Wow this 90s H/T desire is gathering strength on here .😎

There is kernel of truth in this.

I have a kona unit, no longer single speed, with 100mm forks and it's a very versatile bike.
More do than my 160mm enduro gnarpoon!

kimbers Raijin has sliding dropouts as well, my knees wouldn't thank me 😔

albeit a flat bar rather than drops which suits me just fine

I use upside down Ritchey Kyote bars with mid-mounted barends as a poor man's Jones bar on my 90s mtb/gravel bike. For me it's a better set up than drop bars for anything other than very smooth gravel roads.

For me it’s a better set up than drop bars for anything other than very smooth gravel roads.

If I understand correctly though, very smooth gravel roads, of which there are loads in the US were the original use case for gravel bikes. We've generously increased their scope of purpose since adopting them in the UK, (and maybe in other parts of Europe, I don't know, are they popular there?). Your flat handlebar preference seems perfectly valid in this context.

Maybe we need a new specific moniker for UK (not really) gravel.

Maybe we need a new specific moniker for UK (not really) gravel.

I thought we did? - Adventure Bike

Yeah, i just tend to use this type of bike as a kind of ‘hybrid’ between bits of road and sections of off-road.

Maybe Hybrid is a good enough term?

Oh, wait a cotton pickin’ minute…..

I thought we did? – Adventure Bike

Indeed, but it'd be far too sensible to adpot an existing moniker.

Me? I love my Titus Mutsu (like a Broken Road Ti). Flat bars with barends work better than drops for me, but otherwise it's a Gnarvel (Gnar-Gravel?) setup minus a set of drops.

Maybe Hybrid is a good enough term?

HybRAD

: )

My Spanish friend described my bike as a "Countryside Bicycle"
Perfect.

zippykona
Get the patent sorted on that right now ! This time next year etc etc 👍

Indeed, but it’d be far too sensible to adpot an existing moniker.

I'm against stupid marketing terms as much as the next guy, but I don't think a big advertising push for the, 'All-new 2023 range of 90s-mtbs' would sell as many bikes.

Or maybe it would 🙂

I felt I was being left behind when the LLS marketing train got a head of steam

The mistake you made was thinking the marketing applied to you.

LLS is indeed great for technical MTBing. However, if that's not what you want to do then find the bike that does suit what you want to do. Just because bike companies are selling LLS doesn't mean you need one. They also sell other stuff.

I built a bike for South Wales 'adventure riding' in 2015, a rigid 29er, and it's been great. Apparently I was ahead of the curve there. It has flat bars because that's what was available, I re-used flat bar parts, and it's probably better for some of the techncial stuff I encounter in the area.

Moral of the story - appreciate new tech for what it is, ignore marketing. Also, MTBing isn't one discipline.

I was looking at Canyon Grizl for a mate who has a C2W voucher to burn. I don't think it's fair to call it a 90s MTB. It's pretty different, the only similarity is that it's rigid, I think. I can't think of anything a 90s MTB would do better than such a monstercross/adventure bike from 2023.

Maybe Hybrid is a good enough term?

Mrs_oab is ahead of the curve on this one:
[url= https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52670264874_ae63a2f8d0_k.jp g" target="_blank">https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52670264874_ae63a2f8d0_k.jp g"/> [/img][/url][url= https://flic.kr/p/2ofhSK5 ]Marin DSX for Jo[/url] by [url= https://www.flickr.com/photos/matt_outandabout/ ]Matt[/url], on Flickr

[url= https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52621124404_66eb0618a4_z.jp g" target="_blank">https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52621124404_66eb0618a4_z.jp g"/> [/img][/url][url= https://flic.kr/p/2oaX1ZA ]Gravel is a social construct[/url] by [url= https://www.flickr.com/photos/matt_outandabout/ ]Matt[/url], on Flickr

“Countryside Bicycle”

Its gonna get shortened though isn't it....

ahead of the curve

Ridgeback would like a word about where that curve really is and who's ahead of it : )

Let's not forget Mountain Cross from 2010.
The best bike in the mud . Probably feel shit now.

Or maybe it would

I think you're underestimating the unfulfilled need that folks in their late 40's and 50's with disposable income have to recreate a time when their 30" jeans needed a belt and they completed the Gap (Or insert first 1990's proper off road ride here) that one day when the sun was out in Wales and they got burned.

Good times...

Here; buy this new bike that vaguely looks like that one from the 1990's but not only that, handily means that now you have an excuse not to ride the "crack of doom" that the locals 13 year olds ride down with impunity yet gives you the fear, and instead means that you can ride the dull bridleway that you soon realised (after that day in Wales) was the only thing those 1990 MTBs were good for.

I'll admit as a tag line it needs work, but I think the basics are there.

Its gonna get shortened though isn’t it….

Very good. Made me chuckle anyway.

I’ll admit as a tag line it needs work, but I think the basics are there.

I described my Salsa as a 'hybrid hybrid' i.e. between a hybrid and an MTB. I later called it a 'modern hybrid' meaning between a road bike and what MTBs are like now, rather than in 1989.

Adventure bike is probably the more recognised term, but it's a bit daft since you can have an adventure on any bike.

nickc nailed it 👍

I had been reinventing my own gravel phase. As I have got older and more rickety, I don't feel the need to 'push the envelope ' of my skills. A nice tootle along a remote track with a nice caff at the end is my choice these days and it seems the bike industry is following suit.
The bike I ride most is a 29er HT with carbon forks and fairly narrow tyres. And yes it's like the hybrid my missus had thirty years ago

@nickc I think you've nailed it. There's always the "Back in my day we rode down Fort William on a rigid v-braked ATB so that's all you need" brigade, but someone did post a photo up the other week of an early STW Group Ride which seemed to show lots of people pushing 90's/early 00's MTB's up and down a fairly tame slope and not many people actually riding...

Let’s not forget Mountain Cross from 2010.
The best bike in the mud . Probably feel shit now.

ahh, the days when stems were that perfect length to attach batteries to.

Not quite 90s but I got a wee bit obsessed with all the fat tyred city bikes and wheelie bikes I was seeing in London and wanted one of those, but ended up with a mk1 Soul instead. Though I'm going to ruin it with big fat slicks

I don't think I'd go any further back personally- I had a 90s mtb that was considered decent when i bought it new, I later converted it to a commuter, and later still stuck mtb tyres back on it thinking "this'll be a laugh, I had a great time on this back in day". And of course, it was rubbish

My only bike that gets ridden around 4,000 miles a year is probably a lot closer to a 90s MTB than most.

Rim brakes
Square Taper cranks
Steel frame and forks
Narrow tyres
Good saddle to bar drop
Flat narrow bars (although now back on drops as more comfortable and a bit faster)

Douglas Adams captured the sentiments of this thread (and half of STW really):

I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.

Gravel bikes aren't shite, you're all just becoming old... 😉

Edit: I also really like your bike above Kerley, just looks 'right'...

I can’t think of anything a 90s MTB would do better than such a monstercross/adventure bike from 2023.

Arguably that's down to them having 26" wheels and, to a lesser extent, rim brakes. If you've ridden 29" for a while, going back to 26" wheels, even on a really good mountain bike, is a bit of an eye-opener. I repurposed my early 2000s mountain bike with rigid carbon forks and a 29" front wheel with a big tyre and flat bars and it worked surprisingly well. Now pondering what to do with my Ragley Ti, which I can't bring myself to part with.

If you’ve ridden 29″ for a while, going back to 26″ wheels, even on a really good mountain bike, is a bit of an eye-opener.

My reaction when I switch from my girlfriend's 2021 Giant Toughroad to my rigid 1997 Orange P7 is one of relief.

It's feels lighter (even though it's probably not), it's more responsive, it goes where I tell it to go not where it wants to go.

Not sure exactly what category the Toughroad falls into but mid 90s mtbs have it beat in every category, as far as I'm concerned*.

*OK, fine, the Toughroad beats my P7 on brakes. Although my XTR parallelogram Vs look awesome and work pretty well. 16 year old me would be super impressed.

The Toughroad has integral racks. It beats the P7 on that...

Gravel bikes aren’t shite, you’re all just becoming old…

The truth cuts me deep man, real deep...

While a lot of MTB was going down the LLS route from ~2010 onwards (first Mondrakers?) there was also XXC Mag and long-distance racing that had come out of 24hr racing, inspired by John Stamstad, Iditabike and the Great Divide Race. 29ers had landed well there and I remember riding a good rigid 29er for the first time as a eureka moment - an MTB that worked for the early draw of MTBs / ATBs, the exploration and escapism. That's where the modern ATB builds work so well. The same thing is happening in the road scene as they discover gravel bikes and long distance racing.

The Toughroad has integral racks. It beats the P7 on that…

Had to take the racks off to fit mudguards so they aren't 'integral'. Saying that, I haven't actually tried riding it without the racks yet so maybe the wheels simply won't turn without them bolted on so you might be right;)

29ers had landed well there and I remember riding a good rigid 29er for the first time as a eureka moment – an MTB that worked for the early draw of MTBs / ATBs, the exploration and escapism. That’s where the modern ATB builds work so well.

My first 29er was an early Niner EMD. I remember for 6 months thinking 'meh', but then forked out for better tyres that the Velociraptors (only 29 tyres the LBS had at the time...) and suddenly it was 'wow' and was brilliant at covering long distance, albeit rather too stiffly. Sadly nicked before I managed to add a few more bits to it.

https://www.bikeradar.com/reviews/bikes/mountain-bikes/niner-emd-9-d-xc-29er-review/

[url= https://live.staticflickr.com/3266/2414488562_2980e85b31_k.jp g" target="_blank">https://live.staticflickr.com/3266/2414488562_2980e85b31_k.jp g"/> [/img][/url][url= https://flic.kr/p/4FmTk9 ]100_5178[/url] by [url= https://www.flickr.com/photos/matt_outandabout/ ]Matt[/url], on Flickr

As I have got older and more rickety, I don’t feel the need to ‘push the envelope ‘ of my skills.

That's why I have a gnaarrpoon,

[polemic] I don't have any skills, and now I don't need to, because the bike takes care of that for me. Honestly; I've spent way too long riding just sub-par bikes, I've always had this nagging thought in the back of my mind that the way bikes were sold to us BITD vs what they were actually capable of doing fell pretty short. Well largely that's no longer true, I really can ride the crack of doom with the 13 year old groms, so while I still have control of my bowels and I don't make an involuntary noise when I sit, then I'm ****ed if I'm going to buy a bike that's less capable than the tatt I was riding when I was younger when I didn't have a choice [/polemic]

Gravel bikes and all that long distance bridleway bashing can wait. It's dull anyway.

The Toughroad

My that looks nice.

My reaction when I switch from my girlfriend’s 2021 Giant Toughroad to my rigid 1997 Orange P7 is one of relief.

My reaction when I rode my mate's 2005 Kona HT a couple of years back was one of sheer terror. The front wheel was basically under my torso (it was the correct size) and in any corner it was far too weighted, so all it wanted to do was wash out. That's exactly how things were in the 90s too. We used to hoon down fire roads and try everything possible to prevent the front wheel washing out and dumping us on our faces. I now own three MTBs - one is pretty old still but can be configured with a modern HA, and this puts the front wheel further out and my weight much more central which means I can throw it into corners and its properly balanced. The other two are XC orientated 29ers and the large wheels and longer put the front wheel further out even with their steep head angles. If I throw these bikes into a corner they drift in a balanced way.

Early MTBs were based on road bike geometry, and that just is not appropriate for MTBing. Gravel and rough tracks maybe, but then you might as well fit bigger wheels, decent tyres, discs and drop bars, and hey presto it's an adventure bike which is what we now have.

Although, if you are short, you may not have the same issues with 90s MTBs than I do.

but then forked out for better tyres that the Velociraptors (only 29 tyres the LBS had at the time…) and suddenly it was ‘wow’ and was brilliant at covering long distance, albeit rather too stiffly.

Honestly, I think this is where most of the, 'You can really tell how shit they were when you jump on a 26er after riding a modern 29er'

9 times out of 10 they are talking about a bike with un-bled brakes, un-serviced forks, and, most importantly, age hardened tyres that were probably a bit shit to begin with. Even if it's kept in tip top shape, the best tyres are often simply not available for the current 'wrong' wheel size.

Most of the time, the best bike is the bike with the best tyres.

modern ATB builds work so well

They should never have dropped the original ATB tag 😉

Maybe we need more Action Hybrids or Extreme Countryside 😆🤣

Gravel bikes and all that long distance bridleway bashing can wait. It’s dull anyway

I would have agreed before I bought bone conducting headphones.
Now I'm listening to my favourite radio shows and getting out and seeing stuff. Win ,win.

See, the fact that you need distracting with a podcast tells me all I need to know. I'm joking of course, the vast majority of my riding from my door is local bridleway bashing on my Scandal.

It's still dull though, and mostly only interrupted by the other group of folks that have increased traffic on bridleways since the pandemic; People who have no control whatsoever over "doodles" the cockerpoo.

The front wheel was basically under my torso (it was the correct size) and in any corner it was far too weighted, so all it wanted to do was wash out. That’s exactly how things were in the 90s too. We used to hoon down fire roads and try everything possible to prevent the front wheel washing out and dumping us on our faces.

I had the opposite problem.

In the 90s I would lose traction with both wheels at once. As the mid-00s rolled around I suddenly found myself face-planting on a regular basis.

It wasn't that I was leaning back when descending. I was in what I would describe as an 'athletic' stance. Think tennis player waiting for a serve or goal-keeper taking a penalty. Weight was over the feet, leaning slightly forward ready to move immediately.

I found in the mid-00s I had to move away from the athletic stance and go to a more crouched position with a much more aggressive lean forward, which did affect how quickly I could shift my position but it was the only way to avoid front wheel wash out.

My current bike, with longer wheelbase, is probably more likely to two wheel drift but my instinct to keep the front wheel weighted at all costs, thanks to faceplanting for the best part of a decade if I didn't, means I'm not sure if I could go back to my athletic stance of the 90s. Also, the extra length of modern reach means I'd struggle to get into the athletic position.

I'm 5'6", for reference.

Honestly, I think this is where most of the, ‘You can really tell how shit they were when you jump on a 26er after riding a modern 29er’

Not really. I'm talking about a Ragley Ti with top of the range Maxxis tyres fitted, properly maintained brakes and transmission that work, a Pike - a modern ones as the bike has for convoluted reasons a tapered-steerer compatible head tube and reasonably modern geometry. The main difference between it any my 29er is the wheel size. I live and ride in the Peak and the way that 26" wheels hook up on stuff that a 29er rolls over effortlessly is immediately obvious. Granted if you ride somewhere smooth, this would be less of an issue, but for me there's a huge difference which is down to wheel size.

I live and ride in the Peak and the way that 26″ wheels hook up on stuff that a 29er rolls over effortlessly is immediately obvious. Granted if you ride somewhere smooth, this would be less of an issue, but for me there’s a huge difference which is down to wheel size.

It depends how you ride. If you like to plow through stuff then 29er is your friend. If you like to 'pick and place' and use the terrain to generate speed then 26 is better.

I'm very active on the bike but when I ride a 29er it just feels like wasted effort most of the time. Easier to just sit back and roll on which is not what I enjoy.

However, I understand that most people prefer to just plow through so I know I'm always going to be in a minority.

I just figured out who I stole the athletic stance stuff from. It was @oliverdavey80

I see daveypushbikes.co.uk has disappeared which is a shame but you can still find his stuff cached if you want to look into more about his ideas on the Athletic Stance:

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:K6DbQ4CpSzQJ:https://www.daveypushbikes.com/blog/balancing-act-part-3&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=no

You mean "gravel" riding is actually XC?

RE early 90s bikes with too much weight over the front, that seemed to the the roadies/NORBA race influence in geometry once MTBs started to really take off - original ATBs (up to about 1988?) were much more upright with high-rise bars. By 1990 they were mostly low front ends and silly narrow bars, then by 97-ish we had North Shore influences, short stems and 2" rise, wide Azonic bars on XC/trail bikes again and were doing jumps on bikes you could ride 'XC' on. So the head-down XC period wasn't that long, almost a shorter period than longer front centre geometry has been evolving for?

I’m very active on the bike but when I ride a 29er it just feels like wasted effort most of the time.

What sort of 29er?

It's nice to see that the regular 'gravel bikes are 90s MTBs' thread hasn't completely disappeared. The gaps between its appearance are getting longer, but there are still occasional sightings of the thread. And this one has a bit of a bonus blast from the distant past as well - a claim that 26" is better than 29", with a hint of v-brakes are as good as discs.

It's like Xmas has come early.

Can we include 'baggies vs lycra' next week? Or 'front sus, is it any good?' Maybe 'helmet peaks, what's the point?'

I think we need to work through riser vs flat bar first don't we?

I think we need to work through riser vs flat bar first don’t we?

Oh yeah. But surely that was pre-internet, which is why I'd forgotten about it. 😀

How about starting with neon vs not-neon?

It’s nice to see that the regular ‘gravel bikes are 90s MTBs’ thread hasn’t completely disappeared.

I thought this was 'ATBs always had a place after all'? If it's a 'Gravel bikes are 90s MTBs' sneak-in, I'm out.

How about starting with neon vs not-neon?

Always neon. Goes for road bikes too.

Q should be 'Neon with or without splatter paint on top?' or 'Neon - with fades or not?'

Q should be ‘Neon with or without splatter paint on top?’ or ‘Neon – with fades or not?’

Even on the lycra?

Lycra can stay in the 90s please, neon or not

Lycra can stay in the 90s please, neon or not

But it was the best material to make cycling clothing out of back in the 90s, so if we are riding the same bikes, what's the objection? 😀

I have a very small peak on my helmet as a concession to modernity when I'm on the gravel bike.

a claim that 26″ is better than 29″

Never said that 26 is better. I said 26 was better if you like to ride your bike rather than sit on it and point it down the hill.

Go read Motorcycle Dynamics by Vottiore Cossalter and Motorcycle Handling and Chassis Design by Tony Foale and then we can have a discussion about which wheel size is better.

Only we won't because if you've read and understood these books you'll realise that what actually matters is the contact patches and how they pivot around certain points in space which is affected by numerous factors of which wheel size is just one.

with a hint of v-brakes are as good as discs.

XTR V-brakes are always going to be the best. That's just the way it is.

I had a Townsend 'pieceOshit' in 1990, then didn't have another bike until about 1998 which was a borrowed Raliegh Dyna-Tech that I used to ride to work on. So I can't really comment on 90's MTB's.

What I can say though, is that whilst my 2002 GT Avalanche with 100mm travel that I used to ride Warncliffe and Stainburn on was great, theres not a chance in hell I would pick it over ANY modern MTB/ATB/Gradventure bike!!

Never said that 26 is better. I said 26 was better if you like to ride your bike rather than sit on it and point it down the hill.

Veiled accusations of skills compensation as well. 😀

XTR V-brakes are always going to be the best. That’s just the way it is.

You could have had mine. They sold on ebay last year for peanuts. They were good. For v-brakes.

But it was the best material to make cycling clothing out of back in the 90s, so if we are riding the same bikes, what’s the objection? 😀

we're not riding the same bikes! : )

Go read Motorcycle Dynamics by Vottiore Cossalter and Motorcycle Handling and Chassis Design by Tony Foale and then we can have a discussion about which wheel size is better.

Totally different vehicles though. Esp compared to a rigid bike.

I said 26 was better if you like to ride your bike rather than sit on it and point it down the hill.

I like to ride my bike very much. I don't roll my 29er aimlessly down hill partly because it's very rocky here and one is fully rigid, and the other only has 100mm travel so I would smash wheels pretty quickly; but also because I like to pin the descents.

If you think 29ers are all about sitting passively on the bike it rather sounds like you're a rubbish rider 😉

Totally different vehicles though. Esp compared to a rigid bike

I'm assuming you haven't read them.

I mean, why would you. Absolutely nothing in either one has any relevance whatsoever to push bikes. Might as well be about bowling.

If you think 29ers are all about sitting passively on the bike it rather sounds like you’re a rubbish rider

Yeah, I'm not brilliant. My DH race results were bottom to mid pack (frequent bottler of jumps and drops) and the less said about my xc race results the better.

I get pleasure from reading the trail and feeling like I've squeezed every fraction of speed out of a section that I can. That means line choice, cornering, and pumping everything I can find.

I regularly ride 24", 26", and 27.5" (and 20" if you want to count BMX). As wheel size goes up it becomes less about wringing the back side of every rock and dip for all it's worth and more about pure line choice and cornering. It takes away part of my enjoyment.

The 29ers I've tried haven't even resulted in less fatigue and more speed, just less reaction to my inputs.

Saying that, I still haven't tried mullet so I might find that good. We'll see.

Can't we just summarise this by saying.

"Bikes are ace, we all like bikes, but not all of us have the same reasons for liking bikes and thinking they are ace"

Yep, I have ridden all sorts of bike over the last 25 years on gravel and easy off road. I now ride the square tapered, rim brake bike because it is as good to ride as any bike with modern cranks, disc brakes etc. as basically they make absolutely no difference when riding on gravel.
The only thing that makes any noticeable difference is the tyres so I use modern tubeless tyres.

The only thing that makes any noticeable difference is the tyres so I use modern tubeless tyres.

Which I think was my initial point. 9 times out of 10 the best bike is the one with the best tyres.

I get pleasure from reading the trail and feeling like I’ve squeezed every fraction of speed out of a section that I can. That means line choice, cornering, and pumping everything I can find.

Me too.

You understand there are many kinds of 29er right? And there are many kids of 26er too. I'm talking specifically about early 90s MTBs which were, for me, terrible. I didn't realise it at the time but it's very obvious now I have tried many alternatives.

Also, the sharpest handling bike I have owned is a 29er, it has a 70.5 degree head angle though.

Rode my brothers Grizl the other day. What a bike. Sooooo comfortable and just feels perfect.

I’m assuming you haven’t read them.

I mean, why would you. Absolutely nothing in either one has any relevance whatsoever to push bikes. Might as well be about bowling.

Not cover to cover recently no - Motorcycle Dynamics was a flip through the content and a few discussions with a test engineer who was using it at work, he reckoned it was hard going. Foale had more interesting content for me. There's some fundamental differences still and filtering for that to apply it to bikes isn't straightforward esp when it comes to the physics - I'm not going to pretend I'd flip a few formulas about and explain the exact relevance. If you can and have done on the wheels spec point I'm all ears, a bike nerd to the end.
Staying OT, an E-FS gets closer to motorbikes in some situs and have used similar approaches to wheel sizes, DH bikes have enough travel to negate wheel OD hence mullet bikes, but rigid ATBs.. give me the largest wheel that is a reasonable weight and doesn't disrupt geo/packaging too far, and the widest tyre that doesn't plane over the local mud.

If you can and have done on the wheels spec point I’m all ears, a bike nerd to the end.

If you do read it the most important parts are the first few chapters. That was because this is where the very basics of having a body with two wheels, one of which could pivot, were explained. This part is 100% relevant to pedal bikes as it's exactly the same for both motorbikes and pedal bikes.

Basically it comes down to mechanical trail (for both the front and rear wheels) and wheel flop being the most important factors. And, of course, how these numbers change and the handlebar angle changes and the bike angle changes and etc... That's what I mean by wheel size not being important for dynamics. Wheel size affects these numbers but it's the numbers that are important from a dynamics point of view, not the size of the wheels.

What we can say about wheels is that bigger wheels are going to hook up on things less and they are going to be more stable because they are heavier.

However, what is normally ignored is that the price of this better rolling and stability is that the rider's inputs have less effect. ie, generating speed through pumping is more difficult, both because the larger wheels reduces the size of the bumps and the heavier wheels mean it accelerates less when it is pumped.

The idea that you want to fit the largest wheels you can manage without upsetting the dynamics/packaging comes from motorbikes where the rider's input is going to be minimal anyway. The rider input on a pedal bike is by far the biggest factor.

Obviously, once the trail gets sufficiently gnarly, it gets to the point where you're just hanging on and rider input is pretty much limited to not crashing. Once you're at that point then it's time to look for some bigger wheels so that you can smooth out the trail and get back to searching out features that you can use to generate speed.

I always said if I moved to Northern Italy I was going to get a mullet Geometron set up with 200mm travel at both ends because when I ride their I'm spending 90% of my time not crashing rather than 'riding'. It's big, steep, chunky, and just generally ****ing gnarly.

My home trails just aren't on the same level. Even when I travel somewhere like Nesbyen or Åre the need for something that big just isn't there. I can still 'ride' most stuff and I'm probably only spending 10% of the time 'not crashing'.

It’s nice to see that the regular ‘gravel bikes are 90s MTBs’ thread hasn’t completely disappeared.

It's only a matter of time before bike designers see the light and start fitting 26" wheels to modern gravel bikes along with flat bars making the circle complete and allowing proper, skilled riders to enjoy gravel bikes instead of merely hanging on as they plough mindlessly across rock gardens... I think I've got that right? 😉

Isn't jameso the professional bike designer?

Re bigger wheels, on rough ground there is a stark difference between 26 and 29 particularly when climbing. After I rode my rigid 29er for a while then went back to my bling lightweight 26er I realised how much of a problem it was and I never rode it again.

My 29 XC bike is a fair bit heavier and the wheels are heavier too of course, but this is well worth the downsides for me. The increase in capability on rough ground and the better handling makes the bike much faster and more satisfying all round despite the extra couple of kg in weight. I can descend on it in a way that was not remotely possible on its predecessor.

There's a fairly long and well used descent near me on which I did a run scoring in the top 15 on Strava (out of a few thousand) which is unheard of for me. One day in the dry I hit the first 90 degree corner extra fast, leaned over and drifted the bike into the lump on the outside and carried loads of speed, so I kept going. If I'd tried that on any of the 26ers I'd owned before that I'd have been on my face because the front wheel would have just washed out immediately.

Said 29er is also the sharpest and most responsive handling bike I've had. I really don't care about an extra 300g on the wheels any more.

When I ride the bit of gravel to the gym, or ride to the pub, I take this (posted a few times, so apologies if it's getting boring). Was the dogs danglies in the 90's, but does feel a bit odd getting on it now.

Can lock the back up and endo with 1 finger braking on the Avid V brakes though

[url= https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52054566010_bb3b980104_b.jp g" target="_blank">https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52054566010_bb3b980104_b.jp g"/> [/img][/url][url= https://www.flickr.com/gp/85252658@N05/0h0iJ4Fe5i ]DSC00400[/url] by [url= https://www.flickr.com/photos/85252658@N05/ ]davetheblade[/url], on Flickr

Isn’t jameso the professional bike designer?

Yes, I often see that appeal to authority whenever we start discussing something (admittedly not normally from him, normally it's someone else doing it on his behalf).

If I’d tried that on any of the 26ers I’d owned before that I’d have been on my face because the front wheel would have just washed out immediately.

As I said earlier, when I switched from late-90s bikes to mid-00s bikes I had the same problem. I was used to descending in an Athletic Stance (see the blog I linked to earlier) and found this meant if I crashed, 9 times out of 10 it was a front wheel washout.

I had to change my stance so my back was a lot more horizontal which made it easier to load the front wheel.

Now I just descend in that position even though my modern geometry bike would probably allow me to return to the athletic stance which would have a lot of advantages. It's just habit now.

Yes, I often see that appeal to authority whenever we start discussing something

More like appeal to experience - which is valid, isn't it? Are you saying he doesn't know what he's talking about and you do?

Back in the day I used to try and put my weight over the front wheel to avoid washout, but this never worked very well, because then the front wheel simply has to do more work. Also, since the bike is pivoting around the rear wheel, you're effectively creating a much larger moment of inertia around that pivot by moving your weight forward. On long sweeping turns on fire road this wasn't an issue, but it doesn't work at all on tight windy corners. This was demonstrated to me riding the trail I think it's called Seagull or maybe Tank Traps at Swinley, which is a very tight slalom. Moving your weight forwards makes it really hard to ride fast, the only way to do it is with your weight over the back wheel. Then the front can swing to the left and right easily.

In my experience the solution to having to weight the front wheel is to have it further away from your centre of mass so it has more leverage on the system and therefore needs less weight on it. As I said earlier I have an old 26er (2007 Patriot) with adjustable geometry that can be set with a 64.5 degree HA. It corners what I would consider 'properly' in that it is well balanced and drifts in a useful way - but only when the saddle is down. With the saddle raised, it's shit because my weight's far too high up. Despite the bike having small wheels, it really works in cornering. The only issue there is that the seat angle ends up being about 72 degrees and whilst the cockpit length is ok, the BB is just too far forward. In the steeper setting the HA is I think about 66 or 67 degrees and whilst it's better for climbing and general handling you just cannot get low behind the front wheel and smash through stuff as well.

Of course, purists might well say this is lazy and boring and yes, if you are going at the same speed then such a riding position would be boring. But the point about getting low and smashing through is that it enables you to go much more quickly. I've done plenty of picking my way down rocks on a carefully chosen line - in fact I do this a lot today, on my rigid bike - but with 170mm of travel you still have to do that to ride well, you just need to be going much faster.

There's a very rocky washed out trail not far from me that zig-zags down the mountain. On a rigid bike I'm picking my way through rocks, but on a long travel bike I'm launching off rocks and hitting berms about 3x as fast. Same trail, different bikes, different ways to get the most out of it.

Incidentally, I'm 5'11. If you're 5'6 then 26 inch wheels are equivalent to about 28 inch for me, tyre size variations notwithstanding. It is quite possible that those old bikes fit you far better than they did me and you never experienced the perilous feeling of being perched over the front wheel like I did.

More like appeal to experience – which is valid, isn’t it?

No, it's a logical fallacy people use. It adds nothing to the discussion and the only reason to do so is to devalue someone's contribution based on nothing.

Are you saying he doesn’t know what he’s talking about and you do?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Obviously.

Back in the day I used to try and put my weight over the front wheel to avoid washout, but this never worked very well, because then the front wheel simply has to do more work.

I read that, then I read everything that follows. I think all I can really say is OK.

We have very different body shapes (think you said you were 6ft whereas I'm 5'5") and it sounds like very different riding styles (which is to be expected given the difference in body shapes) so any discussion we have about bikes and technique is most likely going to be like comparing apples to combine harvesters.

Getting low isn't really an issue for me. I'm already pretty low to begin with and I have an extremely string posterior chain which means I can hold my upper body horizontally for as long as it needs to stay there.

It could simply be that in the late 90s bikes were being built for people my shape and now they're being built for people your shape?

I found in the mid-00s I had to move away from the athletic stance and go to a more crouched position with a much more aggressive lean forward, which did affect how quickly I could shift my position but it was the only way to avoid front wheel wash out.

I've tried to divine the reason from your comments, but I must have missed it - What do you think was the cause of this change?

......... and endo with 1 finger braking on the Avid V brakes though

That's cos the HA is nearly as steep as my CX bike with an 8 mile long stem 😉

While we're on it, WTF is an athletic stance?

It could simply be that in the late 90s bikes were being built for people my shape and now they’re being built for people your shape?

Well I alluded to this but not directly - they still made XL bikes in those days (I usually bought L) but I think that they simply made them taller which is clearly not great. I think that if you're shorter those old bikes work better for you so you might well be wondering wtf other people are talking about.

Also I think I just got your username.

endo with 1 finger braking on the Avid V brakes though

Much easier to endo when you're perched over the front wheel, mind.

I'm not saying V brakes weren't powerful at times, but they were heavily affected by conditions, wore inconsistently and trashed your rims.