What happened to the mountain bike industry?

More choice is a good thing.

a multitude of standards is confusing/pita to stock for.

The BS on you can’t get this or that when wait a minute you can

I don’t think I’ve said you can’t get stuff, you certainly can still get spares for the long established standards (tho as I said 7spd is getting a bit thin on the ground, google can’t find 7spd deore – which I would accept as a basic for “proper” mtbing*). I’m worried that the lack of compatability and proliferation of new standards seen in recent years suggests that long lived standards (and subsequent spares availabiltiy later on) are going to be a thing of the past.

*and can we have a moments silence for the passing of UN7* bottom brackets please.

you can have a moment silence for the passing of DuraAce spec BB’s of that era. but I think if running 1980’s DuraAce on such a retro bike you’ll probably not be too sad at having to downgrade to a UN5* part (I assume it’s a downgrade if the number is smaller). still readily available from bike24, the very first webby I bothered looked at to check.

It’ll outlast the bike anyway.

do need to pay attention with 7sp though now since there’s 7sp and newer DH 7sp that’s really 9 or 10 with some cogs missing.

If I look in the bike shed, all the Decathlon and Rockriders and no name bikes are all running 6-7sp, and I can safely say they are not 20 years old. So stuff is still being made, just not XTR/DuraAce.

Can someone make a video of a group of people riding together on different bikes? Just to show that you really can ride most trails on most bikes, and you don’t NEED anything specific.

On more than one group ride we’ve managed to tick the following boxes:

26, 27.5, 29, 26 fat and 29+ tyres.
Rigid, hardtail, full-sus.
Steel, al alloy, titanium, carbon.
100mm – 160mm travel.

And there’s always a pretty big mix of the above on every ride.

if some in the handle bar thread were in charge we would all still be using 680mm bars.

But changing the handlebar width doesn’t require a new frame, fork or whatever, it’s a “soft” change. Even changing the bar diameter only means getting a new stem.

Compare that with a “hard” change like tapered steerers, wheel size, drop out spacing or even <wash mouth out> press fit BBs</wash mouth out>.

Things move on, as they should, and there will always be a transition period before things settle down but at the minute it seems more like constant change as the major players try to come up with something that ties you in to their system. Things like Boost, etc aren’t “standards”, they are just a specification, they’ll only become a standard when you can take any 29″ wheel and put it in any 29″ frame.

As DONK says, it must be a PITA for shops to have to stock all this.

After reading all this and posting, or not, has a single person changed their opinion?

Not me chef. I still think (despite owning two of them) that 650B was a cynical marketing exercise. This suspicion is reinforced when I see them calling it “27.5”.
Don’t even get me started on that ****ing boost bollocks.

i confess that i’m boost curious…

(not enough to sell all my bikes and start again, but it seems a sensible change. at some point i’ll be building a new rear wheel, if i had the option of buying a new boost compatible swingarm at the same time, i’d think about it)

a multitude of standards is confusing/pita to stock for.

no doubt on that one, it’s a flipping nightmare trying to cater for everyone, which I guess is why a lot of shops don’t bother beyond what they know they can shift locally, specialise, or order on demand.

There’s a whole another discussion there though about how the distributors and industry could better support smaller shops with more flexible ordering* and delivery options*

and can we have a moments silence for the passing of UN7* bottom brackets please.

indeed, I’m down to my last 3 in the cupboard and then I’ll be back to heavy old UN5Xs which don’t seem as robust either, or have to bite the bullet for SKF.

* should add a few are very good with this, others not so much, and as always *someone* has to pay for delivery costs at some point and the smaller the order the bigger it is as a %age.

Double post.

Junkyard – lazarus

pretty hard to get a range of forks in 1/1/8 straight steerer flavour.

This. Just the other day I decided I would look into a new carbon fork for the commuter. I have Enve 2 on the road bike, so I wondered if Enve make a disc brake fork, for road….. The only disc brake, road fork by Enve, that I could find, came in tapered steerer flavour!

I read comments from the interviews posted earlier. Two things, not all riders need super stiff front ends on their bikes, which appears to be the justification for larger Dia head tubes, facilitating the use of larger Dia down tubes, etc. Secondly, Manufacturers state that “developments” reduce cost of manufacture, but I’m failing to see that cost save filter through to the customer….

I’m not impressed with fully integrated HS, imo, it kind of negates having higher front end, frame, stiffness (ooo, err).

Press fit BB, yes, should be cheaper to manufacture, but I’m happy with the threaded, external cups, for which I have invested in tooling to be able to order and fit myself.

Developments for ease of / reduced cost of manufacture aren’t always in my interests, as a cyclist.

i confess that i’m boost curious…

Have you ever destroyed a front wheel with an extra few mm in hub width would have prevented? Have you ever thought “my wheels are really flexy/weak, how can I get stiffer/stronger wheels?”.
It’s a completely pointless change which 99.9% of riders will never get any benefit from.

mostly, i’m thinking about the rear wheel, where the drive-side spokes are nearly vertical, a bit more spacing makes a bit of sense.

like i said, i’m not going to do sell/buy any bikes/forks because of boost.

but, seeing as you mention the front wheel… both my fork, and front wheel, are a bit crap. i’ll be replacing them at some point, why not choose boost?

Well the jump from 135 to 142 was bigger and I’ve noticed naff all difference, and the only front wheels I’ve destroyed and been due to crap rims….

but, seeing as you mention the front wheel… both my fork, and front wheel, are a bit crap. i’ll be replacing them at some point, why not choose boost?

You’re enabling them! 😉

wrecker – Member
Well the jump from 135 to 142 was bigger and I’ve noticed naff all difference,

i thought that 135 to 142 was in effect the same thing, sort of, just the way it was measured had changed?

ie. 135 is measured over the nuts, but the 142 axle extends into the frame…?

(but i haven’t paid much attention if i’m honest, i’m not the bike nerd i used to be)

i’ve seen some boost hubs that don’t seem to take advantage of the extra width, which seems daft to me.

WTF is boost?

the jump from 135 to 142 was actually 0

135 to 142 added dimensions at the end caps
142 to 148 adds dimension between spoke flanges to be 6mm wider than 135

Boost also enables the use of a 3″ rear tyre and double chainrings. 8)

Then go read the B+ thread and the issue with mud clearance that non-Boost forks have where it’s all a bit of a lottery.

6 millimeters. 6. FFS.

@Solo, that’s not really representative, you went to one specific manufacturer*, and they don’t offer the exact model you want, but that’s hardly the same as there not being a range of options.

The only disc brake, road fork by Enve, that I could find, came in tapered steerer flavour!

That’s also hardly surprising as discs on road are quite a recent thing, so most disc braked road frames are likely to have been made with tapered front ends anyway, so that’s not evidence of dropping of a standard, it’s a case of newer tech mating with newer tech.

* of top end, very modern kit only, so I’m not surprised they’re not catering for older or mid-range stuff.

Amedias.

My anecdote was confirming Junkyard’s quite valid observation. Yes, I went to one manuf, one I had already “invested” in and was disappointed.

But the Earth will continue to spin-on. So, yes, I may or may not find the fork I’m looking for. Conversely, I’m not going to swap-out my frame and HS on the basis that 1 1/8″ steerers may be in decline with some manufs. As much as the industry might like me to do so.

Furthermore, I believe the Industry currently thinks it’s ok to drive obsolescence as hard as they dare, in favour of selling us newer stuff.

To balance this, I suspect there may always be folk who will be tempted to take up any “slack” if sufficient demand persists for certain items.

Example, I do not wish to own another frame which requires a fully integrated HS. I will avoid this feature in all my future frame purchases. As a consequence of my decision, already I am noticing that my choices for a new frame that still uses 1 /18″ steerer forks with external cup HS are dwindling. But I suspect someone will still continue to provide such a widely appreciated standard in frame design and manufacture.
😉

This thread can continue to discuss specific kit, scenarios, whatever. For me, I sense that recently the industry’s drive to render our current kit obsolete in the hope we will replace at significant expense to ourselves. Has gone up, noticeably, a gear or two, recently. And it’s that attitude within the industry which I dislike.

Change based upon real, technical, merit, is a good and welcome thing.
Whether that applies to all the changes we see in the design, manufacture and assembly of bikes and there components today, is another matter.

It’ll outlast the bike anyway.

they really don’t, killed a 55 in not too long at all. Now on my second so yes I know 55s are availeable (un7* were hollow so a bit lighter aswell as longer lasting)

do need to pay attention with 7sp though now since there’s 7sp and newer DH 7sp that’s really 9 or 10 with some cogs missing.

yeah not compatible with “old” 7 speed and possibly not much cross compatibly with 9/10/11 kit (dont know much about it tho could be wrong), another example there – but it’s DH built for dishless wheels innit? Quite specialist, so more forgiveable

mountain of bikes

http://blog.creditkarma.com/wp-content/Bikes.png

For me, I sense that recently the industry’s drive to render our current kit obsolete….

that paragraph is my thoughts, only worded a bit better 🙂

We could be getting worried about nothing (I hope so) and for me as I’m getting older there may a rose tinted specs element. We shall see what the future brings.

WTF is boost?

the 27.5 of the hub world. (You’ll have to get a new bike or replace a load of kit to try it and may struggle to notice the difference)

Have you ever destroyed a front wheel with an extra few mm in hub width would have prevented? Have you ever thought “my wheels are really flexy/weak, how can I get stiffer/stronger wheels?”.
It’s a completely pointless change which 99.9% of riders will never get any benefit from.

That’s not really the point of boost though. The point is to get that pesky chain thing out of the way of the bigger tyres people want to run.

I sense that recently the industry’s drive to render our current kit obsolete in the hope we will replace at significant expense to ourselves. Has gone up, noticeably, a gear or two, recently. And it’s that attitude within the industry which I dislike

See that’s the bit I disagree with. I may just be living in naive cuckoo land but I don’t think anyone is being called into a 9am strokey-beard meetings to discuss how to make last years bike obsolete.

I think people are being called into such meetings to discuss how to make last years bike better, or to see if they can predict/drive the next advances in order to have an edge over competitors, but I don’t think its a concious, pre-meditated drive to make old things go away.

I think it’s possibly (and indeed likely) that not enough attention is being paid to supporting existing and popular standards, and not enough attention being paid to making sure that new ideas are genuinely worthwhile and offer significant benefits to warrant a change.

But that’s two different things.

I also think that is the job* of the industry to push things forward, sometimes theere will be dead ends, sometimes there will be mistakes, there will be periods of rapid change, there will be periods of stability, and there sometimes there will be upset along the way, but the overall result is better bikes.

‘The Industry’ is also a lot bigger than just the few top brands pushing the latest thing, for every new Trekalizediant wonder bike with 28.3 inch wheels and 1.62 inch steerers and 153.6mm wide hubs sold there are 100 workhorse hybrids with more traditioanl and well supported components sold by GenericBikeCo to Mr Average for transport and leisure, and they’re getting better and better.

*not the sole job, obviously they need to cater for the middle ground and workhorse market, but they also very much should be at the bleeding edge of new developments.

What many are missing is that the industry couldn’t care less about those who get grumpy. I would guess that most of us change bikes reasonably often (2-5yrs?) and usually want the latest thing so will buy what is necessary. I know I binned my 26″ FS a couple of years ago so I could try 29″ FS. If I go back it’ll be to 650b instead of 26″. So what?

Those who just change frames will be a bit grumpy but many will just use it as an excuse to ‘upgrade’ wheels, forks or whatever. Same if you want to change forks. Most parts last a long time if you look after them so it’s more likely to ‘want’ to change rather than ‘need’ to.

That leaves those who rarely change bikes and rarely change the bits on them. I can’t imagine you are high up the list of priorities for people who’s job it is to sell stuff. What percentage of the market do you actually represent? Oh, and you can still keep your bike on the road anyway.

So what?

Because a lot of us DO NOT want to change our bikes all the time, and cannot afford do – so we don’t want to be forced to do it!

That’s a pretty big what! We might not high up on their list of priorities, and this is exactly what we’re pissed off about.

That’s not really the point of boost though. The point is to get that pesky chain thing out of the way of the bigger tyres people want to run.

Then why roll it out on normal trail bikes? keep if for the niche 650+ stuff.

I remember reading an interview with an industry person who said that 650 came about as “the euros” didn’t get on board with 29 like they wanted us to. 650 had been around for a long time before it made the trail come alive. It was nothing but an effort to make us ditch all of our kit rather than refresh it.

Then why roll it out on normal trail bikes? keep if for the niche 650+ stuff.
[/quote]Because introducing it across-the-board means fewer ongoing standards.

See – complain when there are to many systems, complain when the industry is trying to reduce them…. 🙂

That would be fair if 650+ weren’t going to die in a year or two… 😉

Have you ever destroyed a front wheel with an extra few mm in hub width would have prevented? Have you ever thought “my wheels are really flexy/weak, how can I get stiffer/stronger wheels?”.
It’s a completely pointless change which 99.9% of riders will never get any benefit from.

Have you ever ridden a 29er with a 135mm wide front hub and non-dished rear? It helps. Makes you re-assess the way your other std-hub 29er rides in some ways. Granted Boost isn’t that big a change but MTB hubs have needed to go a bit wider for a long time imo. 6mm on the rear gives about the same spoke triangulation for 29″ wheels as 26″ had, that’s good. But even 26″ wheels had been made with wider front hubs and wider-space flanges in the 80s.
Boost is a pita change in some ways but overall in the long run a good one imo. Having said that I’m not rushing to pop it onto our hardtails as that’s a market position and customer benefits decision rather than the race-for-new-stuff that drives many spec decisions in the industry. It’s good but not essential for all. Like thru-axles and a few other things that came from 70s road bikes that have taken a long time to be re-adjusted much for MTB use.

Because introducing it across-the-board means fewer ongoing standards.

Agreed – it’ll be a while but most higher-end sussers and a lot of B+ compatible bikes will be on it over the next couple of years. Makes sense for 29ers, helps make those bikes B+ compatible, adds a bit of space in a cramped BB area etc. Seems like a lot of faff for a small change but in CAD work stages 3-6mm can be valuable space. And then we’re back to the value of that vs the faff of change vs the need to stay ‘ahead’ of the competition or have the stuff that the market is expected to want in 2 years time.

Not really up on all these different standards but wasn’t there already 150mm hubs on downhill bikes?

Surely 2mm less for Boost could’ve been avoided and 150mm used.

I am not an engineer so any explanation about why it wouldn’t work will need to be in very simple terms.

Not really up on all these different standards but wasn’t there already 150mm hubs on downhill bikes?

that was list wider rear ends/axles, but the flange spacing didn’t change so didn’t really do anything for wheel stiffness or drivetrain clearance

Just take a look at a 150mm DH hub and look at the massive gap between the left flange and the disk spider mounts!

Ah.

That explains it.

Thanks.

Almost every change to hub sizes could have been avoided if we ran gearboxes instead of mechs.

The only improvement I want to see on mountain bikes is gearboxes. Instead I have to put up with turd polishing making it more difficult to source parts for my bikes.

molgrips – Member

So what?
so we don’t want to be forced to do it!

We might not high up on their list of priorities, and this is exactly what we’re pissed off about.

I think I agree with the sentiment. It’s one thing if you feel the need to change your kit.

It’s another thing entirely to feel you’re being forced to change your kit.

It’s another thing entirely to feel you’re being forced to change your kit.

one very sujective word, and one very strong word ^

Are you really being forced, like really, you have no option but to change your kit?

I don’t feel like anyone is pushing me into anything, you obviously feel different. I wonder why that is?

^ that’s a genuine question there BTW, I’m not trying to be inflammatory, I just wonder what the difference in our circumstances is that means I feel one way and you feel the other. I’m sure it’s a mix of things like how and where we ride, how often we change bikes, our outlook etc. (all the things discussed in this thread already really), but I guess that just goes to show how subjective things are and how easily opinions can differ…

If my 1 1/8″ forks break and there are no 160mm forks with 20mm axles available then yes, I’ll be forced to change my perfectly good frame.

Or quit mountain biking.

Edit to add: This isn’t a hypothetical. I can’t find any 1 1/8″ 20mm forks anywhere so if they do go I’ll have to stick my 2007 Santa Cruz Nomad in a skip.

amedias – Member
that’s a genuine question there BTW, I’m not trying to be inflammatory

No probs here, we’re just debating a topic 🙂

I think Bruce’s example ^^ helps describe my view. But my view is no more valid than yours. I’m just calling it as I see it.

Going back to fully integrated HS, that was clearly a manufacturing driven change and if one was to go so far as to read what Chris King has said about FiHS. Then FiHSs aren’t helping front end rigidity. Is my read.

Right, got to go now.
Cheers.
😀

I can’t find any 1 1/8″ 20mm forks anywhere

I’m in a similar position – Patriot has 140-180mm forks on it with 20mm axle and a 1/8 steerer. I brought this up with Mojo when I was in there getting bushings. They assured me they’d be able to make something up, so if you do get stuck give them a call.

It is ‘forcing’ in a way, because the things you need to replace might not be avaiable.

I can’t find any 1 1/8″ 20mm forks anywhere so if they do go I’ll have to stick my 2007 Santa Cruz Nomad in a skip.

I thought Fox 36’s were still available in 1 1/8 and 20mm?
Plenty second hand as well, I have some ace Manitou Travis forks that I might sell if you were desperate.