Lighter, Stiffer, Faster….

I also ride road bikes and every year bike journos seem to rate the new road bikes as lighter, stiffer, faster and more aero – in line with the manufacturers claims.

Now I mention this as I wonder if like most new road bike hype – its similar hype in terms of mountain bikes?

I’ve just bought new cranks and wheels for my 2019 Spark RC Pro – as personally I can’t see that my SDW riding is going to be any better on a newer slacker XC model with 120 suspension rather than the 100 I’ve already got?

I’ve also got an older Spesh Camber Comp Carbon I can rag around the blue trails.

Have I missed the point somewhere (other than everyone loves a new bike – including me)?

MTB performance has plateu’s in recent years IMHO , i dont want wider bigger tyres geo seems standardised .

the scott does look good with the hidden shock though :0)

i guess road bikes, with incremental improvement gains, can be easily assessed and measured.. if you knock a couple of seconds off a segment repeatedly then its  easy to see improvements.

Mountain bikes are much tricker, as a line choice and skill can greatly skew times, aside from out and out fitness etc, so many more variables

Again you could argue Ebikes are evolving in much larger jumps,. motors and batteries have more performance and reliability, bikes are getting leaner very rapidly.

SO i guess there is no argument for the need to change a mountain bike so rapidly, as long as it does what you use it for, point in hand i have the previous model top fuel, the new model shaves 600g off the frame, and allows a little more travel.. if it was my only bike i guess i could be sold into “upgrading” but as it is my short travel bike is still suitable, probably for quite some years, the other selling point is that 10 year old MTB’s look dated IMHO

Pretty much my goals for 2025…

I got a warranty on a top level road race frame. The replacement was the next generation model. It was exactly the same geometry, weighed exactly the same to the gramme (it should have been lighter but had more paint). It wasn’t as stiff, as they’d backed off the brutal stiffness of the first, there was no attempt at aero except the tube diameter profiles were fractionally smaller. It was built back up with exactly the same kit, exactly the same position… and amazingly it was faster everywhere, to the point where I was getting pb’s on most rides at first on my regular segments. It had better ride quality, was more supple – the marketing blurb focused on improving stiffness of the bb to chainstay junction, so the improvement must have been coming from the layup making the bits that need to be stiff stiffer without it being a detriment to ride comfort. Am usually sceptical, but this is some kind of voodoo. I have no doubt the latest greatest will be better still, mostly down to tyres and aeros – but you get to the point where you realise that being 0.2% faster doesn’t add much if you’re just riding for fun.

From the base line of a typical 80s steel road bike as ridden by Bernard Hinault, it’s been estimated that if all the annual claims of X% stiffer and X% lighter plus the claimed number of watts saved were compounded into one bike, that bike should float in air, enable time travel for a rider with 320W FTP and be able to resist the irresistible force of physics theory.

@endoverend you can’t give us that sales pitch and not mention the brand/model 😀

imho .. a bike can be too stiff and many now are. The main reason bikes are made as stiff as possible is 1) racers and feedback loops 2) for average riders optimum stiffness is based on size, weight and power plus riding style and personal preference. It’s impossible to get that right for the majority in a mass production bike .. so we get stiffness as an absolute rather than an optimum.

Lighter .. well if the stiffness is about right, lower weight t get a better stiffness to weight ratio is good as long as the durability is there.

Faster .. cutting drag is logical, time-triallers can buy some notable gains and the right wheels and tyres can feel quicker but beyond that, for most of us it’s a rabbit hole like weight-weenieism with little return.

“ride up grades don’t buy upgrades” etc.

I have said before (though I’d excuse anyone for not noticing) that chassis stiffness is the new geometry in the MTB world.

Geometry is largely settled now, save for a bit of tinkering with stack heights and chainstay lengths.

And designers and race teams are now turning their attention to frame compliance, to provide more comfort and specifically more grip when a bike is leaning over.

I’ve owned a Starling in recent years, which sits at the more compliant end of the spectrum. Despite being a bit heavy and an unsophisticated single pivot it was incredibly fast on the right kind of tracks.

It wasn’t as stiff, as they’d backed off the brutal stiffness of the first, there was no attempt at aero except the tube diameter profiles were fractionally smaller. It was built back up with exactly the same kit, exactly the same position… and amazingly it was faster everywhere, to the point where I was getting pb’s on most rides at first on my regular segments. It had better ride quality, was more supple

Seems to be most rider’s experience if they get to go past ideal stiffness onto something very rigid then come back a bit. I wonder if only a top level athlete might gain from total stiffness in a bike, tennis racquet or golf club etc, and I’m not even sure if they do. The human body seems to work better with things that respond or work in harmony with us and we don’t move like a series of rigid beams and instant actuators. There’s a rabbit hole of stuff about bikes that ‘plane’ that I don’t sign up to, or at least can’t see it as a benefit overall or outside of a narrow use range, but I agree with the principle that managed flex is a good thing in moderation.

Road bike geometry is a solved problem, and nothing has really changed since steel. Stiffness is really tube diameter and butting at the junctions. Big fat carbon tubes like my Defy are stiff at the head tube and bottom bracket, but relatively comfortable with the integrated seat post. Aero and stiffness don’t really go together. I have a Propel for aero and a Defy for stiffness. the Defy is lighter because the bigger diameter tubes can be lighter (and there is less frame as its a compact design rather than the horizontal top tube beloved of aero – and steel bike frames). That said, I’d rather like a non-aero Aerius with (gasp) round tubes and a somewhat traditional look! It is probably a bit lighter, but only half a water bottle compared to my Defy – the lightest frame Giant ever made. Faster… well if you can get into a more aero position that will help. The 10 watts from the bike and <1 watt from the hidden cables, less so.

you can’t give us that sales pitch and not mention the brand/model

Sworks Tarmac, SL2 to SL4. Boonen era to Contador. Actual rider less than half that capability.

Pretty much my goals for 2025…

@morecashthandash, lighter and faster is diet and training, is the stiffer an age thing?

Got to give you some reason to buy a new one given that actually they last decades.

lighter and faster is diet and training, is the stiffer an age thing?

Nah, goes the other way you get more “compliant“…

Compliant sounds lovely

Got to give you some reason to buy a new one given that actually they last decades.

While you’re overstating massively, it’s quite arguable that nobody needs a road bike from after about 2018 (disc brakes) or an MTB from after about 2020 (geometry stabilised).

Possibly why ebikes and gravel bikes are the only growth segments of the industry (IIRC).

Nah, goes the other way you get more “compliant“…

I’ll bear that in mind….