is the UK equivalent ‘bridleway bikes’ or ‘fire road bikes’?

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

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

Neither do I, because nobody said that.

Cheered my lunch break up no-end

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

I must admit – i didn’t see 650bollox coming

11 speed was inevitable

35mm handlebar – WTF?

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

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

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

What else is in the pipeline???

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

There’s fire-road mincing and there’s US 300-miler endurance style gravel road riding. Fast bunch racing on 32Cs on loose gravel anyone? ‘Gravel bikes’ are something I can see a point in, the marketing side of it is that it’s got popular and the products are getting more refined. imo a road bike with room for 38-42C makes more sense for a lot of us than a ‘race’ bike limited to 25C. Most of us don’t ride gravel or race..

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

sort of, but in the middle – like the difference between an ‘XC’ hardtail and a ‘trail’ HT? Could be same thing but some would say it’s an important distinction. CX bikes BB’s are too high anyway.

OK so I may have been overly critical.

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

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

Can I have an orange 5 26 er please?

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

A bit like CX bikes over here then?

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

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

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

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

To then sit and read folk criticising the latest attempts to sell you stuff is ironic in the extreme.
Likewise maybe, there’s fresh goods friday and there’s all the interest in what’s new for 2014, and there’s ‘why change anything’ or ‘it’s all marketing’ and the ideal is somewhere in between. Except no consumers or brands will ever settle on agreeing to only promote new stuff that’s passed some kind of ‘totally-needed and relevant’ test via consumer group.. they can’t win, it’s a new-shit rat race or it’s a world of steady evolution and innovation, you decide.. 90% of mountain bikes are a fashion product based mainly on wants not needs, just how it is. Opt out and celebrate with a rigid SS or embrace the choice and accept the need to market stuff that makes no real odds to most of us anyway. Added gears, droppers, discs, suspension, strip the riding experience back to what it is for many and there’s no real need for most of the ‘new’ stuff out there imo.

the cost of developing the bikes.

Now that does sound like marketing BS

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

CX bikes BB’s are too high anyway.

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

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

I invented that already.

*hunts through photobucket library*

Here we go. The prototype

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

and whats that face plate all about!

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

.no one is forcing you to buy it

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

Why would you want last years model?

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

Yeah I’m in for that

DezB – Well, I’m not buying that stem unless its 29er specific.

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

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

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

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

Stupid idea.

Threads that go over 100!

Ahem. Electric self-adjusting suspension anyone?

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

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

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

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

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

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

All cutlery-based innovations should be given short shrift.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

better geometry

different geometry 🙂

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

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

different geometry

<marketing mode on>

different = better

From which we can deduce:
650b = best

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

<marketing mode off>

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

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

First bit I agree with.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It’s been done before

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

So might a 2007 trail bike.

bencooper – Member

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

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

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

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

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

honourable mentions:

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

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

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

bars over 750mm, enough already

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

🙂