceramic discs?

deore on now is up there with XTR from ten years ago, easy.

Tell me you're not serious Jon? This

[img] [/img]

is as good as (better!?!) than this?

[img] [/img]

That's more than 10 years old, Sam - more like 15.

10 year old XTR is m950 (released 1996 IIRC). Other than the lack of discs, it was better than current Deore - certainly in terms of durability - I'm still using my M950 rear mech - and I'm pretty sure in terms of weight too.

[img] [/img]

Biggest improvements? better geometry for all round riding (5" hardtails for a start) and for the XC racer types, lighter but still reasonably durable products. Also, low end stuff nowadays is MUCH better than it was 10 years ago - particularly suspension, brakes and transmission.

How much difference is there between a bike from 2000 compared to 2010?

Depends on what you count as difference, and what type of bike. I think there have been big changes in all mountain/trail bikes, but ones with more specific uses are much the same.
I've got a 2001 santa cruz superlight, 9 years on, the latest frame is a bit stiffer, and you can get stiffer forks, cranks and a slightly slicker gear change, but apart from that, the same bike with 10 years newer technology will still give pretty much identical performance for its intended task.
Ditto a SS inbred.

When compared to bikes from 1990 and 2000?

10 years ago you could get a working full suss bikes with disc brakes weighing 24lbs which climbed pretty well and had 4" travel at each end

What fits that bill? I had a 2001 S-Works FSR, v-brakes, old SIDs, full XTR etc, pedalled like sh1t and weighed about 26lbs.

Extralite? Great while they worked (then the shock blew and the frame snapped 🙂 )

I think the focus is now on performance (in terms of weight, stiffness, damping on suspension etc) rather than durability or easy of servicing.

So in that sense modern bottom brackets or suspension forks are better, but the downside is modern bits don't seem to last very long.

Old marzocchis for instance were great for servicing at home. You could do everything, even change an individual stanchion or the bushings. V-brakes were rubbish but very easy to maintain (no stuck or damaged pistons that are difficult to remove). 8 speed stuff was a lot more resistant to poor cables, and square taper BB's whilst flexy, lasted for ages.

This is why i use an98 year old bike with 8 speed shimano sora and square taper BB for commuting, but my mountain bike has all the latest kit.

Extralite? Great while they worked

No they weren't! They were awful flexy, bobby things!

njee; Tracers, Santa Cruz, Marins?

Am I really the only person to get as long/longer out of HT2 than square taper?

I think the biggest progression has been in riders expectations. 10 years ago we didn't have the mountainbike DVD and a big huck was a couple of feet. What would have made you a cover star on MBUK 10-15 years ago is now considdered 'average'.

Take the Mega, its many times longer than a 90's DH race, many times more technical, and has many times more participants (DH used to be race 2 or 4-up IIRC?) and is raced on trail bikes, not DH one off with 60tooth chainrings.

Gearing devices are massively lighter and better than ten years ago.

Not a chance, none of them did a 24lb bike that worked. If nothing else, shocks were crap, so single pivots were awful, so SC and Marin are out, Intense were overbuilt Specialized.

njee20 - Member

10 years ago you could get a working full suss bikes with disc brakes weighing 24lbs which climbed pretty well and had 4" travel at each end

What fits that bill? I had a 2001 S-Works FSR, v-brakes, old SIDs, full XTR etc, pedalled like sh1t and weighed about 26lbs.

If you swapped that frame for a Turner XCE, ligter tyres maybe and wheels you'd be getting towards 24lbs (although i would say a little over with 10 year old disc brakes) But from memoey they rode pretty well. I'd say it could be done, my old litepeed was 22lbs back in the day. Still got the frame, a 99 Tellico, still awesome.

njee20. What do you meant by them not working?

That Intense is still my main ride, so I'm now worried about my shock! 😉

And my riding mate is still on his Mount Vision from the 90's!

Ride a modern FS bike, 'climbs well' is very subjective! I assure you that there's a day and night difference between 10 year old and current bikes.

Alex there weren't really lighter tyres, my S-Works had Hugi hubs, DT Comps and X517s, but light MTB tyres didn't appear really until the Conti Explorer Supersonic in about 2003, I used to use Spesh Team Control/Master, which were c500g. I think the advances came a couple of years later, by 2003 you could do a 24lb FS disc brake bike I reckon, M960 discs and what not.

njee20 - Member

Ride a modern FS bike, 'climbs well' is very subjective! I assure you that there's a day and night difference between 10 year old and current bikes

That sounds like something that someone that works in a bike shop might say! 😆

Not a chance, none of them did a 24lb bike that worked. If nothing else, shocks were crap, so single pivots were awful, so SC and Marin are out, Intense were overbuilt Specialized.

No, its something that someone who's ridden both says. As Marc rides a 10 year old FS bike he's clearly looking at it through Rose-tinted glasses! It's easy to say that what you have is better than something you've never tried!

Fair enough Chris, opinion is divided on modern designs, so it stands to reason that we'd disagree on older designs too. FWIW, I couldn't ride a Scott because I don't like how they ride, never got on with the Spark, although clearly plenty of people do. Like I said, it's very subjective. Certainly older designs rewarded a smooth pedalling action.

njee20 - Member
If nothing else, shocks were crap

can't really agree with you there..
Shocks weren't crap 10 years ago, your average rider just had even less of a clue about suspension back then.
I was riding custom shimmed Fox RC shocks 10years ago and TBH they performed as well as (possibly better than) all but the very best performing (CCDB/Bos etc.) shocks do today.
the main advance in shock/fork technology has come from the understanding of the importance of quality compression damping IMO.

I wasn't saying my bikes better than what I could buy today. Just that it's 10 years old and works; which related to the posts saying that bikes of that age didn't.

That's comparing it to the climbing ability of the hardtail it replaced.

and there is sod all difference in weight or geometry between a ten year old Titus racer-x and one you buy today, and only 12mm difference in rear travel. I've ridden a few bikes myself njee20 and i'd say the diferences are small, and certainly not 'night and day'as you suggest.

The Rocky Mountain ETSX climbs very well, and that must be getting on for 10 years old.

You find it hard to agree with people sometimes i've noticed njee20.

There's light years of difference.

Ha ha! 'Light years'?? 😆 Utter nonsense!

There's a fair amount more marketing shite about these days and apparently even more mugs to hoover it up.

MTB "technology" such as it is hasn't moved a billion miles since the 90s..

This, however, is true.

Most 'MTB' technology is in fact motorbike technology scaled down to suit a pedal bicycle. Suspension designs aren't exactly rocket science! It's just about fine-tuning stuff to work well for a lightweight pedal vehicle, so hardly 'light years of difference'! 😀

My personal observation of the 'evolution' of cycle technology, is that parts wear out quicker now, which supports the 'marketing shite' comment above. Stuff is made to last only until the next flashy bit of kit is available. Truth is, there was nowt wrong with square taper BBs for the vast majority of riders, the industry just wanted something new to sell us. HT2 type stuff doesn't seem to be a particularly good evolution from SqT. I've had SqT BBs last me 10 years or more...

How I judge things is by my level of enjoyment I get from MTBing. TBH, that's not 'improved' over the years, along with technology. In fact I often think I'd be quite happy with XT thumbshifters, over the 'cost loads use it for 18 months chuck it away' overpriced tat we now have to endure.

V-brakes were a significant development in [i]pedal cycle[/i] technology. As perhaps was indexed shifting, and clipless/SPD pedals (refinement of ski-boot tech). Suspension systems have been tweaked to be more efficient.

The rest is simply marketing bull to get us to spend money.

Oh look, it works...

the MV had pretty conventional modern geometry - not much different to similar travel "race" bikes of today

Errrrr, marin had BB's so high you needed a pilots licence. Remember they tried to sell 'alpine links' which lowered/slackened the bikes making them simply higher than everything else rather than clown bike levels of tall-ness.

Take the cannondale prophet, everyone dismessed it as "a marin copy from the 90's", untill they rode it, geometry is everything!

Perhaps I'm coming at this from the wrong angle and didnt ride the right bikes 10 years ago, but I just think of old SIDs, XC4s as the cutting edge brakes and Float RL shocks. All of which give me nightmares!

there is sod all difference in weight or geometry between a ten year old Titus racer-x and one you buy today

Hard to compare really when the bike's evolved to the X, but I'll give you that, I had a 2005 one and it was a good bike, but I still maintain that with an older shock they were far more prone to bobbing unless you ran them firm/locked out.

You find it hard to agree with people sometimes i've noticed njee20

I disagree 🙂

Errrrr, marin had BB's so high you needed a pilots licence. Remember they tried to sell 'alpine links' which lowered/slackened the bikes making them simply higher than everything else rather than clown bike levels of tall-ness

Perhaps I'm coming at this from the wrong angle and didnt ride the right bikes 10 years ago, but I just think of old SIDs, XC4s as the cutting edge brakes and Float RL shocks. All of which give me nightmares!

I think there were some evolutions around that time that made a marked difference, Fox Forx, decent, affordble disc brakes, I guess you could argue that 1997-2002 brought bigger changes, but I personally wouldn't revert to a 10 year old bike, which is perhaps what I shouldve said from the start, YMMV!

[i]When did mountain bike technology reach its peak?[/i]

2057

😯

i've got a 1999 Orange MrXc (4.5" travel, fox air shock) with sid 100s, full xtr, king hubs, hope C2s. Weighs in under 25lbs. The suspension action isn't as sophisticated as modern day, but if you compare it to the 2010 '5, its probably pretty close

XC4s as the cutting edge brakes

how is a commencal the best DH bike just now?
and how is it a copy of a RM7?

I hope the technology hasn't peaked yet!

As bikes seem to improve over time, I get older, fatter, and less fit. So I still get up the hills and back down the other side in the same time as I did on a shonky rigid.

I reckon in the next five years bikes are going to struggle to keep up with my decline mind.......

how is a commencal the best DH bike just now?
and how is it a copy of a RM7?

so based on World champs is a demo or a sunday or v10 or Supreme the better DH bike?

or based on Team performance would it be a session 88 or an M9 or.. actually who cares

what a ****ing tool. 🙄

FWIW there are (and pretty much always have been) many many single pivot linkage actuated shock DH frames out there. RM7 was not the first (it wasn't even a DH race bike FFS!)