# Worst mountain bike fad or product



## Tracerboy (Oct 13, 2002)

During mountain biking's early years,many products and fads appeared.What,in your opinion,is the worst fad or product ever? Yeah,we already know what you think about Biopace.


----------



## crconsulting (Apr 11, 2004)

*biopace*



Built4Speed said:


> During mountain biking's early years,many products and fads appeared.What,in your opinion,is the worst fad or product ever? Yeah,we already know what you think about Biopace.


please suck my chain.......


----------



## laffeaux (Jan 4, 2004)

Built4Speed said:


> During mountain biking's early years,many products and fads appeared.What,in your opinion,is the worst fad or product ever? Yeah,we already know what you think about Biopace.


Late '90s Shimano XT crankset (FC-M739)

Integrated the large ring and spider to save weight? Makes replacement of the large ring next to impossible. It's easier just to buy a new crankset.


----------



## flyingsuperpetis (Jan 16, 2004)

Dunno if this actually constitutes a fad... I'd say the confusion between Motocross and Mountain Biking would rate as probably one of the worst fads our sport has suffered. I love Disc brakes more than life itself, and suspension is benefitial for a lot of people, but that's it. It was really easy for a lot of people to simply grab what had been done in moto and try to copy it in cycling. The imagery, the attitudes, the presence, hell even the design & graphics of frames & equip. But the problem arose that mtbs are not motorcycles, riding an mtb is not the same as riding an MX bike. Now we have a sport which attempted but failed to create a TV presence (imagine, the folks that would be into motocross would be bored watching people ride bicycles), people convinced they need 7" of travel regardless of riding style, apparel to make everyone look like wannabe throttletwisters, and a youth presence that has been weaned on an overall attitude of brash swaggering and a general lack of respect for other trail users and nature itself. There's much to be said on the effects of the portrayal of women in the sport as well.
Sure sold those magazines though! Greeeeat. Flip through a stack of mags in chronological order starting in about 88 & going up through 1996. Notice it? Now back to joining in everyone else wondering why mountain biking is (still) in a slump...


----------



## ssmike (Jan 21, 2004)

*Cnc*

Anything CNC made that bolted to a bottom bracket axle - except Moonhead Machine stuff, of course.


----------



## -Anomie- (Jan 16, 2005)

One word: NEON


----------



## DKFIX (Jan 17, 2005)

*Oh Ya!*

Noen was a bad idea for so many other things a s well.
PS- Built4peed's avitar is one of the funniest F***ing things I've seen!


----------



## C.Savage (Mar 30, 2004)

Sadly not a fad but still ugly are unpainted frames, silver is just sooooo boring. Worst product has got to be flat bars. And I say bring back anodizing to all it's full glory.


----------



## Shayne (Jan 14, 2004)

Flat Bars???


----------



## Eli-Ti (Sep 10, 2004)

*worst product...*

Spin Skinz, those thin kevlar strips designed to go between the tube and the tire, they were overpriced, tore up and never worked properly.


----------



## C.Savage (Mar 30, 2004)

Yep. It only really applies if you currently use riser bars. Jump from a riser bar to a traditional flat bar that's outfitted with grip shift to top it off and it feels like you are steering from the stem. I just have a hard time but I guess over time I'd get used to it again ONLY if I had to. So okay maybe flat bars are not the worst product but I, for one, do not miss the old days of flat bars.


----------



## Shayne (Jan 14, 2004)

Baggy Cloths and Camel Backs


----------



## MantisMan (Jan 20, 2004)

*Pete has a point here, remember...*

Ascerbis hand guards?



flyingsuperpetis said:


> Dunno if this actually constitutes a fad... I'd say the confusion between Motocross and Mountain Biking would rate as probably one of the worst fads our sport has suffered. I love Disc brakes more than life itself, and suspension is benefitial for a lot of people, but that's it. It was really easy for a lot of people to simply grab what had been done in moto and try to copy it in cycling. The imagery, the attitudes, the presence, hell even the design & graphics of frames & equip. But the problem arose that mtbs are not motorcycles, riding an mtb is not the same as riding an MX bike. Now we have a sport which attempted but failed to create a TV presence (imagine, the folks that would be into motocross would be bored watching people ride bicycles), people convinced they need 7" of travel regardless of riding style, apparel to make everyone look like wannabe throttletwisters, and a youth presence that has been weaned on an overall attitude of brash swaggering and a general lack of respect for other trail users and nature itself. There's much to be said on the effects of the portrayal of women in the sport as well.
> Sure sold those magazines though! Greeeeat. Flip through a stack of mags in chronological order starting in about 88 & going up through 1996. Notice it? Now back to joining in everyone else wondering why mountain biking is (still) in a slump...


----------



## C.Savage (Mar 30, 2004)

Shayne said:


> Baggy Cloths and Camel Backs


Camel backs as a fad or worst product? What would be a better alternative method to carry the same amount of water?


----------



## Shayne (Jan 14, 2004)

*Both*

Personal preferance here just like your preference toward riser bars

2 water bottles cary all the water I'll ever need. If for some reason i would ever feel like carrying more there's room for 3 bottles in my jersey too.


----------



## bulC (Mar 12, 2004)

*I agree*

The whole idea that riding a mountain bike has to be about adrenaline, scaring oneself, crashing frequently, and riding at the maximum possible speed at all times has created a mountain bike-hating monster among other outdoorspersons, and set back IMBA's best efforts.
I blame Zap and his evil influence on a generation of impressionable stupid kids for the whole goatee/earring/tattoo/attitude thing. As with Herr Bush, history will judge him harshly.


----------



## bulC (Mar 12, 2004)

*yeah, hydration packs*



C.Savage said:


> Camel backs as a fad or worst product? What would be a better alternative method to carry the same amount of water?


Now for a truly long ride they are great. But I always wonder what the heck folks put in their huge packs for a 2-hour ride on local trails here that I don't have in my bike's frame pack, water bottle, or back pockets.
Even sillier are roadies, well, not really roadies, MTBers on pavement from the look of their visored helmets, pedaling the valley loop with a huge pack. Sometimes when I pass them I ask them if they're going camping.


----------



## bingemtbr (Apr 1, 2004)

10. Shaun Palmer
9. Integrated bar ends-handle bar-stem combo's.
8. Power grips
7. Suspension seatposts.
6. Drilled out crank arms and susp forks...
5. MX Jerseys
4. CNC'ed cable yolks (fork canti's)
3. OGD- Optical Gear Display
2. 9 sp cassettes---8 sp works very well!
1. Annodized purple


----------



## DaveX (Feb 10, 2004)

bingemtbr said:


> 10. Shaun Palmer
> 9. Integrated bar ends-handle bar-stem combo's.
> 8. Power grips
> 7. Suspension seatposts.
> ...


Amen to that list! Although I think your number 2 should be number 1. If i could add an 11th item to that list. This is a new fad, chain guides! Okay fine for you downhillers but are all these quasi XC/trail ride guys so damn slow that they never need a big ring? I dunno, I kinda like hammering in my big ring.

-dave


----------



## kb11 (Mar 29, 2004)

bingemtbr said:


> 10. Shaun Palmer
> 9. Integrated bar ends-handle bar-stem combo's.
> 8. Power grips
> 7. Suspension seatposts.
> ...


Curious as to why you have Shaun Palmer on your list?


----------



## DaveX (Feb 10, 2004)

kb11 said:


> Curious as to why you have Shaun Palmer on your list?


See above for bulC's comment about Zap. Remove Zap's name and insert Shaun Palmer.

-dave


----------



## Luther (Aug 29, 2004)

bulC said:


> .
> Even sillier are roadies, well, not really roadies, MTBers on pavement from the look of their visored helmets, pedaling the valley loop with a huge pack. Sometimes when I pass them I ask them if they're going camping.


Hey that's me! I have one pack and it's big. I never unpack the tools. It has what I need to fix either my road bike or my mtb. Hell, sometimes I don't even pack the bladder in it.

Worst Fad= Extreme Weight Weenies (the guys who even pick tires solely based on weight)


----------



## Disappointment to my Mom (Oct 11, 2004)

bar ends?
U-brakes under the chainstays?
4 finger levers?
scrotal hole seats?
Evolution headsets?
Browning transmission?
2 wheel drive?
drop bars?
push-push shifters?
shoulder portage straps?
and anything that caused the demise of thumb shifters!!!!!!


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

bulC said:


> Now for a truly long ride they are great. But I always wonder what the heck folks put in their huge packs for a 2-hour ride on local trails here that I don't have in my bike's frame pack, water bottle, or back pockets.
> Even sillier are roadies, well, not really roadies, MTBers on pavement from the look of their visored helmets, pedaling the valley loop with a huge pack. Sometimes when I pass them I ask them if they're going camping.


"when I pass them I ask them if they're going camping." Classic!

Ya, I dont get camelbacks either unless youre riding for 6+ hours.


----------



## Fuelish (Dec 19, 2003)

Built4Speed said:


> During mountain biking's early years,many products and fads appeared.What,in your opinion,is the worst fad or product ever? Yeah,we already know what you think about Biopace.


 Dunno if it qualifies as the worst, but am surprised that the Girvin FlexStem hasn't been mentioned 'til now....LOL (for the record, I still have one in my basement somewhere, with a half dozen or more nos elastomers - it wasn't a great product, but worked kinda sorta ok if you adapted to it...hehheh)


----------



## vdubbusrider (Jul 28, 2004)

C.Savage said:


> Yep. It only really applies if you currently use riser bars. Jump from a riser bar to a traditional flat bar that's outfitted with grip shift to top it off and it feels like you are steering from the stem. I just have a hard time but I guess over time I'd get used to it again ONLY if I had to. So okay maybe flat bars are not the worst product but I, for one, do not miss the old days of flat bars.


i must agree to an extent. no matter how original and vintage my bikes are i always want to stick risers on them. i don't alway give into my desires but i think about every time i ride the flat bars.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

suspension. once i read on an english mtb an interview w/ ross schaeffer. he was blaming susp from turning the mtb from an all around bike to trail closure and obnoxious behaviour tool. i'm with him. 
whenever i visit the "what bike forum" and read those lengthy tchnobabbles err... discussions on 4bar vs strutwhtever horst this and that, i feel like going back to cycling.


----------



## vdubbusrider (Jul 28, 2004)

Shayne said:


> Baggy Cloths and Camel Backs


i'm right there with you shayne!!! baggy shorts get cought on the saddle and are too darn hot. camelbacks suck in every way if your going really fast. they are ok for average riding though. i only use camelbacks for hiking or when i'm on a bike that does not have 2 bottle cages braze-ons.


----------



## vdubbusrider (Jul 28, 2004)

*Narrow handlebars*

what the heck was everybody thinking when they cut the bars down until the brake levers touched eachother. why did just about every mountain biker in the sport follow the trend. it was aweful.


----------



## donkey (Jan 14, 2004)

Shayne said:


> Personal preferance here just like your preference toward riser bars
> 
> 2 water bottles cary all the water I'll ever need. If for some reason i would ever feel like carrying more there's room for 3 bottles in my jersey too.


Are you trying to tell me that you'd rather ride around with 3 full bottles in your jersey and 2 on the bike than carry a camelback? Come on, are you serious!

B


----------



## Shayne (Jan 14, 2004)

*As BulC said*

what do you need one for unless you're going on some kind of marathon 100+ mile ride?
I can put 60+ miles on with only 2 water bottles easily. I have no need for anything more than that. The jersey comment was mostly tongue in cheek. Although on my Alan 'cross bike I have to use my jersey pockets if I want water....it has no braze-ons; a true cyclocross frame.


----------



## laffeaux (Jan 4, 2004)

vdubbusrider said:


> i must agree to an extent. no matter how original and vintage my bikes are i always want to stick risers on them. i don't alway give into my desires but i think about every time i ride the flat bars.


I like the width to be about 23" with not mych sweep, and could care less if the bar is flat or straight to get the bar where I need it. In almost all cases a flat bar works perfectly.

I really don't like narrow bars though. I can ride 22" if I have to, but less than that, no way!


----------



## laffeaux (Jan 4, 2004)

Shayne said:


> Personal preferance here just like your preference toward riser bars
> 
> 2 water bottles cary all the water I'll ever need. If for some reason i would ever feel like carrying more there's room for 3 bottles in my jersey too.


Hmmm.. long rides for me require a 100 oz. CamelBack, and a water purification system to refill the pack along the way.

Personal preference, but I'd put he CamelBack down as the best biking related improvemnt of the past 20 years.


----------



## mtbnutty (Aug 5, 2004)

*The only alternative?*

What's missing here is that many of the items listed had no alternative in their day. Comparing todays choices with yesterdays is just silly.

Also, cycling takes many forms and products hated by some here, were godsends to some of us back in the day. Take for example:

Bar ends - Any of you remember what it was like climbing the very steeps before the weight benefit of front suspension? Keeping the front down was a challenge.

Camelbaks - Remember what it was like to race that technical course and have to reach down for water bottles. In one year's time, nearly all racers had switched to that simple water delivery system called Camelbak.

I agree some fads were just stupid, but many had their place in their time. Some were simply obsoleted by technology, fashion, economics or manufactures (shimano's famous for their "planned obsolescence).

The worst product produced? My vote was that stupid "bolt on" rear suspension. I can't remember what it was called.


----------



## mtbnutty (Aug 5, 2004)

*Ditto*



bulC said:


> I blame Zap and his evil influence on a generation of impressionable stupid kids for the whole goatee/earring/tattoo/attitude thing. As with Herr Bush, history will judge him harshly.


Zap and many more of his ilk.

What crystal ball devined your Bush comment?


----------



## BikeKilla (Apr 4, 2004)

*I'll tell you*

.... I hate Shimano's new STI system. They're trying to reintegrate their brakes to their shifters, like back in the good old days when they almost put Sun Tour out of business. I have 'em on a Blur I bought used, and they're going soon.

Dan


----------



## mtbnutty (Aug 5, 2004)

*Is that necessary..*



bulC said:


> But I always wonder what the heck folks put in their huge packs for a 2-hour ride on local trails here that I don't have in my bike's frame pack, water bottle, or back pockets.
> Even sillier are roadies, well, not really roadies, MTBers on pavement from the look of their visored helmets, pedaling the valley loop with a huge pack. Sometimes when I pass them I ask them if they're going camping.


Seems your quite concerned about other riders, but to ridicule them....??


----------



## ssmike (Jan 21, 2004)

*Fad*

Fad - A fashion that is taken up with great enthusiasm for a brief period of time; a craze.

Bars - flat, riser or drop aren't a fad.
Camelbak - way beyond fad but yeah, what do people put in these things for an hour or two ride? My buddy carries my pump in his for one 
Browning transmission - never got to fad status
Zap - well, maybe.


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

ssmike said:


> Fad - A fashion that is taken up with great enthusiasm for a brief period of time; a craze.
> 
> Bars - flat, riser or drop aren't a fad.
> Camelbak - way beyond fad but yeah, what do people put in these things for an hour or two ride? My buddy carries my pump in his for one
> ...


Whats the story on the Browning transmission? I cant recall why it died. They had a production unit right? Or did they not quite get that far?


----------



## ssmike (Jan 21, 2004)

Fillet-brazed said:


> Whats the story on the Browning transmission? I cant recall why it died. They had a production unit right? Or did they not quite get that far?


It was just never very reliable, cost a lot, shorted out when riding through stream crossings, and was costing a lot in development. I do recall that Cindy Whitehead did use one fairly successfully during the development on her Klein Adroit.


----------



## dirtdonk (Jan 31, 2004)

bulC said:


> Now for a truly long ride they are great. But I always wonder what the heck folks put in their huge packs for a 2-hour ride on local trails here that I don't have in my bike's frame pack, water bottle, or back pockets.
> Even sillier are roadies, well, not really roadies, MTBers on pavement from the look of their visored helmets, pedaling the valley loop with a huge pack. Sometimes when I pass them I ask them if they're going camping.


yeah, lets spend 2 grand + on a 27 pound suspension bike and carry 10 pounds of gear.


----------



## tl1 (Dec 21, 2003)

*Neo-retro grouches*



Built4Speed said:


> During mountain biking's early years,many products and fads appeared.What,in your opinion,is the worst fad or product ever? Yeah,we already know what you think about Biopace.


 Neo-retro-grouches that are against anything new in cycling as proof of how pure, hardcore and old school they are. That act is just lame.


----------



## damion (Jun 27, 2003)

*It is a control mechanism.*



bulC said:


> Now for a truly long ride they are great. But I always wonder what the heck folks put in their huge packs for a 2-hour ride on local trails here that I don't have in my bike's frame pack, water bottle, or back pockets.
> Even sillier are roadies, well, not really roadies, MTBers on pavement from the look of their visored helmets, pedaling the valley loop with a huge pack. Sometimes when I pass them I ask them if they're going camping.


For me, keeping the bike as light as possible keeps it flickable under me. That, and I no longer run out of water, or loose tools from saddle/frame packs. On hot days, I freeze water in the bladder, or use Ice cubes. It helps cool my back. Anything in my pockets become a nasty bruise on impact. (read: phone and keys tattoo in the small of my back from 4 years ago.)


----------



## vdubbusrider (Jul 28, 2004)

donkey said:


> Are you trying to tell me that you'd rather ride around with 3 full bottles in your jersey and 2 on the bike than carry a camelback? Come on, are you serious!
> 
> B


if i'm doint a super long ride in the middle of summer i have no problem carrying a camelback since i probably won't be riding that fast.

when you jump the camelback is down when your going up and when your going down its going up. the worst for me is when you are maxed out and you're heart rate is pounding and your breathing you're hardest. by the time you suck some water out and drink it you have missed 3 full breaths of air! with a bottle you fill your mouth while still breathing and swallow between breaths. might not sound like a bid deal but when your racing or trying to keep up with your faster buddies it sure it!

but like i said if the ride is really long i carry a camel back for the extra water and to carry clothes and extra food.


----------



## EPO (Sep 2, 2004)

*Elevated Chain Stays*

and any other products that Mountian Bike Action was paid to paise!


----------



## Boy named SSue (Jan 7, 2004)

*Scott At-4 bars*

Like said above, there were some real uses for barends but I think this is where the whole thing went too far. The damn things joined inthe middle, usually with neon plasic thereby cobining two crappy fads.

I also always hated the Cateye MTB cyclometer that was eight times the size of whatever avocet had at the time and had no advantage. I knew a goofball with both and neon everywhere.


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

ssmike said:


> It was just never very reliable, cost a lot, shorted out when riding through stream crossings, and was costing a lot in development. I do recall that Cindy Whitehead did use one fairly successfully during the development on her Klein Adroit.


I have an old magazine with Nicol, Breeze, Chance, etc at Moab testing the Browning out. All said it was the future and loved it... Wish I had a scanner.


----------



## s1ngletrack (Aug 31, 2004)

tl1 said:


> Neo-retro-grouches that are against anything new in cycling as proof of how pure, hardcore and old school they are. That act is just lame.


True - I realize that this is the retro forum, but geez guys. I've been mountainbiking since '88 and started out on a lugged, rigid Trek - but I can still fully appreciate riding my 38lb 6.5" FR rig w/ 8" rotors (and my '49 Schwinn, for that matter) - and I thoroughly enjoy jumping off of / onto all kinds of stuff, in fact, this is the same type of riding that I did in '80 or so on my Grandma's 3 speed - only it's more fun now. Does this make me the Gen-X "Palmerwannabe"? I hope not.

It's almost criminal that you guys would lament the popularity of guys like Zap and Palmer - when the Softride Catapault (you know - the beam) has yet to be mentioned, and the Flexstem took so long to mention (for those of you who will say that suspension is not a fad - suspending the rider was, so there)

And really - we all know that steering dampeners where / are the worst fad of all time....


----------



## lucifer (Sep 27, 2004)

I'm sorry guys but camelbaks are the best invention ever. I have the old school one with the packster overlay. It carries more water than two bottles a small pump patch kit and some allen keys (and my car keys).It doesn't screw up my bikes handling like full water bottles do either.


I for one would have to say full suspension... they aren't motorcycles people. And if you need it well... wouldn't you really rather have a motorcycle?


----------



## Luther (Aug 29, 2004)

*Gu*

GU
Power Aid
Mountain Dew


----------



## JAK (Jan 6, 2004)

*a bunch*

-Chim Chims
-Custom high end frames with their own cheap-ass press in cartridge BBs--ala Fat City
-rapid fire
-tubeless???
-not making Ground Controls anymore  
-XT U-brakes
-campy offroad gruppo
-That funny piece of webbing to sling around your handlebars so you could walk behind your bike and steer it...for log crossings?
-weight weenie crappola


----------



## ssmike (Jan 21, 2004)

Fillet-brazed said:


> I have an old magazine with Nicol, Breeze, Chance, etc at Moab testing the Browning out. All said it was the future and loved it... Wish I had a scanner.


hmmm, I think I remember that too. And come to think of it, didn't Suntour get involved trying to bring it to production?


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

lucifer said:


> I'm sorry guys but camelbaks are the best invention ever. I have the old school one with the packster overlay. It carries more water than two bottles a small pump patch kit and some allen keys (and my car keys).It doesn't screw up my bikes handling like full water bottles do either.
> 
> I for one would have to say full suspension... they aren't motorcycles people. And if you need it well... wouldn't you really rather have a motorcycle?


How does two water bottles screw up your bikes handling? Wouldnt the weight be better off down low and supported by your frame rather than your back? I dont like my back all sweaty and I like access to jersey pockets. Arent camelbacks a pain in the neck to get clean with that tube? THey used to be. I tried one once and couldnt get the tube cleaned out. Yes, I left some concoction of drink in it over night, but still... With bottles you just throw them n the dishwasher and your done. Maybe camelbacks have changed...

Your bike and body are one piece in that they both follow the same path. Lower weight is better.

The only hindrance I can imagine is bunny hopping where you pull your bike up underneath you. But its not like Ive ever caught myself saying "dang, I coulda bunnyhopped that log if my bottle wasnt full"....

As for FS, well, it depends on where you ride and what youre trying to do. If you want to go fast over rough stuff, well... you need FS. I like both. They both have their place.


----------



## airwreck (Dec 31, 2003)

ssmike said:


> Fad - A fashion that is taken up with great enthusiasm for a brief period of time; a craze.


wool jerseys
tool clips and straps
leather hairnets
and someday?
deraileurs....




(and smilies too!)


----------



## 2ManyPlaces (Nov 4, 2004)

*K2 Smart Shock.....*

just what every mtn. biker needed..... Battery-operated & computer-controlled....DUH !!!!!!! Thankfully, it died a quick and agonizing death....
ThumbShifters forever (if it an't broke-- don't try to fix it....)
Camelbaks forever....
Bar ends forever..... doing 12-mile climbs out here in Colorado in the middle of freaking nowhere makes me appreciate all of the accessories available to me... And yes, that includes dual-suspension--- with lockout front and rear.... 
My biggest joy is when I encounter the "gram counters" out in the middle of nowhere and they have a busted chain/flat tire/broken (too lite) rear deraiiler.... And they carry NO tools... I don't let them use mine... I'm not their Daddy.. Besides, an 8 mile walk back to their car will give them LOTS of time to think (about being self-supporting in the future)...


----------



## mik_git (Feb 4, 2004)

hmmm, i like both barends and flat bars...

i think front suspension is good, and sure reare supension is good too, but i don't think that becuase therea trail out there that is mega steep and crazy, somebody needs to make a bike so some fool can ride it.

i think shaun palmer getting second at the worlds in cairns as a privateer was a good thing, i think palmer then becoming a huge mega paid up pro and inspiration to wanna be downhill bad boys was a bad thing...

i think splitting the world cups into separate DH and XC in stead of 1 big event was truly a bad idea... and making crazy ass downhills... and short course XC, if they made it super technical that be cool...


----------



## Capt Tripps (Jan 19, 2005)

Shayne said:


> Personal preferance here just like your preference toward riser bars
> 
> 2 water bottles cary all the water I'll ever need. If for some reason i would ever feel like carrying more there's room for 3 bottles in my jersey too.


just curious, ever ride Moab? i've drained my 100oz dry and my 3 water bottles before noon..


----------



## canadian-clydesdale (Oct 13, 2004)

the mission control look handlebars with the speedo, the gps, the heart rate monitor, the lights, the "mojo" thingy taped to the bars

i'd rather watch the trail than my handlebar blinking like frakin' vegas


----------



## JmZ (Jan 10, 2004)

*OK My shot*



Built4Speed said:


> During mountain biking's early years,many products and fads appeared.What,in your opinion,is the worst fad or product ever? Yeah,we already know what you think about Biopace.


Bumper forks, be they made by Rock Shox, Manitou or or Girvin. Temperature sensitive forks that degrade as the plastic bumpers age, or compress. Bleh.

Shimano intergraded anything.

For shifters - Got the Magura clamps to make the origional XTR's into pods, got Gorilla billets for the 2nd generation XTR's, and now... don't think that's gonna happen.

For cranks - riveted or intergrated rings? Cannondale was guilty of this one too!

For rear mechs - new stuff Hone and Saint have axle mounted. Just the idea.

And yes - biopace. ONLY time I ever had my knees hurt after riding!

Threaded headsets. Such a pain to work on and they never stayed adjusted for me. Shops didn't seem to know how to work on 'em either. Switched to threadless and been much happier!

Different standards for profits sake. Anyone remember when there were 3 or 4 different cassette spacing standards for the same number of speeds? Uugh... still shudder from that nightmare. (9 Speed could be an extension of this as well as the 1:1 vs 1:2 rear mechs. Would love to run a XO rear mech with my thumbies.  )

Non sloping top tube frames. It's a mountain bike, give me a chance to move the bike around, please.

Neon was an annoying fad. I miss some ano work though. Don't miss purple, but had a nice Ano Green Diamondback V-Link with some green ano parts, the blues were good to.

That's about it.

JmZ


----------



## 1FG rider (Jul 9, 2004)

*Ah, a few of my favorites...*

Those old stryofoam "ice cooler" helmets with the mesh cover. Looked like you were wearing a mushroom on your head.

Oakley's motocross style goggle/sunglasses with the tearoffs. Puh leeze!

U-brakes

Biopace

Bungee cord add-on front suspension, wish I could remember you was marketing that one but for sure saw that one in MB Action.

Plastic covered Shimano Deore components. Pedals, brakes, levers.


----------



## Capt Tripps (Jan 19, 2005)

Mountain Bike Action is the worst fad ever, there were some grat mags in the early years, I still have copies of the "Fat Tire Flyer" laying around, who's torch was semi passed to Dirt Rag, as well as "Mountain bike for adventure" and "Bicycle Rider" tails of trails, and the excitement of flirting with the dirt. Great stuff. I guess BIG AIR Sells. 
Guess I am showing my age, but i used to by FTF from a little shop in Fairfax where the guys selling these new fangled things were Gary an Charlie Kelly , Ritchey and Breeze were brazing the frames... give me singletrack, good friends and good food n beer...


----------



## ssmike (Jan 21, 2004)

Capt Tripps said:


> just curious, ever ride Moab? i've drained my 100oz dry and my 3 water bottles before noon..


Which begs the question - how did someone ride Moab B.C? - before camelbaks.


----------



## lucifer (Sep 27, 2004)

Fillet-brazed said:


> How does two water bottles screw up your bikes handling? Wouldnt the weight be better off down low and supported by your frame rather than your back? I dont like my back all sweaty and I like access to jersey pockets. Arent camelbacks a pain in the neck to get clean with that tube? THey used to be. I tried one once and couldnt get the tube cleaned out. Yes, I left some concoction of drink in it over night, but still... With bottles you just throw them n the dishwasher and your done. Maybe camelbacks have changed...
> 
> Your bike and body are one piece in that they both follow the same path. Lower weight is better.
> 
> ...


Well all I know is that after years of camelbak use I would never even consider going back. Most of what I ride is tight technical eastern singletrack. As for the weight on my back its very evenly distributed and to be honest I forget that its there after 1 minute of riding. Riding with bottles sucks on single track because you have to take your hands off the bars for an extended time to drink. Also what is the point of building a lightweight flickable, hoppable bike if you are just gonna throw 5lbs of water on it.

Another plus is that using a camelbak frees up your cage for light batteries. 

My issue with full suspension is that it made mountainbiking too easy. That led to trail crowding and ultimately to trail closures due to the influx of lots of morons with no bike handling skills and no respect for the land. I'm not saying thats the case for everyone who rides duallys just that it is for a lot of them.


----------



## richwolf (Dec 8, 2004)

Sorry I didn't read this thread 10 years earlier since I ride a softride mountain bike and use powergrips. I have a 4 bar full suspension bike which I like but compared to the softride it is slooooow. I ride clipless too but power grips properly set up are great particularly if you do any hike a bike. Those metal cleats slip on rocks.
I also had a u brake on an old Diamonback and stumpjumper and I thought they worked just fine.

Oh I got off track:
a. Don't much like camelbacks. They encourage you to carry too much stuff and they make my back sweaty and interfere with my breathing.
b. Air shocks while light seem to defeat the whole purpose of having a full suspension bike which to me is suppleness.
c. Zap. He is a big jerk. One year at interbike he shoved my wife aside to get front and center at a bike she was looking at. (one of the original Manitous built by Doug Bradbury)
d. Some of those sunglasses that people wore and still wear are sure ugly.
e.Disc brakes. Sure they are powerful but how long before they start dragging and squealing and needing replacement pads?


----------



## Rev. Gusto (Mar 3, 2004)

*Aluminum frames*

Gotta admit that without them there'd be no need for the suspension fad. Everything worked fine and rode great before hand. Also, short stems and those stupid, wasteful air cartridges designed to replace frame pumps. Ridiculous, unreliable and an extreme waste. Tried those once, with guilt, in the early 1990s. And glueless patches. Come on, what's in your garage and, yes, CamelBak. Fork tabs that render quick releases nearly pointless. I don't like the idea of taking a grinder to nice steel work. Jewelry made from extra parts. Have you ever seen somebody wear that stuff? Just stupid stuff.


----------



## ssissy (Oct 26, 2004)

*aluminum frames*

like it says above.


----------



## MantisMan (Jan 20, 2004)

*My $.02*

1) Camelbaks are a BAD product. Look for everyone to come out of their advertising-induced-hysteria and promptly hail the return of the mighty water bottle.

2) Rumor has it that the military will cease using hydration packs and instead switch to wearing form-fitting T-Mobile jerseys with 3 water bottles stuck in their jersey pockets and a seatpack attached to a utility belt.

3) I seem to remember a certain Mr. Armstrong running out of water in LESS than 1 hour. Too bad he didn't have a hydration pack that day. Of course the aerodynamic disadvantage would have negated any of the benefits of not becoming dehydrated.

4) Launching water bottles onto a bumpy trail is fun.

5) Reaching down where some full suspension bikes put their water bottle mounts (like under the downtube) is also fun.

6) Drinking from the tip of a mud-splattered water bottle? Yummy!

What was I thinking using a MULE?
Thank you for helping me to see the light.


----------



## HPilot (Jan 30, 2004)

*Yay Camelbak!*



laffeaux said:


> Hmmm.. long rides for me require a 100 oz. CamelBack, and a water purification system to refill the pack along the way.
> 
> Personal preference, but I'd put he CamelBack down as the best biking related improvement of the past 20 years.


Definitely! For races, water bottles are OK. Even a 3 hour ride for me requires a 100 oz. Camelbak. Not only that, but carrying everything for what may happen on a marathon ride requires at least the M.U.L.E. size pack. On cooler days, maybe 2 bottles would do. It is just a pain in the ass to drink from bottles. I like to keep both hands on the bars in the woods!!! Road training is another case. Bottles do for that, unless were doing 50+ miles in the heat.


----------



## Disappointment to my Mom (Oct 11, 2004)

ssmike said:


> Fad - A fashion that is taken up with great enthusiasm for a brief period of time; a craze.
> 
> .


oh stupid me, I thought it said "Worst Mountain Bike Fad OR Product".............my bad.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

Fillet-brazed said:


> How does two water bottles screw up your bikes handling? Wouldnt the weight be better off down low and supported by your frame rather than your back? I dont like my back all sweaty and I like access to jersey pockets. Arent camelbacks a pain in the neck to get clean with that tube? THey used to be. I tried one once and couldnt get the tube cleaned out. Yes, I left some concoction of drink in it over night, but still... With bottles you just throw them n the dishwasher and your done. Maybe camelbacks have changed...
> 
> Your bike and body are one piece in that they both follow the same path. Lower weight is better.
> 
> The only hindrance I can imagine is bunny hopping where you pull your bike up underneath you. But its not like Ive ever caught myself saying "dang, I coulda bunnyhopped that log if my bottle wasnt full"....


if you happen to ride along cow [email protected] infested fields, w/ giardia bacteries singing kumbalaya when they cling to your bottles top, you realize the importance of camelbacks.


----------



## trekfuelkingston (Dec 4, 2004)

one word:

BIOPACE


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

colker1 said:


> if you happen to ride along cow [email protected] infested fields, w/ giardia bacteries singing kumbalaya when they cling to your bottles top, you realize the importance of camelbacks.


Oh, camelbacks are for riding in cow crap.


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

trekfuelkingston said:


> one word:
> 
> BIOPACE


Biopace is making a comeback. It got bronze in the men's Olympic Time Trial this last fall. I would actually say a silver as Hamilton slithered away with his gold...

However, the ovalness was slightly different than the old biopace. Tomac used biopace too. For a while anyway.


----------



## MantisMan (Jan 20, 2004)

*Gee, where I ride there's also.....*

Horse Crap



Fillet-brazed said:


> Oh, camelbacks are for riding in cow crap.


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

MantisMan said:


> Horse Crap


Should we call em crapelbaks? 

edit: just jokin around guys. Camelbaks are cool. As we can see by this thread, there is a vast array of preferences, and thats a good thing I think.


----------



## MantisMan (Jan 20, 2004)

*Touche'*

That was pretty good Fillet-Brazed.



Fillet-brazed said:


> Should we call em crapelbaks?
> 
> edit: just jokin around guys. Camelbaks are cool. As we can see by this thread, there is a vast array of preferences, and thats a good thing I think.


----------



## flyingsuperpetis (Jan 16, 2004)

*"Drink yer liquids Soldiers!!!"*

Man, I've been avoiding this, but I gotta ask, am I the only one who doesn't drink when they ride?

No Cameltoes, no BabyBottles, no GU packs, nothing. Food & liquid too close to excersize just seems to sit in the stomach, and makes the guttiwuts all slooshy & horrorshow...


----------



## Shayne (Jan 14, 2004)

*Kinda*

Like I said earlier 2 bottles will do me for 60-80 miles.

I drink A LOT prior to doing anything atheletic but drinking durring just doesn't sit well with me either. Cycling is about the only sport I can consume water/food with out getting sick. It's pretty low impact on the internal organs.


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

flyingsuperpetis said:


> Man, I've been avoiding this, but I gotta ask, am I the only one who doesn't drink when they ride?
> 
> No Cameltoes, no BabyBottles, no GU packs, nothing. Food & liquid too close to excersize just seems to sit in the stomach, and makes the guttiwuts all slooshy & horrorshow...


Ive gotta have liquids. Anything really longer than an hour and a half should have some sort of caloric intake also, otherwise you will meet mr bonk. Hes not a nice gentleman.

Our kidneys store roughly enough juice for 1.5 hours. So I hear. Im no nutrition specialist however. Someone correct me please if need be.


----------



## mwr (Jul 17, 2004)

flyingsuperpetis said:


> Man, I've been avoiding this, but I gotta ask, am I the only one who doesn't drink when they ride?


I'd drink when I ride but I haven't found a good cordless blender or polycarbonate shot glasses.


----------



## Shayne (Jan 14, 2004)

*Now That's Classic*

Cordless Blender....great.

That's a REAL close second to BulC's "Camping" comment


----------



## flyingsuperpetis (Jan 16, 2004)

Fillet-brazed said:


> Ive gotta have liquids. Anything really longer than an hour and a half should have some sort of caloric intake also, otherwise you will meet mr bonk. Hes not a nice gentleman.
> 
> Our kidneys store roughly enough juice for 1.5 hours. So I hear. Im no nutrition specialist however. Someone correct me please if need be.


 Yeah, we used to do bonk rides occasionally, so we could get used to the feeling safely in a group and learn how to spot & help a fellow teammate who was succumbing. Also, so we'd be able to identify the sublte symptoms when riding alone & not get into real trouble out in the middle of nowhere. We'd not eat the night before, sleep 5 hours, have two peices of sugary fruit in the am, and go out and hammer till someone started hunching over their bars. Prop em up, and ride em back to the shop. Coming out of it lying on the shop floor with the owner throwing powerbars at my face is one of my fondest training memories. Oddly though, I stopped drinking & riding right around that time, and haven't had a problem since, regardless of duration. Who knows. There's probably quite a bit of interesting med info that'd suggest I'm taking years off my life, but I'll probably just keep right on doing it anyway, cause I'm a dang pigheaded knowitall. Trust me I know. See?


----------



## Boy named SSue (Jan 7, 2004)

mwr said:


> I'd drink when I ride but I haven't found a good cordless blender or polycarbonate shot glasses.


The polycarbonate shot glass should be easy. I'm sure Merlin or Litespeed sells a ti one for some stupid amount of money.

Here's your blender:
http://www.rei.com/online/store/Pro...3&parent_category_rn=11549377&vcat=REI_SEARCH


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

Shayne said:


> Baggy Cloths and Camel Backs


Hey, easy now!


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

Fillet-brazed said:


> "when I pass them I ask them if they're going camping." Classic!
> 
> Ya, I dont get camelbacks either unless youre riding for 6+ hours.


I gave you food out of mine biach!


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

Rumpfy said:


> I gave you food out of mine biach!


LOL! Thats right! It sure is great when your friends carry camelbacks.  That sure did hit the spot too.

All this squawking about camelbaks and now this. Camelbaks are the best. Too funny.

edit: I was wondering if perhaps you were gonna stay overnight out there. Thought maybe you had one of those lightweight sleeping bags rolled up in there. 

Lesson learned: The best option is to have your buddies wear camelbacks.


----------



## rideit (Jan 22, 2004)

*hmmm*



Shayne said:


> I can put 60+ miles on with only 2 water bottles easily. "
> 
> Riding without a camelback here in the Big Hole Mountains would be irresponsible to other riders...60 miles here is like 100 miles elsewhere. Ditto to needing tools, spare parts, emergency medical equipment, water purification, rain/snow equipment, food, etc. We go on 6-11 hour adventures, some, even with an exceptionally fast group, only cover 50 miles or less...
> As to other camel bak related opinoins, weel, I can fill it with Ice water and....BEER. Ice cold beer two hours into a ride...yumm!


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

Shayne said:


> 2 water bottles cary all the water I'll ever need. If for some reason i would ever feel like carrying more there's room for 3 bottles in my jersey too.


On many of good adventure races we needed about a gallon of liquid to get through daytime bike sections. It was horrible to watch some of the folks on one hike-a-bike section last year (2000ft+ vertical pushing it up) - after 60 miles and 9K ft of vertical - who did run out of water. There were no running streams.

And with all mandatory equipment one need to carry a backpack anyway. Camelbacks are great.


----------



## MantisMan (Jan 20, 2004)

*That blender ought to fit beautifully in......*

a Camelbak TransAlp.

I didn't want to have to bring this up but now my hand has been forced. Many mountain bike jerseys only have one zippered pocket or even no pockets- which leads me to believe that all you non-camelbakers are wearing..............EEEEEEEEEW! ROAD jerseys on the trail!!!!

Look out for the DOMO FARM FRITES rider!!!



Boy named SSue said:


> The polycarbonate shot glass should be easy. I'm sure Merlin or Litespeed sells a ti one for some stupid amount of money.
> 
> Here's your blender:
> http://www.rei.com/online/store/Pro...3&parent_category_rn=11549377&vcat=REI_SEARCH


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

bingemtbr said:


> 7. Suspension seatposts.


Get you hands off my thudbuster. And the new, short travel one should be even better on my cross bike.


----------



## apexspeed (Jul 6, 2004)

*Bad Fads & Products*

Suspension seatposts/stems
Splatter painted frames
Hydraulic rim brakes
Splined bottom brackets/4-bolt chainrings
Elastomer suspension forks
Spin 3-spoke carbon wheels
"Freeriding"
Fanny packs
Tire Slime
Slick/orange peel-center dirt tires
SPD sandals & "leisure" shoes
Spring-loaded chain tensioners
Lizard Skins

And hey, lay off my purple anodizing!


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

MantisMan said:


> That was pretty good Fillet-Brazed.


_Please_ don't egg that guy on! His ego is already huuuuuge!


----------



## flyingsuperpetis (Jan 16, 2004)

Ohhhh Doug, you and I are going to have words. WORDS!!!


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

apexspeed said:


> Splatter painted frames


Mountain Goat Whiskeytown Racer!


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

Fillet-brazed said:


> LOL! Thats right! It sure is great when your friends carry camelbacks.  That sure did hit the spot too.
> 
> All this squawking about camelbaks and now this. Camelbaks are the best. Too funny.
> 
> ...


Damn right that's right! 
Next time I'm not bringing anything and you have to carry me and my bike on your back...


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

flyingsuperpetis said:


> Man, I've been avoiding this, but I gotta ask, am I the only one who doesn't drink when they ride?
> 
> No Cameltoes, no BabyBottles, no GU packs, nothing. Food & liquid too close to excersize just seems to sit in the stomach, and makes the guttiwuts all slooshy & horrorshow...


No sh!t? You're nuts. 
I have to have food and drink when I ride otherwise I'm a gonner.

The only time I don't take water is if I'm riding down to the store...I can handle that.

Doesn't the saying go...by the time you think you need water/food...it's too late.


----------



## EBasil (Jan 30, 2004)

*...and I fell for it, too*



-Anomie- said:


> One word: NEON


Ditto that.


----------



## loonyOne (Dec 25, 2003)

MantisMan said:


> Ascerbis hand guards?


Don't say it too loud...they just may do just that. Bar ends almost made it there.


----------



## loonyOne (Dec 25, 2003)

vdubbusrider said:


> i'm right there with you shayne!!! baggy shorts get cought on the saddle and are too darn hot. camelbacks suck in every way if your going really fast. they are ok for average riding though. i only use camelbacks for hiking or when i'm on a bike that does not have 2 bottle cages braze-ons.


Baggy shorts too hot??!!!! What the H? Much cooler going baggy and letting the wind flow a touch than having the tool box open for everyone to see. I don't even own a water bottle cage anymore. Not going far from home, then don't fill the bladder as full. "Backpacks" are as useful to most of us as much as to hikers. How much water and tools do hikers have to walk with?


----------



## loonyOne (Dec 25, 2003)

s1ngletrack said:


> It's almost criminal that you guys would lament the popularity of guys like Zap and Palmer - when the Softride Catapault (you know - the beam) has yet to be mentioned, and the Flexstem took so long to mention (for those of you who will say that suspension is not a fad - suspending the rider was, so there)


Ya, suspending the rider. What a pile of hoo! I can't speak for anyone else, but in the rough stuff I am standing on the pedals, in the 'attack' mode. Who in blazes would be sitting down, enjoying the 'rider' suspension, whilst riding some killer, true, mountain trail...riding on a cliff side, bombing down a rutted fire road, going downhill on any trail, in most cases, people float above the saddle in any rough or sketchy section of any trail. It really is no different than riding at least a hardtail, not to mention the suspension stem (never used one). Maybe for some roadies...constantly on the saddle for hours on end and never standing up. I agree, this has to be the worst yet...until the next one that sparks my plugs.


----------



## flyingsuperpetis (Jan 16, 2004)

Loony, I hear ya. If you ride rocky techy stuff, like most of us love to, beam bikes are totally out of their depth.
However, beam bikes are a regional thing. Living in Colorado, the only beamers I saw were roadies. For good reason. You'd kill yourself on just about any trail out there strapped to such a springboard. But back in the flatlands of the midwest, they still hold relevance, even popularity. For quite a lot of people, the only type of terrain they ever get to ride is a groomed cross country ski trail. Fast doubletrack, hardpack, lots of twists & turns, lots of ripples, a ton of short & steep climbs & wasted descents. Mostly just a bumpy crit. For these people, they'd rather not waste the energy bouncing around in real suspension, so they ride rigid, until their backs start giving them trouble. Then they get on a beamer, learn to spin smooth circles, still fly up climbs like a rigid bike, and enjoy a completely supple ride on the "choppy" stuff.

They're not for me either, but in I can't say they don't do a good job filling a niche, however narrow it may be...


----------



## Tracerboy (Oct 13, 2002)

I remember those! I thought they were cool and put them on my old Schwinn Mesa Runner.


----------



## Tracerboy (Oct 13, 2002)

Zap Espinoza is a bad FAD? Funny!!!!! No really,that was funny.I forgot about him.


----------



## Tracerboy (Oct 13, 2002)

I was planning on installing those old Specialized neon pink brake/shift cables on one of my Haros.


----------



## Tracerboy (Oct 13, 2002)

I remember cutting my bars very narrow so I can squeeze through cars and trees.I should've just rode with my stem only.


----------



## Tracerboy (Oct 13, 2002)

I wear baggy shorts.I can carry my can of pepper spray,in case some dumb-a$$ 5150 tries to steal my bike when I'm riding it. I used to wear lycra bike shorts. I don't know why I don't wear em anymore. CamelBacks are a great idea for long rides. I got tired of sucking in dirt,earth worms and horse crap when drinking out of my water bottles.


----------



## Tracerboy (Oct 13, 2002)

*You're right*

I remember when I rode in a hot summer day back in 1988 with one bottle and I ran out while out on the trail.When I had to answer nature's call,all I managed to pee out was a little tiny brown drop. I still remember that. Camelbacks are a-ok!


----------



## Tracerboy (Oct 13, 2002)

And really - we all know that steering dampeners where / are the worst fad of all time....[/QUOTE]

YEAH!!! Those steering dampeners and flat handlebars from Odessey! Anyone remember those? I think the only thing that worked on that steering kit was the stem with the concentric brake roller mounted on the Odessey stem. I still have that too.


----------



## flyingsuperpetis (Jan 16, 2004)

Woah! That boogeyman thing is starting to freak me out!


----------



## Tracerboy (Oct 13, 2002)

*Oh god,what did I start....*

Ok,the worst stuff I can think of:

Zap,because he shoved that nice lady aside,just to look at a new bike.

Neon; Only because they faded in the sun real fast.

A $4000.oo, 39lb bike you can't ride uphill.

Integrated brakes and shifters.

Suntour oval rings.

The term 'Black Diamond' .Just when I'm getting used to 'Freeriding', Mountain Bike Action has to change things,just to be politically correct.

The term 'ALL MOUNTAIN bike' What was wrong with ' All Terrain'?

Hollow pin chains. Once they broke,you couldn't fix them.Expensive 

Tubeless tires. Don't you still have to carry tubes? Don't hold me to this though,I plan on trying them out in the future.

HiteRites. Neat idea at the time. I still have one on one of my bikes,just for old times sake.

Odessey's forward facing flat bar and steering dampeners.

'Mountain bikes are a fad' .I said that back in 1986.


----------



## victorthewombat (Jan 12, 2004)

*whoah partner....,*



s1ngletrack said:


> True - I realize that this is the retro forum, but geez guys. I've been mountainbiking since '88 and started out on a lugged, rigid Trek - but I can still fully appreciate riding my 38lb 6.5" FR rig w/ 8" rotors (and my '49 Schwinn, for that matter) - and I thoroughly enjoy jumping off of / onto all kinds of stuff, in fact, this is the same type of riding that I did in '80 or so on my Grandma's 3 speed - only it's more fun now. Does this make me the Gen-X "Palmerwannabe"? I hope not.
> 
> It's almost criminal that you guys would lament the popularity of guys like Zap and Palmer - when the Softride Catapault (you know - the beam) has yet to be mentioned, and the Flexstem took so long to mention (for those of you who will say that suspension is not a fad - suspending the rider was, so there)
> 
> And really - we all know that steering dampeners where / are the worst fad of all time....


Don't knock the beam and softride stem. I know some old school chappies who could whomp the majority of the posters to this board XC or downhill. Its not about the equipment but, ability.

VTW


----------



## uphiller (Jan 13, 2004)

My list of worst MTB stuff:
-Forks with impossible to change out elastomers. But let's be fair, elastomers were there for a reason- the damping technology just wasn't there yet. Forks like the Halson Inversion, which let you change out the elastomers any time you wanted to without using any tools, could be asily adapted to all kinds of weather. Just about all the others, even ones like the Manitou 3 and 4, were too annoying to get into for my taste, though.
-Suspension stems. I don't care what anyone says, I just don't see much benefit in those things. The Softride one seemed on the surface to be borderline acceptable, but one ride on it revealed a nasty bottom and top out clunk. I can't imagine the 150-dollar damped and CNC'd version to be that much better. Ick.
-Spring loaded derailleur tensioners, like the Bullet Brothers one. Shudder.
-Any cassette with more than 7 gears on it. Yeah, 8sp ones are defacto lighter with that spider system which cuts a good 150g, technology never applied to 7sp systems, but increasing the wheel's dish for just one speed? Come on. Well, I guess the move to 8sp rear hubs forced rim makers to put out some stronger rims to make up for the loss in strength. 9sp cassettes are pretty lame, too.
-Low-profile cantilevers. It seems like Shimano came up with these just for the sake of selling something new when the medium-profile cantis had in fact much better geometry. Shimano introduced its SLR Plus levers at around the same time, though to get the braking power where it had been with normal levers and medium profile brakes. Anyone using normal levers and low-profile cantis would think that cantis sucked, which allowed Shimano to justify introducing the V-Brake. Thus were they able to sell two new generations of brakes before finally making the brake that really solved MTB brake issues, the disc brake. What a waste.
-The Shockster bolt-on rear suspension unit, which turned a hardtail into a crummy full suspension bike. Utter trash!
-Zero-dish wheels. Instead of moving the drive flange off to the right and really increasing wheel strength, Ritchey moved the non-drive one inward. Sure, there's no more dish, but the non-drive flange is weakened instead of the drive one being strengthened. What a joke.


----------



## flyingsuperpetis (Jan 16, 2004)

*I'm gonna eat it on this one big time, and I don't care...*

Riser bars.


----------



## unotache (Oct 29, 2004)

*I'll agree, and add a little back ground.*



flyingsuperpetis said:


> Riser bars.


In the begining, there was flat bars and 10° plus rise stems.
Along came suspension forks.
Stem makers produced 0° rise stems to adjust for the increased ride/fork height.
Frame makers adjusted geometry for suspension forks.
0° and 5° stems remained.
Riders adoped riser bars to reduce saddle to bar drop (and look moto IMO).

Along came 29ers..........


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

unotache said:


> In the begining, there was flat bars and 10° plus rise stems.
> Along came suspension forks.
> Stem makers produced 0° rise stems to adjust for the increased ride/fork height.
> Frame makers adjusted geometry for suspension forks.
> ...


I think they came along as a geniune need for a weight distribution change for downhilling. Take some narrow, low bars on your favorite steep, rough, downhill. Then put some wide, comfy, 2"+ risers on it and feel the joy. Your confidence will be increased. Its all about being able to "de-weight" the front wheel easier and just having less weight up front period.

Plus you can no longer get flat bars with more sweep than 5 degrees anyway can you?

Just my $.02.


----------



## mik_git (Feb 4, 2004)

OK don't know if anyone said thsi before (did look, but not real hard)

Mega 9. whats with this?

no mine seems to work fine, but thats not the point. my first bike had 3x7 my second 3x8.
Now 8 speed worked real good, and all the improvements that went with it made it better than 7. but 9, i only upgraded as i broke my shifter and for some reason at the time (tasmania australia) it was real hard to get 8speed (as in you couldn't) so upgrade i did. but really your riding along. i mostly notice it when rididng to work on the road, you think hm getting a little hard i'll downshift, but all that happens is theres a nice click and a slight lessening of pressur on the legs. same going up, click, click, click.. all your doing is changing gears for no reason, you have to go 2 to make it worth while.
seriously, i like techy stuff, but how many gears do you need??? click, click


----------



## Guitar Ted (Jan 14, 2004)

*Mega 9, agreed, it's bad.*

Same spacing in the rear when we had six, or seven speeds. Now they stuff 9 back there! Wheels suffer, and parts don't last as long! I have people that fold over their 32, and 34 tooth rear sprockets coming in to the shop where I work. People are not happy! Either change to wider rear spacing, and beef the chain and cogs back up, or go back to 8 speeds- please!


----------



## flyingsuperpetis (Jan 16, 2004)

Fillet-brazed said:


> I think they came along as a geniune need for a weight distribution change for downhilling. Take some narrow, low bars on your favorite steep, rough, downhill. Then put some wide, comfy, 2"+ risers on it and feel the joy. Your confidence will be increased. Its all about being able to "de-weight" the front wheel easier and just having less weight up front period.
> 
> Plus you can no longer get flat bars with more sweep than 5 degrees anyway can you?
> 
> Just my $.02.


 Ok I'm back. Ya D, I'll agree that for DH & probably most FR purposes, the control that the upright stance & weight dist provided via higher front end positioning is a real benefit, and nearly essential for the safe operation at high speeds & on steep descents, but that's not what I question.

Somewhere along the line, it became acceptable to put the rise into the bars instead of the stem. Adding such bends to a tube is a structural compromise, and on such a critical component, should be avoided if possible. And it is possible. The sweep (& upsweep) is as easily attainable on a flatbar as a riser, and should be an option. Using a 90mmx10deg stem & a flat bar, or a 90mmx0deg stem & 3/4" rise bar gets your hands in the same position, with the only difference being that the flat bar & stem is simply a stronger, stiffer (& lighter) system. It may not make a rider look like an MX wannabe, but as a system, it's simpler & better.

Tucker, I do remember when mtbs all came with risers, but, remember too when mtb's got their own stems, which had some rise, and allowed lighter straighter, stronger, & lighter bars. Then yeah Doug, many of us XC took it too far and chopped em down to 16" nubs, and skittered & crashed all over the place till we found that the width is worth a couple grammes. I used to ride Trials rather poorly, and the only usable thing I got out of it was how a wider stance at the BB & bar helped stability & balance. Tried it on a couple DH rigs, and it felt like straddling a sherman tank. Not an easy spinner, but indeed stable & confidence inspiring.

There's no good reason for the lack of 15deg sweep flat bars on the market.


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

flyingsuperpetis said:


> Ok I'm back. Ya D, I'll agree that for DH & probably most of FR purposes, the control that the upright stance & weight dist provided via higher front end positioning is a real benefit, and nearly essential for the safe operation at high speeds & on steep descents, but that's not what I question.
> 
> Somewhere along the line, it became acceptable to put the rise into the bars instead of the stem. Adding such bends to a tube is a structural compromise, and on such a critical component, should be avoided if possible. And it is possible. The sweep (& upsweep) is as easily attainable on a flatbar as a riser, and should be an option. Using a 90mmx10deg stem & a flat bar, or a 90mmx0deg stem & 3/4" rise bar gets your hands in the same position, with the only difference being that the flat bar & stem is simply a stronger, stiffer (& lighter) system. It may not make a rider look like an MX wannabe, but as a system, it's simpler & better.
> 
> ...


Ah, I gotcha. Ya, you could get to the same position with a flat bar. The question then arises, is the stem being that high, any weaker? It would seem to be, but I could be off on this. As for the flat bars, they just dont make em that way for some reason. The Titec Hell Bent is the closest thing. If you had a bar with 15 degrees of sweep with a good width, you could just tilt it up a little and get your desired upsweep. Isnt there a Titec Flattracker bar too? Seems like I recall that one having a pretty cool bend. Im foggy on that though.


----------



## ssmike (Jan 21, 2004)

Fillet-brazed said:


> Isnt there a Titec Flattracker bar too? Seems like I recall that one having a pretty cool bend. Im foggy on that though.


The Flattracker is my favorite flat bar (guess I'll have to post this in the "best product/fad" thread"). Wide, good back sweep so you can simply rotate the bar up slightly and get that good wide DH bar feel in a simple, light flat bar. I get my rise out of my stem and spacers - among other things.


----------



## EPO (Sep 2, 2004)

*I second that--Death to Risers!*

Riser bars, due to the bends, have a stress concentrations. Due do this this have to have thicker side walls in the tubing to reduce the stress levels. IMO risser bars are only needed in the market place if you are on a budget and don't want to spend extra money on a new stem to get the desired position.

High end-risers bars/ low angle stem systems, your days are numbered. Image, not mechanics of materials is what keeps them here. Just like Zap's flare in his ears, red anodized chainring bolts are for chainrings. (I also had to take a shot at the *Turd*.)


----------



## Guest (Feb 7, 2005)

*Camelbak as spine protection*



Axe said:


> On many of good adventure races we needed about a gallon of liquid to get through daytime bike sections. It was horrible to watch some of the folks on one hike-a-bike section last year (2000ft+ vertical pushing it up) - after 60 miles and 9K ft of vertical - who did run out of water. There were no running streams.
> 
> And with all mandatory equipment one need to carry a backpack anyway. Camelbacks are great.


Hey Axe - Ditto on the need to carry lots of liquid for long rides, esp. in hot climates and on long rides. But another benefit of Camelbacks that I haven't seen mentioned here is BACK PADDING. Anyone who's ever landed back-first onto rocks or tree roots sings praises to the damage-avoiding affects of a camelback. Even empty it works!


----------



## Guest (Feb 7, 2005)

*Remember the "Slingshot"*



Built4Speed said:


> During mountain biking's early years,many products and fads appeared.What,in your opinion,is the worst fad or product ever? Yeah,we already know what you think about Biopace.


Remember that bike with the downtube replaced with a cable and spring? I never bought one because I wondered how long it would take for the plastic hinge to break, and then you'd be stranded on some remote trail with your bike broken in half. The concept seemed cool at the time, especially b/c suspension for bikes was still in its infancy, but seeing as the company's not around any more, apparently the *fad* never caught on.


----------



## donkey (Jan 14, 2004)

SlickRick_NorCal said:


> Remember that bike with the downtube replaced with a cable and spring? I never bought one because I wondered how long it would take for the plastic hinge to break, and then you'd be stranded on some remote trail with your bike broken in half. The concept seemed cool at the time, especially b/c suspension for bikes was still in its infancy, but seeing as the company's not around any more, apparently the *fad* never caught on.


They're still around and the bikes are still loved by many. Do a search for their website.....

B


----------



## flyingsuperpetis (Jan 16, 2004)

SlickRick_NorCal said:


> Remember that bike with the downtube replaced with a cable and spring? I never bought one because I wondered how long it would take for the plastic hinge to break, and then you'd be stranded on some remote trail with your bike broken in half. The concept seemed cool at the time, especially b/c suspension for bikes was still in its infancy, but seeing as the company's not around any more, apparently the *fad* never caught on.


 Uh oh. Is that thunder?


----------



## vdubbusrider (Jul 28, 2004)

sorry, far from a fad. thats one of the longest running frame designs in all of mountain biking.


----------



## 415m3 (Mar 16, 2004)

*Standby!*

You'd better be dressed for wet weather soldier. SlickRick, meet Eric.......uh, Eric? Not answering the call? At least Sky has your back.


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

SlickRick_NorCal said:


> Remember that bike with the downtube replaced with a cable and spring? I never bought one because I wondered how long it would take for the plastic hinge to break, and then you'd be stranded on some remote trail with your bike broken in half. The concept seemed cool at the time, especially b/c suspension for bikes was still in its infancy, but seeing as the company's not around any more, apparently the *fad* never caught on.


Hahahaha!  
Well thats a hell of a thing to say!

Horribly poor assumptions. First of all for not buying or at least trying the bike in the first place based on assuming it's 'reliability' problems...and second of all for assuming that the company is out of business. (www.slingshotbikes.com)

The frame design has remained basically unchanged since the late 80's, and it's still a privately owned company. I can think of very few other bike companies that can claim such a thing.

It's not a perfect bike by a long shot...but of all the forums to slag Slingshots in...well...this is pretty funny!

You're a NorCal guy huh? I could probably get you on one to try out...see what you're missing. Do a search for 'Slingshot' under the Vintage, Retro, Classic forum and a bunch of stuff will come up. I'll give you one guess who talks about them the most...


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

You tell him Rumpfy! You forgot to mention the Moab record.


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

Fillet-brazed said:


> You tell him Rumpfy! You forgot to mention the Moab record.


This is true. And the record you set on mine!


----------



## vdubbusrider (Jul 28, 2004)

Rumpfy said:


> This is true. And the record you set on mine!


yeah, that famous record DL set on a slingshot is famous. i hear people talking about that in grocery store. amazing!


----------



## vdubbusrider (Jul 28, 2004)

*Kirk Precision*

here's a short lived bike. bad fad? maybe, but it looks neat.


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

vdubbusrider said:


> yeah, that famous record DL set on a slingshot is famous. i hear people talking about that in grocery store. amazing!


I heard there was a crazy guy in SoCal who rides a purple one...wicked fast!


----------



## vdubbusrider (Jul 28, 2004)

he is a little crazy but his slingshot is blue with red accents. not a purple part on it.


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

vdubbusrider said:


> he is a little crazy but his slingshot is blue with red accents. not a purple part on it.


That bike, is not blue. It's lavender, twinkle toes.


----------



## vdubbusrider (Jul 28, 2004)

Rumpfy said:


> That bike, is not blue. It's lavender, twinkle toes.


i am color blind but i think its blue and i'm sticking to my guns. i cant be seen on a lavender bike. what would that do to my reputation. what's next? i'll be buying pink bikes or something.


----------



## vdubbusrider (Jul 28, 2004)

OK, i just checked with the fem, its definetly blue. you scared me! i thought for a minute i would half to become a whole lot faster of a rider to be able to pull off riding a purple bike.


----------



## mik_git (Feb 4, 2004)

i remember those!, well the adds, never saw one, magnesium and heavy?


----------



## vdubbusrider (Jul 28, 2004)

mik_git said:


> i remember those!, well the adds, never saw one, magnesium and heavy?


yeup, cast magnesium and 31 lbs. still deciding on whether to keep it or sell it. on hand i cant really ride it and on the other its neet to look at really represents a bad idea. probably one of the worst idea in a time of a lot of bad idea's.


----------



## RonSonic (Jan 8, 2005)

Dumbest thing ever: U-brakes under the chainstays. That gets number one because it afflicts a lot of cool old bikes that would otherwise be wonderful.

Something even dumber, but you gotta be dumb enough to fall for it before it messes you up is the whole MTB as a powerless motorcycle thing. It's one thing for a 10 year old kid to pretend his bikes a motorcycle. It's another thing for a grown-up to be spending a couple grand to end up with a 40 pound bicycle that'd be a cool MX frame if it only had a motor.


----------



## flyingsuperpetis (Jan 16, 2004)

RonSonic said:


> Dumbest thing ever: U-brakes under the chainstays...


 Oh no. I thought the fighting was over with the cheese slicer post, but I see it's only getting started. Ron, you still have an out, say this excludes Rollercams! Quick!


----------



## victorthewombat (Jan 12, 2004)

*the Kirk....*



vdubbusrider said:


> yeup, cast magnesium and 31 lbs. still deciding on whether to keep it or sell it. on hand i cant really ride it and on the other its neet to look at really represents a bad idea. probably one of the worst idea in a time of a lot of bad idea's.


I'd keep since it is one the few that did not break.

VTW


----------



## ATXSS (Mar 15, 2004)

Shayne said:


> what do you need one for unless you're going on some kind of marathon 100+ mile ride?
> I can put 60+ miles on with only 2 water bottles easily. I have no need for anything more than that. The jersey comment was mostly tongue in cheek. Although on my Alan 'cross bike I have to use my jersey pockets if I want water....it has no braze-ons; a true cyclocross frame.


My telepathy is telling me that you don't live in Texas! I've gone through 100oz in less than 30 miles on a regular basis during June-September.


----------



## mik_git (Feb 4, 2004)

great for when you start a museume of ye oldie stuff...

he has anyone ever thought o getting all this really nice old stuff together for a magazine article or something??


----------



## smudge (Jan 12, 2004)

OnZa pedals. Crappiest bushing ever, crummy elastomers. I have three pairs of ti axled pedals and a load of elastomers somewhere.


----------



## vdubbusrider (Jul 28, 2004)

mik_git said:


> great for when you start a museume of ye oldie stuff...
> 
> he has anyone ever thought o getting all this really nice old stuff together for a magazine article or something??


lets all get together at the Keyesville classic vintage bike rally and maybe we can get something in the mags about it. i can't see any reason why they would'nt want to be a part of that.


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

mik_git said:


> great for when you start a museume of ye oldie stuff...
> 
> he has anyone ever thought o getting all this really nice old stuff together for a magazine article or something??


Retro gatherings, vintage mtb bike shows, and vintage mtb magazines have all been discussed...

We're still an awfully small nitch...taking ques from the lightweight and bmx circles...we're got a ways to go.

If not Keyesville, Sea Otter!  
First Flight Bikes has a huge show and swap later on in the season...they'll probably lead the way with vintage mtb stuff.


----------



## vdubbusrider (Jul 28, 2004)

Rumpfy said:


> If not Keyesville, Sea Otter!
> First Flight Bikes has a huge show and swap later on in the season...they'll probably lead the way with vintage mtb stuff.


those are all show's i'm going to try and hit up.


----------



## RonSonic (Jan 8, 2005)

I'm sticking to my guns, if it's under the chainstays it's in the wrong place for a brake.

Ron


----------



## ssmike (Jan 21, 2004)

RonSonic said:


> I'm sticking to my guns, if it's under the chainstays it's in the wrong place for a brake.
> 
> Ron


Maybe the wrong place for a cantilever  but a u-brake or rollercam brake generates more power than a canti and needs stout stiff stays to optimize brake performance. There really is a reason why these brakes appeared on chainstays.

Now, that isn't to say that your opinion of a chainstay mounted u-brake is such that it's the worst fad, but I've got three kick-ass bikes in my garage with brakes on the chainstays that I wouldn't trade/sell for the world.


----------



## Tracerboy (Oct 13, 2002)

*NOOOO!!!! You did NOT say that?!!*

 It's the fastest bike in the planet and it's still very much around. You're not a roadie are you?  My god,I stay away for a week and someone has to say something crazy about the Slingshot.


----------



## vdubbusrider (Jul 28, 2004)

Built4Speed said:


> It's the fastest bike in the planet and it's still very much around. You're not a roadie are you?  My god,I stay away for a week and someone has to say something crazy about the Slingshot.


----------



## TobyNobody (Mar 17, 2004)

*Three weeks and nobody...*

... has mentioned the original Trek 9000 series susp. bikes witht the big stack of unsuspended rubber donuts!

The one guy I knew who bought one (from the Trek shop I worked at) put it away after the first ride. He had to wait until they came out with a damping system. Then he rode it a few times and realized it was still pretty bad.

Without damping it was hazardous to your nads and with damping it was a slow rebound pogostick. His head carved a perfect sine wave riding down a flat trail.


----------



## misctwo (Oct 24, 2004)

bingemtbr said:


> 10. Shaun Palmer
> 9. Integrated bar ends-handle bar-stem combo's.
> 8. Power grips
> 7. Suspension seatposts.
> ...


nice one. the purple rage was so bizzare. Onza and Ringle were the biggest willing accomplices to that fad. never understood it. but i did have Conrtol Tech purple derailleur pulleys, drilled, of course.


----------



## Tracerboy (Oct 13, 2002)

*Anodizing*



C.Savage said:


> Sadly not a fad but still ugly are unpainted frames, silver is just sooooo boring. Worst product has got to be flat bars. And I say bring back anodizing to all it's full glory.


I have a powder coaters, anodizers and a chrome platers here in Indiana. They will all do exactly what you want. Also got a guy that'll laser etch the original logos, all you gotta do is take a pic w/ a ruler up against the original logo and he'll reproduce it. Scatch up your stuff and they will make it look new again. Or buy it new in the milled finish and they'll make it whatever color you want. I've even seen some cool bi and tri color, pattern anodizing that is super trick. You should be able to find guys in or around your area that'll do the same. Or you can set up your own anodizing rig, http://www.focuser.com/atm/anodize/anodize99.html. This guy specializes in bicycle anodizing and will do whatever you want from mild to wild http://www.titaniumarts.com/content/bikeart/anodizing.html .

Have fun checking this stuff out. There is no reason you should have to stick with the original colors of anything made out of metal.


----------



## AKamp (Jan 26, 2004)

Why hasn't anybody said elevated chainstays. they were just about useless unless you were looking for a super short wheelbase. Added weight, more tubes, more (OK, lots more) frame breakage. But some of them sure did look cool. I was glad when that fad passed.


----------



## lucifer (Sep 27, 2004)

AKamp said:


> Why hasn't anybody said elevated chainstays. they were just about useless unless you were looking for a super short wheelbase. Added weight, more tubes, more (OK, lots more) frame breakage. But some of them sure did look cool. I was glad when that fad passed.


I thought e stays were a great idea for woods bikes. The super short chainstays were excellent for east coast singletrack and they had the added benefit of eliminating chain suck and chain slap.


----------



## canadian-clydesdale (Oct 13, 2004)

smudge said:


> OnZa pedals. Crappiest bushing ever, crummy elastomers. I have three pairs of ti axled pedals and a load of elastomers somewhere.


I have a pair that still work, or would work if I had cleats for them...oh well, the times that replaced them work way better... they seemed pretty good at the time, except for the impossiblly small allen bolts that held the elastomers in (still have a scar from that wee little key)... used them on some really great rides though...


----------



## slowride (Jan 13, 2004)

For me it has to be the "extreme sport" trend, and that people think they can get a Trek, play Nirvana in the car while they put their front wheel on (it takes a minute or 2, do you HAVE to play music???) and then ride off with their backwards baseball caps and fit that image. I don't know why, but everywhere I ride in Illinois has this going on at the trailhead. I always think I've timewarped back to 1993.

Now where's my Candlebox tape, I gotta lube my chain!


----------



## ntsqd (Feb 19, 2005)

Built4Speed said:


> Yeah,we already know what you think about Biopace.





JmZ said:


> And yes - biopace. ONLY time I ever had my knees hurt after riding!





1FG rider said:


> Biopace





Fillet-brazed said:


> Biopace is making a comeback. It got bronze in the men's Olympic Time Trial this last fall. I would actually say a silver as Hamilton slithered away with his gold...


Hummm, 3:1 against Biopace's. As joke I put one on my SS. Highly recommend other SS riders at least try it. Works well for me.

Anyone got some Biopace's they want to sell? I'll pay extra for purple ano.


----------



## mik_git (Feb 4, 2004)

uphiller said:


> My list of worst MTB stuff:
> 
> -Suspension stems. I don't care what anyone says, I just don't see much benefit in those things. The Softride one seemed on the surface to be borderline acceptable, but one ride on it revealed a nasty bottom and top out clunk. I can't imagine the 150-dollar damped and CNC'd version to be that much better. Ick.
> .


yeah i had a girvin flex stem back in...93. it went on my old DB with a high rise T-bone. suddenly i couldn't ride dropes or anything, all my skills went out the window for a month... not good in downhill season (which was why i got it in the first place)... lets see high riser stem to 0 rise stem with flexiness... no wonder i felt like i was going to craxh all teh time... iK


----------



## Tracerboy (Oct 13, 2002)

*Camelback aand baggy clothes a fad?*



Shayne said:


> Baggy Cloths and Camel Backs


I can Carry all the stuff I would carry in a freakin' seat pack and more. Plus I don't have a seat pack bangin' all over the place. Plus water for a whole days riding. As for the baggy clothes, sounds like all of the freeriders I know with their camelbacks strapped on.  I personally don't care too much for the skinsuit look.

Just my 2 cents


----------



## t2p (Jul 22, 2004)

misctwo said:


> nice one. the purple rage was so bizzare. Onza and Ringle were the biggest willing accomplices to that fad. never understood it. but i did have Conrtol Tech purple derailleur pulleys, drilled, of course.


.
... speaking of Ringle ..........
.
Ringle components almost make this list ........ lots of 'cool' stuff ....... however .... 
.
the skewers looked good - but did not work well
.
the seat post was light - but it had reliability issues ...... 
.
the rear hub ..... not good ......... not reliable ........
.


----------



## lucifer (Sep 27, 2004)

Yeah but the zooka is the greatest ever....ditto the bottle cages.
Moby's were only unreliable for the very heavy or the mechanically inept.
I heard early supereights were problematic but I have never had a problem with my super duper8.

I miss ringle more than any other old school manufacturer.


----------



## t2p (Jul 22, 2004)

lucifer said:


> Yeah but the zooka is the greatest ever....ditto the bottle cages.
> Moby's were only unreliable for the very heavy or the mechanically inept.
> I heard early supereights were problematic but I have never had a problem with my super duper8.
> 
> I miss ringle more than any other old school manufacturer.


.
Hey ......I feel pretty good ...... I still have a few Mobys on bikes .... including (I believe) one original Moby post on one bike .... (it has been so long I forgot the Moby name) ...........
.
I believe the wall thickness was increased on the later Moby because there was too much flex for some (see 'very heavy') and may have lengthened a bolt (see 'mechanically inept'). 
.
Almost everyone I rode with (on a regular basis) had a Ringle post on their off road bike .......... most are now using a Thomson ........... 
.


----------



## Braids (Jan 12, 2004)

ssmike said:


> Which begs the question - how did someone ride Moab B.C? - before camelbaks.


Three large water bottles and thank god for the potable water source at the end of the ride.


----------



## Tracerboy (Oct 13, 2002)

ntsqd said:


> Hummm, 3:1 against Biopace's. As joke I put one on my SS. Highly recommend other SS riders at least try it. Works well for me.
> 
> Anyone got some Biopace's they want to sell? I'll pay extra for purple ano.


I'm seeing plenty of them at the flea market these days. I might have a non-ano Biopace laying around. I may also have a Suntour version too. I didn't have a problem with Biopace so I don't know what the problem was but I do like my round rings.I'll PM you if I can locate them.


----------



## TheMirror (Mar 9, 2005)

vdubbusrider said:


> here's a short lived bike. bad fad? maybe, but it looks neat.


Good Heavens! That thing has a lot more in common with bridge construction than mountain bikes. Wow.


----------



## Tracerboy (Oct 13, 2002)

*I agree with you about the baggy shorts.*



zoomie67 said:


> I can Carry all the stuff I would carry in a freakin' seat pack and more. Plus I don't have a seat pack bangin' all over the place. Plus water for a whole days riding. As for the baggy clothes, sounds like all of the freeriders I know with their camelbacks strapped on.  I personally don't care too much for the skinsuit look.
> 
> There was a time I wore the bike shorts back in the day but now I prefer the baggy shorts.Sometimes I want to ride just for an hour and I don't want to ride with my camelback. I can carry my powerbar,cell-phone,pepper spray and my diving knife strapped to my belt.The mace and knife I carry because of the mountain lions that hang out were I ride in the Coyote valley.It just so happens that I ran into one on the trail this afternoon.  We just stared at each other.I took his picture with my cell-phone(carefully) and we went our separate ways. With bike tights,I couldn't carry all that stuff.I'd have to explain all those bulges in the wrong place.


----------



## ntsqd (Feb 19, 2005)

TheMirror said:


> Good Heavens! That thing has a lot more in common with bridge construction than mountain bikes. Wow.


I think it's cool. Engineering a Bridge and bike frame are a lot closer than most ppl think.


----------



## Mo Jiggy (Sep 2, 2004)

Stan's Tubeless Systems!

-Mo


----------



## FireDog46 (Jan 13, 2004)

*nothing wrong with Biopace...*

read Sheldon Brown's take on them.

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/biopace.html

I still have a bike with them. A 1985 21", 18 speed rigid steel touring hybrid.
Everything Sheldon has to say about the Shimano Biopace is true.

Wish they were still available as 8 and 9 speed compatible.
However the original is perfect for a single speed.

michael


----------



## buffallodan (Mar 4, 2005)

*Onza Nike combo*

'worst product combination but best idea was the Onza clipless paired with Nike shoes of same model year. The tread and pedal combo sucked and didn't allow enough free float which caused great knee pain. Simple design of pedals but Nike didn't work for shite with'em.


----------



## TobyNobody (Mar 17, 2004)

buffallodan said:


> 'worst product combination but best idea was the Onza clipless paired with Nike shoes of same model year. The tread and pedal combo sucked and didn't allow enough free float which caused great knee pain. Simple design of pedals but Nike didn't work for shite with'em.


I think those Onza pedals made the list on their own merit.


----------



## litespeedblur (Nov 13, 2004)

vdubbusrider said:


> if i'm doint a super long ride in the middle of summer i have no problem carrying a camelback since i probably won't be riding that fast.
> 
> when you jump the camelback is down when your going up and when your going down its going up. the worst for me is when you are maxed out and you're heart rate is pounding and your breathing you're hardest. by the time you suck some water out and drink it you have missed 3 full breaths of air! with a bottle you fill your mouth while still breathing and swallow between breaths. might not sound like a bid deal but when your racing or trying to keep up with your faster buddies it sure it!
> 
> but like i said if the ride is really long i carry a camel back for the extra water and to carry clothes and extra food.


Are you saying that reaching down, picking up your bottel, opening the valve, tilting your head back, spraying water into your mouth is easier than...

sucking on a tube that directs the flow of water into your mouth...

You can still take breaths in between swigs

???


----------



## dpdsurf (Jan 19, 2004)

*worst fad?*

Message boards


----------



## Bike_13 (Feb 1, 2005)

Kirk Precision frames - saw that post above.

Now they were strange. Owned one once, but I never rode it.

Passed it over to a mate who rode it for about a week, and raved. He thought it was the best bike in the world. He'd been riding since he was seven, so he would have a reasonable idea.

At the end of that week, he claimed he was JRA (just riding along) and an inexplicable "CRACK!" noise came from the frame. He thought it had broken but couldn't explain how that would just happen.

We checked the frame over, and could never find a crack or anything wrong with it. It was even in perfect alignment.

BUT the frame was unrideable from then on - you could not take your hands off the handlebars - the bike would instantly dive to the left VERY dangerously. 

Unsurprisingly, cast magnesium did not catch on.


----------



## dumpy (Apr 17, 2005)

*the goofiest thing I ever saw...*

I don't think they will count as a fad since I doubt anyone ever bought one, but...

An add on front supsension system that used a crazy v shaped fork thingy with bungee cords as the resistive element... it looked like an endo wanting to happen...

As far as stuff that (sort of)caught on...

Grip Shift and Dual Control... but this is strictly a personal preference...

suspension stems, neon, entry level bikes with disc brakes, but crappy forks and drivetrains, those old helmets (shoei/troy lee I think) like Herbold used to wear (beyond description), Gt's I-Drive and the way that most mainstream bike companies have forgotten steel...


----------



## Sideknob (Jul 14, 2005)

Riser bars on XC bikes - they make a fast looking bike look like a cruiser.


----------



## cegrover (Oct 17, 2004)

I've almost never heard anyone defend Dual Control...

I'll defend twist shifters - nothing like grabbing a bunch of gears on the transition to a steep hill. Not to mention they're still the lightest among new shifters.

Of course, I rode tumbies today and it hard to beat the original MTB shifters when it comes down to it.


----------



## Coldass (Nov 23, 2005)

*Frame bags that help you carry (fit at the seat and top tube junction with velcro)

*Cable actuated disk brakes - go figure - heavier than V's and still use a cable - why bother

*Sealed bearings designed to spin but just get moved a few mm... THEY were for roller blades

*Specialized's bushes - shame on you for doing such a bad job and making those electric drill bearings designed to run at 10000 RPM seem better

*Baggy shorts you wear over knicks/inserts - why not just wear a nappy

*Carbon seatposts - slip slidin away...

*One sided pedals that needed added weights to work - Time what were you thinking

*Single speeds off-road - who loves their knees and wants to walk when their 50?

*Carbon cranks - not lighter, not stiffer, cost three times more - boy it costs to look good

*ISIS style spline external BB and cranks - yeah - good design needs three goes to get tight enough (Shimano got this one right)

*Ti Threadless headset compression bolts - squeek, squeek, squeek

*Front and rear combo tires - any brand

*Tioga disk wheels

*Any Spinergy carbon spoked wheel

And cause the others were right:

Moto fad/copy cat
Camelbacks (sorebacks, sweaty backs) - why don't they make them to sit lower?
Taking to soul from XC riding by making MTBing an extreme sport and not the Zen experience it is...

CA


----------



## Martin.au (Jan 1, 2006)

I think whoever put down bar ends and Camelbaks needs a whack with the stick of common sense.

My list
1) Girvin flex-stems
2) The silly bike with the suspended seat pillar attached near the head tube.
3) Neo retro grouches, especially ones that gripe about new bike developments and then make excuses why they got overtaken.
4) Tuning of componentry (ultra weight weenies, that stuff scares me)
5) Suspension designs that are built to look far more complex than they really are

And probably lots more but that's it for the moment.


----------



## Boogie Van (Nov 19, 2005)

I'm surprised no one has directly mentioned this.

One of the biggest fads I've noticed over the last few years was:

*THE - Tim (or Tom) Henderson Enterprises* gear

These were the plastic disc brake protectors or more infamously the tire fenders that made your xc or free ride bike look like a dirt bike. It seemed a lot of bikes were spec'ed with THE for a year or two around the turn of the century - then it died out (thankfully)

The first time I saw this stuff it reminded me of the old department store "BMX" bikes that many kids had during the 80's that were designed to look like motor bikes - complete with plastic gas tank and fake shocks. TOTALLY AWESOME!


----------



## OnTheMoment (Jan 1, 2006)

Ripping on camelbaks? WTF? how did the roadies get in here? I saw one guy a page or two back say he could carry five water bottles, two on the frame and three in his jersey! LMAO I wouldn't want to follow that time bomb down a fast trail! If your jersey is full of water bottles(still giggling to myself imagining that) that means he's got a pump hanging off a tube in the mud and probably where rocks kicked up by the front tire can crunch it and he's got a bag full of tools and a spare tube hanging off his saddle. Plausible exceptions are: He's fat=his jersey is tight=the water bottles don't come out. AND/OR He's slow enough that the bottles won't bounce out and rocks won't get kicked up by the front tire AND/OR he doesn't do long enough rides to need more than two bottles/doesn't carry tools/spare/pump because he'll always be close enough to a road to call his partner to come pick him up. 

Those of you that bag on slime are half right, it sucks. Try riding in the Rio Grande valley without the stuff and you'll quit calling it a fad. It sucks but it's better than flat tires all the time.


----------



## cegrover (Oct 17, 2004)

Yeah, I don't get the anti-hydration pack stuff. Sure, I just fill a bottle for rides close to home or short rides close to the car; but I want tools and tubes any time I'm a few miles away - sure beats walking out. I have been known to use a seatpack and that will hold a mini-tool, tube and keys, but my Camelback can hold more tubes, it keeps water cooler, it is easier to use (the tube is right there), it can hold my raingear and, when full, it holds about four bottles worth of water for really long and/or really hot/dry rides. To each his own, but these are real, practical reasons.


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

When the US Military becomes your biggest customer, its no longer 'a fad'.


----------



## Shayne (Jan 14, 2004)

*Did You Read The Whole Discussion?*

The five bottle issue was addressed 2 or 3 posts later.
http://forums.mtbr.com/showpost.php?p=628485&postcount=17

Yes, I do use frame pumps and haven't had one damaged by rocks or clogged with mud in 15+ yrs of riding. Tools: Nope, the only tools I've found myself needing while out on the trail were tools that no one in their right mind would carry anyway.

And...


OnTheMoment said:


> Plausible exceptions are: He's fat=his jersey is tight=the water bottles don't come out. AND/OR He's slow enough that the bottles won't bounce out and


A jersey is supposed to be skin tight. There's no way a bottle would come out of any of my jerseys. Its hard enough to get them out when I want to. In the majority of crashes I've had I haven't lost anything out of my pockets...to the detriment of 1 cell phone and my lower back a few times.

I'll still stand by my Camelback comment. Its my opinion and clearly most of you disagree.

Thanks BulC for the "camping" comment. I've used that countless times since you made that post.


----------



## Shayne (Jan 14, 2004)

*Those Military Camelbacks Are Hillarious*



DeeEight said:


> When the US Military becomes your biggest customer, its no longer 'a fad'.


But true enough


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

Its the money from the army sales which let camelbak expand past two models.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

i said it once but i need to say it again: suspension.
it lets us ride fast, crash fast, trails are closed fast, the forks wear fast, the frame goes outdated fast, you lose precision in tight sections.. fast.
whoever said turning mtn bike into an extreme sport x the blissfull zen experience gets the prize: best post of this thread,


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

colker1 said:


> i said it once but i need to say it again: suspension.
> it lets us ride fast, crash fast, trails are closed fast, the forks wear fast, the frame goes outdated fast, you lose precision in tight sections.. fast.


You are old school!

I won't argue your point.

There isn't any trail in my area I can't do on a vintage full rigid...but for me personally, my favorite trails are most fun when railed on the full suspension.


----------



## MightySchmoePong (Jan 12, 2004)

*Ain't that the truth.*



OnTheMoment said:


> Ripping on camelbaks? WTF? how did the roadies get in here? I saw one guy a page or two back say he could carry five water bottles, two on the frame and three in his jersey! LMAO I wouldn't want to follow that time bomb down a fast trail! If your jersey is full of water bottles(still giggling to myself imagining that) that means he's got a pump hanging off a tube in the mud and probably where rocks kicked up by the front tire can crunch it and he's got a bag full of tools and a spare tube hanging off his saddle. Plausible exceptions are: He's fat=his jersey is tight=the water bottles don't come out. AND/OR He's slow enough that the bottles won't bounce out and rocks won't get kicked up by the front tire AND/OR he doesn't do long enough rides to need more than two bottles/doesn't carry tools/spare/pump because he'll always be close enough to a road to call his partner to come pick him up.
> 
> Those of you that bag on slime are half right, it sucks. Try riding in the Rio Grande valley without the stuff and you'll quit calling it a fad. It sucks but it's better than flat tires all the time.


I quickly became familiar w/ Slimed tubes when riding in Abq. No way around it w/ all of the goatheads around.

Dave


----------



## eldengrave (Oct 29, 2005)

*the simple truth*

we are in the very middle of our worst fad: x-games-style dirt jumping on 26" wheels in front of stadium-seated crowds; those who build and ride crazy elevated ladder-trails waay out in the woods; those who take pictures of such nig-nogs; and all red-bull rampage-style cliff-jumping, aka: free-riding.

in summary: basically everything BIKE magazine thinks mountain biking has become.


----------



## OnTheMoment (Jan 1, 2006)

Maybe this thread could be re-titled "purist/elitist/old curmudgeons complain about progress"


----------



## umbertom (May 28, 2006)

colker1 said:


> i said it once but i need to say it again: suspension.
> it lets us ride fast, crash fast, trails are closed fast, the forks wear fast, the frame goes outdated fast, you lose precision in tight sections.. fast.
> whoever said turning mtn bike into an extreme sport x the blissfull zen experience gets the prize: best post of this thread,


if that's what you want to think go ahead but I don't agree, 
what makes a bike more fun, easier to ride, and less punishing on the body? suspension


----------



## pinguwin (Aug 20, 2004)

Capt Tripps said:


> just curious, ever ride Moab? i've drained my 100oz dry and my 3 water bottles before noon..


When I'm in the desert, I carry three bottles and have no problem. I'm also up at sunrise and have stopped riding well before noon. I'll usually go out in the evening too. Riding in Moab from April to October is mucho hot during the day for me.


----------



## steviep (Apr 5, 2006)

Three comments:

I use a camelbak for any ride over a couple of hours but only fill it with water and up to the level appropriate to the ride. I also carry a bottle full of energy gloop on longer rides. Camelbaks are fantastic for washing your hands when you've had to deal with a mechanical or to clean your face. You wouldn't get very far doing that with a bottle.

I run a rigid fork nowadays or a sus fork depending on the circumstances and there's nothing like a bit of spring at the front to save your hands and sometimes your nerves. To be honest, I don't ride fast enough or tackle mad terrain enough to warrant full sus and I'm a bit wary of all those linkages and bushings.

It's a shame everything (including XC bikes) is veering off into pseudo MX territory with fatter tyres, disc brakes and more and more inches of spring and where everything is more about the speed and less about the experience but thinking about it, isn't that where it all started? I suppose we can thank evolution for keeping things interesting and for giving us more excuses to open the wallet but I do think that purple anodising took things a little too far....


----------



## drunkle (Nov 11, 2005)

helmet visors. they just obscure your long vision.

troy lee designs. blame him.

camel baks... sucking on the tube is a pain, but otherwise really useful. no direct/visual indicator of fluid level is also annoying.

27 speeds. gesus. single speeds. gesus.

narrow bars; it's not a ten speed. riser bars; they just look cheap.

stupid long suspension travel. your bike is not a parachute, base jumping without a chute is dumb.

power connectors. if you still need a chain tool, what's the point?

loose bearing hubs/headsets. i dont want my hubs and headsets to be loose in any way shape or form.

cone wrenchs. pedals that require pedal wrenchs. 

non external bottom brackets. breaking a bb loose with that stupid splined tool is oh so fun.

reverse threading anything. 

gel padding.

power bars. 

fishnet bike jerseys. or maybe they were just guys from jersey wearing fishnet.


----------



## rocketman58 (May 31, 2006)

*where to start...*

rapid fire shifters, grip shifts, 9 speeds, non square taper BBs, long travel suspension forks, anything "down hill", 4 bolt chainrings and cranks, cables mounted on top of the top tube, bars with 3-5 degree bends, weekend "racers" on local trails...


----------



## ssmike (Jan 21, 2004)

Without a doubt, bikerfox is the absolute worst thing to hit mountain bikes. (sorry to burst your bubble Rumpfy  )


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

OnTheMoment said:


> Maybe this thread could be re-titled "purist/elitist/old curmudgeons complain about progress"


but you would have to move it to the freeride forum.


----------



## TobyNobody (Mar 17, 2004)

Boogie Van said:


> *THE - Tim (or Tom) Henderson Enterprises* gear
> 
> These were the plastic disc brake protectors or more infamously the tire fenders that made your xc or free ride bike look like a dirt bike.


I think it was _Toby_ Henderson, FYI.

Not that I thought they were a good idea. I remember getting them into the shop where I was working ... thinking "GAWD! They're like $50! No way we're going to sell any of these!" Lo and Behold - they all sold out within a couple of weeks. And some of the people were buying $400 mountain bikes and installing these fenders. Nothing wrong with $400 mountain bikes, but if you have an extra fifty bones to spend on your bike maybe get a _less cheap_ bike. I am sure upgraded tires or derailleurs, or helmet (or anything) would be money better spent than $50 on one fender!


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

Rumpfy said:


> You are old school!
> 
> I won't argue your point.
> 
> There isn't any trail in my area I can't do on a vintage full rigid...but for me personally, my favorite trails are most fun when railed on the full suspension.


let's see: if i ride a rigid 29er.. will that make me old school?


----------



## BurkeVT (Jul 11, 2003)

*Though I never rode one*

I remember my buddy getting one of these instead of a MAG 21.
"It keeps the front wheel more rigid." he said.


----------



## Maida7 (Apr 29, 2005)

Ti and aluminum bolt kits to lighten your bike. 
BB with nuts instead of bolts. The nuts would loosen when you ride and fall off.
Sweet spot suspension.
29ers
Single speeds
gel shots and power bars
heart rate montors
brake levers you can use from your bar ends
the freeride huckster mentality
grip shifters
9 speeds
platform pedals


----------



## ctxcrossx (Jan 13, 2004)

URT suspension
semi-slicks
2-3-4-5-6-7-8 speed
bar ends
soft tails

-Chris


----------



## outside! (Mar 15, 2006)

drunkle said:


> helmet visors. they just obscure your long vision.
> 
> reverse threading anything.
> 
> .


Do you want your left pedal to fall off? What about your left bottom bracket shell (you do run loose ball bottom brackets don't you)? Left hand thread exists to prevent precession from loosening your threads.

Someone mentioned cables routed on top of the top tube. While I prefer cables on the side of the top tube, my Rocky Mountain Element T.O. has them on top of the top tube and it has not bothered me. Now bottom bracker routed cables suck. Routing the cables under the bottom bracket is just dumb.

Anybody that likes brakes mounted on the chainstays must not deal with much mud (or enjoys cleaning there brakes). Any advantage of chainstay mounted brakes is outweighed by the fact that it is very dirty location. There are other brakes that stop just as well mounted on the seatstays when combined with a brake bridge.

I have to admit I liked the neon clothes. At the time I was commuting to work everyday and figured anything that got a driver's attention was a good thing. Helmet mounted lights work well for that also.

The number one current dumb fad is riser bars. As explained earlier, the right stem and flat bar combo can put your hands in the same place while being stronger and lighter. Keith Bontrager agreed with me on this topic over a beer once (pre Trek), and he knows more about making mountain bike components than most.

Cheers,

Scott in San Diego


----------



## drunkle (Nov 11, 2005)

outside! said:


> Do you want your left pedal to fall off? What about your left bottom bracket shell (you do run loose ball bottom brackets don't you)? Left hand thread exists to prevent precession from loosening your threads.


yeah yeah, still. what's wrong with proper torque? or some light thread lock? or a lock washer? what are the actual odds of a pedal or bb shell loosening up due to the rotation of the crank and pedal that are freely spinning and not in contact? i've yet to lose anything due to frequent back pedaling.

if i could only get nuts and bolts to fall apart by simply waving my hands over them...


----------



## outside! (Mar 15, 2006)

drunkle said:


> yeah yeah, still. what's wrong with proper torque? or some light thread lock? or a lock washer? what are the actual odds of a pedal or bb shell loosening up due to the rotation of the crank and pedal that are freely spinning and not in contact? i've yet to lose anything due to frequent back pedaling.
> 
> if i could only get nuts and bolts to fall apart by simply waving my hands over them...


Metal is not completely ridgid and deforms under stress. Your cranks and pedal axels (and hence their threaded interfaces) are the most heavily stressed parts on your bike. It might be possible to make a left pedal axel/crank connection not loosen in use if the threads are perfectly toleranced (I'm talking tolerances in the tenths of thousandths), but perfect tolerances do NOT exist in the bike world. Machining threads to a repeatable tolerance is close to impossible. Male threads by definition need to be smaller than female threads or they won't fit. It is this small gap between the male and female threads that gets flexed in a 360 degree rotation a little at a time that would make right hand threads back out on a left pedal. Thread lock and lock washers prevent loosening due to random vibration, not from sustained 360 degree deformation in the loosening direction. Left pedals have been left hand threaded for a long time for a reason. Do you want to volunteer to test a right hand threaded left pedal? I do not. Trust me on this one. My background as a mechanical engineer and a machinist.

Besides, can't you just remember which way the left pedal tightens?

All the best,

Scott in San Diego


----------



## tidelag (Oct 6, 2005)

* The 9 speed Fad. Everyting above 8 speeds drivetrain sucks. 
(or 7speed for less dishing of the wheel) 
* Anonizing of the Rims is useless and makes it weaker. Machining rims - useless. 
I am really saddened that this is (almost?) impossible to get quality (natural) rims without machining and anonizing.  
* The Black Fad. Everybody likes black part... (?) (expect tyres)
* The Colored Tyres Fad. Black tyres gives better grip than red/pink/yellow/green tyres. 
A research revealed this when somebody wanted to make colored tyres for motorcycles. 
Of course some of the bicycle industry ignored the fact.
* Shimano DualShifter. Pure Crap, Pure Crap!
* The Color Fad. Too many thinks that right color makes you faster/better/cooler.
If a bicycle have ugly colors, it must it be bad!
* The 29" Fad.  They are cool, but useless (=slower handling) at heavy technical tracks.
The only benefit they have is for larger peoples, and that is a nice thing.
Small frame and big wheels are wrong,wrong,wrong.
* The Botique Wheel Fad. Plain simple: Fewer spokes and heavier rims. Sad, sad thing.
* The External Cranks Fad. Well, maybe not. Perhaps it need more time?
* The Carbon Fad. Carbon parts have nothing to do on a MTB who is ridden long and hard.
Crash once, replace the part. Frames in carbon - WTF?
* The Derailler Fad. I have always hated the weak part of the gearing. Too easy to smash it.

gee, I need a long and hard riding soon to make me think less!


----------



## tidelag (Oct 6, 2005)

EDIT: removed doublepost. 
Sorry, I need a long and hard riding soon!


----------



## drunkle (Nov 11, 2005)

outside! said:


> Metal is not completely ridgid and deforms under stress. Your cranks and pedal axels (and hence their threaded interfaces) are the most heavily stressed parts on your bike. It might be possible to make a left pedal axel/crank connection not loosen in use if the threads are perfectly toleranced (I'm talking tolerances in the tenths of thousandths), but perfect tolerances do NOT exist in the bike world. Machining threads to a repeatable tolerance is close to impossible. Male threads by definition need to be smaller than female threads or they won't fit. It is this small gap between the male and female threads that gets flexed in a 360 degree rotation a little at a time that would make right hand threads back out on a left pedal. Thread lock and lock washers prevent loosening due to random vibration, not from sustained 360 degree deformation in the loosening direction. Left pedals have been left hand threaded for a long time for a reason. Do you want to volunteer to test a right hand threaded left pedal? I do not. Trust me on this one. My background as a mechanical engineer and a machinist.
> 
> Besides, can't you just remember which way the left pedal tightens?
> 
> ...


nope. i can never remember... "gee, i thought the drive side was reversed... oh! i'm using an allen from the backside of the crank while it's upside down..." or maybe it's the 6 beers prior to picking up the wrench. considering some of the people that post here and present themselves as having "worked at a shop", i'm positive i'm not the only one. and what about all the x-mart people that assemble bikes for little kids?

i would test it. i think manufacturing has come along way since the first bicycle, higher tolerances, better bearings. better glues... why not use nylock bolts/parts then? there's gotta be a better way these days than using a cludge solution like reverse threading.

granted, i hate the "better solution" that torx is presented to be. add torx to the list.

by the way, i never trust anyone that says "trust me". i respect that you're an me, but i can't believe you'd say that as an engineer.


----------



## grawbass (Aug 23, 2004)

drunkle said:


> yeah yeah, still. what's wrong with proper torque? or some light thread lock? or a lock washer? what are the actual odds of a pedal or bb shell loosening up due to the rotation of the crank and pedal that are freely spinning and not in contact? i've yet to lose anything due to frequent back pedaling.
> 
> if i could only get nuts and bolts to fall apart by simply waving my hands over them...


It has nothing to do with the pedal freely spinning, in fact if the pedal spindle froze up on the right side/right hand thread pedal, the spindle would unscrew from the crank. Same with the left hand thread on the left side. The force at work here is precession, which has been mentioned already and actually works in the opposite direction from any force which may be caused by bearing drag. So bearing drag is trying to loosen both sides and precission is tightening both sides, but with a much greater force than the bearing have, so the pedals remain tight.

Now one area where I do think reverse threads are stupid, was on some older Chryler cars that had reverse threaded wheel studs on one side of the car.  There is no precession at work on the stud/lugnut interface, so this was totally unessesary and was later done away with.

I'll stick with my reverse threaded pedals and bottom brackets though.


----------



## wv_bob (Sep 12, 2005)

drunkle said:


> i would test it. i think manufacturing has come along way since the first bicycle, higher tolerances, better bearings. better glues... why not use nylock bolts/parts then? there's gotta be a better way these days than using a cludge solution like reverse threading.


Left hand threads for pedal retention is elegant, all the solutions you're presenting are kludges. Elegance is in simplicity, adding complexity via nylock that tears or having to use threadlock destroys elegance.

When I was a kid I had a stuck pedal. I heated it, drilled into the backside and tried to take it out with an Ez-Out. No go. Then a neighbor came by to visit and said "maybe it turns the other way" Bingo.


----------



## drunkle (Nov 11, 2005)

grawbass said:


> It has nothing to do with the pedal freely spinning, in fact if the pedal spindle froze up on the right side/right hand thread pedal, the spindle would unscrew from the crank. Same with the left hand thread on the left side. The force at work here is precession, which has been mentioned already and actually works in the opposite direction from any force which may be caused by bearing drag. So bearing drag is trying to loosen both sides and precission is tightening both sides, but with a much greater force than the bearing have, so the pedals remain tight.
> 
> Now one area where I do think reverse threads are stupid, was on some older Chryler cars that had reverse threaded wheel studs on one side of the car.  There is no precession at work on the stud/lugnut interface, so this was totally unessesary and was later done away with.
> 
> I'll stick with my reverse threaded pedals and bottom brackets though.


i tried to find some articles on precession of fasteners, but no luck. do you know of any?

i dont agree with your analysis; bearing drag is what would cause the spindle or bb cup to experience force opposite of its threading (assuming normal threading of the non drive side); the non drive side rotates counter clockwise when pedaling which is exactly the direction of force necessary to loosen a normal bolt. reverse threading is used on that side specifically to make spindle and axle rotation contribute to tightening of the threaded parts.

edit: actually, the pedals are reversed in rotation on their spindles, left side is clockwise, right is counter. so what the heck is the point of the reverse threading there... and how does that related to the bb cups which are opposite?


----------



## Shayne (Jan 14, 2004)

*If You've Ever Owned A Bike With An Italian BB...*

...You can appreciate why bottom brackets are reverse threaded.
Loosing a BB mid ride is no fun...and I have yet to run into someone, no matter how big their tool pack, that has enough stuff to install a BB trailside.

Also if you've ever built a tandem and used a non-tandem specific crankset you'll appreciate the reverse threaded left pedal. Although reinstalling/tightening pedals isn't much of an issue.


----------



## outside! (Mar 15, 2006)

For an explanation of left hand threads and loosening due to precession see Jobst Brandt's explanation on Sheldon Browns website. He explains it pretty well.

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/brandt/left.html

Scott in San Diego


----------



## []D[][]v[][]D (Dec 24, 2003)

hi all.....


----------



## drunkle (Nov 11, 2005)

outside! said:


> For an explanation of left hand threads and loosening due to precession see Jobst Brandt's explanation on Sheldon Browns website. He explains it pretty well.
> 
> http://www.sheldonbrown.com/brandt/left.html
> 
> Scott in San Diego


nice article, thanks.

the author suggests conical seats for pedals and that reverse threading on bb cups is dodgy. i think he supports my cause.


----------



## IF52 (Jan 10, 2004)

drunkle said:


> nice article, thanks.
> 
> the author suggests conical seats for pedals and that reverse threading on bb cups is dodgy. i think he supports my cause.


I think if you ever worked on/built/rode bikes with italian threaded bottom brackets you would understand. Campy actually made an outstanding BB installation tool with a big cheater bar for installing the fixed cup so that you could get the cup installed mega tight so it would hopefully not back itself out. And even then it would still happen.


----------



## SpiderMike (Oct 5, 2005)

White stryofoam ice chest helmets with and without the spandex covers.
Matching spandex cover for the seat.
The Trek Y bike ... and the show Pacific Blue
Agree on the peace sign canti brake cable holders
Purple
Sprocket Head - bike part jewelry
Bike-opelli

In regards to the Camelbak.... The Cow Print bladder cover for the original design packs.


----------



## drunkle (Nov 11, 2005)

IF52 said:


> I think if you ever worked on/built/rode bikes with italian threaded bottom brackets you would understand. Campy actually made an outstanding BB installation tool with a big cheater bar for installing the fixed cup so that you could get the cup installed mega tight so it would hopefully not back itself out. And even then it would still happen.


based on the article regarding left hand threads, i have to wonder... why not make the right side bb cup permanently attached to the bb and only thread the left hand? the left side apparently receives little to no precession, so by making the right bb cup non threaded and inconsequential to mounting, the left side can take care of both mounting and precession resistance.

chain line problems can be taken care of with spacers. space out the right side as needed, tighted down with the left side. done...


----------



## Martin.au (Jan 1, 2006)

I got one. How about those old triangle bar and stem combos.

No adjustment, and replacement of the whole lot if you bent it.


----------



## Maida7 (Apr 29, 2005)

drunkle said:


> based on the article regarding left hand threads, i have to wonder... why not make the right side bb cup permanently attached to the bb and only thread the left hand? the left side apparently receives little to no precession, so by making the right bb cup non threaded and inconsequential to mounting, the left side can take care of both mounting and precession resistance.
> 
> chain line problems can be taken care of with spacers. space out the right side as needed, tighted down with the left side. done...


So if the cup is part of the frame what do you do when the cup's bearing surface gets worn? Throw away the frame?

Give it up. There is nothing wrong with left hand threads. They serve a purpose and they do their job very well. I have never had a problem working with left hand threads.


----------



## drunkle (Nov 11, 2005)

Maida7 said:


> So if the cup is part of the frame what do you do when the cup's bearing surface gets worn? Throw away the frame?
> 
> Give it up. There is nothing wrong with left hand threads. They serve a purpose and they do their job very well. I have never had a problem working with left hand threads.


the cup is attached to the bb, not the bb shell.

good on you for never having problems. neither have i, i just dont like reverse threaded parts.


----------



## IF52 (Jan 10, 2004)

drunkle said:


> based on the article regarding left hand threads, i have to wonder... why not make the right side bb cup permanently attached to the bb and only thread the left hand? the left side apparently receives little to no precession, so by making the right bb cup non threaded and inconsequential to mounting, the left side can take care of both mounting and precession resistance.
> 
> chain line problems can be taken care of with spacers. space out the right side as needed, tighted down with the left side. done...


I would venture to say that if the "fixed" cup side was a slip fit it might tend to wallow out over time kind of like how crank arms will wallow out if not tightened well enough onto the BB spindle taper. So your next option would be to press fit the fixed cup side like a head set, and then you are no better off than the old style press fit precision bearing type BBs that Fisher, Fat, etc. used many years ago.


----------



## grawbass (Aug 23, 2004)

Martin.mac.au said:


> I got one. How about those old triangle bar and stem combos.
> 
> No adjustment, and replacement of the whole lot if you bent it.


They are called Bullmoose.


----------



## Martin.au (Jan 1, 2006)

grawbass said:


> They are called Bullmoose.


Well that certainly explains why I'd forgotten what they were called.


----------



## drunkle (Nov 11, 2005)

IF52 said:


> I would venture to say that if the "fixed" cup side was a slip fit it might tend to wallow out over time kind of like how crank arms will wallow out if not tightened well enough onto the BB spindle taper. So your next option would be to press fit the fixed cup side like a head set, and then you are no better off than the old style press fit precision bearing type BBs that Fisher, Fat, etc. used many years ago.


how about using a split sheath? like how some cartridge bearing headsets use a split crown race?


----------



## YETIFIED (May 4, 2005)

Built4Speed said:


> I remember cutting my bars very narrow so I can squeeze through cars and trees.I should've just rode with my stem only.


LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I am laughing my $$s off reading this thread and I remember all of these products! I remember cutting down a carbon bar like that. Yeah, they were awsome for hi speed handling..............NOT!


----------



## MrCookie (Apr 24, 2005)

The whole one piece bar stem combo sure was full of options, eh?
Gel seats and gel gloves are welcome to join Onza Porc tires and Mr Tuffy tire liners there in crap part exile, but only if the bar end brake lever extensions are there.

And if I had my way, the Adams Trail a bike would be gone as well, but my 4 YO likes to be "pulled" on the trails.


----------



## Tracerboy (Oct 13, 2002)

My god,is this gay thread still around? Heh heh.


----------



## desmo13 (Jul 31, 2006)

vdubbusrider said:


> what the heck was everybody thinking when they cut the bars down until the brake levers touched eachother. why did just about every mountain biker in the sport follow the trend. it was aweful.


LOL, I am busted. late 80's. maybe 89'? Binachi Incline, cut them down. It was a "must" for riding through the redwoods.


----------



## Donkay (Nov 19, 2005)

"What's Hot What's Not" lists.


----------



## cegrover (Oct 17, 2004)

Yeah, who started this??


----------



## robinmiller (May 31, 2005)

I think drunkle failed high school physics. 

Reverse threading is an elegant solution to the problem of precession, and really, it's the only good solution. As you pedal, the pedals axles, if anything, become more tightly fastened to the cranks, rather than the opposite.

There really isn't anything to 'disagree' with. If you don't understand it, well, you have no right to be telling engineers how to design stuff. Lucky for all of us, pedals have reverse threading on one side. When was the last time you heard of someone crashing because their pedal fell off?


----------



## rep (Sep 7, 2004)

This thread has been sort of fun, excepting the boring Camelback-obsessed defenders. Start your own thread! My wife likes hers, I guess.
I saw some purple anodizing at Critical Mass last time. I still like it. Anodizing and singlespeeds just go together.
Camelbacks and waterbottles both suck for beer. The messenger bag seems to work better.
Shaun Palmer. That's a memory. Not a good one. I like Zap better.
My brother has a Slingshot! It's worked great for like 20 years. I think they have a singlespeed now.....
I have one of those THE front fenders on my geary (free at a bike swap). It took some modification, but it sort of works. The rear fender is a seatpost mount that doesn't fit anything we own and wouldn't protect the bike anyway (that's what fenders are for, right?).


----------



## tommyrod74 (Jul 3, 2002)

Shayne said:


> what do you need one for unless you're going on some kind of marathon 100+ mile ride?
> I can put 60+ miles on with only 2 water bottles easily. I have no need for anything more than that..


Ha ha ha wheeeee.... I'd like to live where you do. In NC, this time of year, 30 miles of singletrack and I'm running through a 100 oz. Camelback bladder. Yeah, what a horrible idea, staying properly hydrated and having enough room for tools to get your ass home if something breaks down. Not to mention the way bottles like to eject from the frame in high speed rocky terrain...

I need more than 2 bottles for 60 miles on the road bike around here this time of year.

Let's see, 60 miles, assuming 15 mph (being VERY generous) off-road average speed, that's at least 4 hours on 2 water bottles? Any exercise physiologist in the world will tell you you're definitely dehydrated, which makes you slower.

EDIT: didn't read far enough to see this had already been addressed.


----------



## pinguwin (Aug 20, 2004)

tommyrod74 said:


> that's at least 4 hours on 2 water bottles?


Don't forget to include the water that was drunk before the ride. I just finished a 3-week long backpacking trail and would drink two liters before I left (over about 20 minutes). Your body can store a fair amount of water. Yes sometimes you do whiz it out, but I could go some hours before having to drink. On the cooler days (55F), I could go for six hours without drinking much extra at all. Just something to consider.

'Guin


----------



## Mountainbikextremist (Jan 15, 2005)

*Camelbacks are great!*



Fillet-brazed said:


> "when I pass them I ask them if they're going camping." Classic!
> 
> Ya, I dont get camelbacks either unless youre riding for 6+ hours.


-Whatabout when its 100 degrees out and you need 100 oz of water?
-What if you want to carry a tube, pump "i tried putting mine on my frame" dont work, mulit tool, chain breaker
-What if its more convient to suck on a hose than it is to keep track of the trail excpecially when its technical terrain with one hand, and drink water with the other?


----------



## Mountainbikextremist (Jan 15, 2005)

colker1 said:


> suspension. once i read on an english mtb an interview w/ ross schaeffer. he was blaming susp from turning the mtb from an all around bike to trail closure and obnoxious behaviour tool. i'm with him.
> whenever i visit the "what bike forum" and read those lengthy tchnobabbles err... discussions on 4bar vs strutwhtever horst this and that, i feel like going back to cycling.


Some how i dont think suspension is a fad, because it is never going to go away. Its here to stay, and had MANY benifits.


----------



## Mountainbikextremist (Jan 15, 2005)

*suspension is no fad*



colker1 said:


> suspension. once i read on an english mtb an interview w/ ross schaeffer. he was blaming susp from turning the mtb from an all around bike to trail closure and obnoxious behaviour tool. i'm with him.
> whenever i visit the "what bike forum" and read those lengthy tchnobabbles err... discussions on 4bar vs strutwhtever horst this and that, i feel like going back to cycling.


Some how i dont think suspension is a fad, because it is never going to go away. Its here to stay, and has MANY benifits.


----------



## Mountainbikextremist (Jan 15, 2005)

bulC said:


> The whole idea that riding a mountain bike has to be about adrenaline, scaring oneself, crashing frequently, and riding at the maximum possible speed at all times has created a mountain bike-hating monster among other outdoorspersons, and set back IMBA's best efforts.
> I blame Zap and his evil influence on a generation of impressionable stupid kids for the whole goatee/earring/tattoo/attitude thing. As with Herr Bush, history will judge him harshly.


Y then does IMBA have a couple travel around the country teaching people how to build fast trails?


----------



## Mountainbikextremist (Jan 15, 2005)

*Spandex*



Shayne said:


> Baggy Cloths and Camel Backs


Whats wrong with mountain bikers not wanting to parade around in full out spandex? Personally i dont think men should be allowed to do that! Spandex for mountain biking is over rated...


----------



## Mountainbikextremist (Jan 15, 2005)

*What wrong with 6in bikes people??*



dirtdonk said:


> yeah, lets spend 2 grand + on a 27 pound suspension bike and carry 10 pounds of gear.


I simply find more enjoyment riding a 38 ib 6 inch travel bike with 100 oz camelback. Believe me, i have tried the light XC hardtail thing. I owned a gary fisher tassajara once. Its just not as much fun to me. I like putting it into first and take it easy on the climbs and bomb down the trail on 6 inches of couch cussion and fly off of hucks and jumps. If you like XC riding, more props to ya. Everyone likes different riding styles. If i like riding a 6 inch travel bike and go fast and take chances whats wrong with that??? :madman: Its so annoying how clicky the mtb world is. When you break it down, isnt it 2 wheels and 2 pedals whether its a 50 ib dh bike or a 20 ib XC race bike??? Im not going to say XC bikes are stupid because they arent and work great for what they are designed for. I just enjoy my type of riding better.:thumbsup:


----------



## chuey (Dec 4, 2004)

My list:

1anything by Ringle' (because nothing they ever made worked)
2indexed shifting
3riser bars and flat bars (drop bars are for bicycles, others are for motorcycles and motorcycle pretending) vroom vroom
4integrate schools, not headsets!
5smoke tires (in this case, "smoke" is not a verb)
6Yeti "FRO" frames, they were just big BMX bikes and besides, they all broke, didn't they? Zap liked them, though so that could sway your opinion.
7replaceable dropouts (rather, bikes that need them) 

But then, I'm not opinionated. Retailers are not allowed to be opinionated.

Chuey


----------



## Greebler (Jun 28, 2006)

vdubbusrider said:


> when you jump the camelback is down when your going up and when your going down its going up. the worst for me is when you are maxed out and you're heart rate is pounding and your breathing you're hardest. by the time you suck some water out and drink it you have missed 3 full breaths of air! with a bottle you fill your mouth while still breathing and swallow between breaths. might not sound like a bid deal but when your racing or trying to keep up with your faster buddies it sure it!
> .


I was just about to mention this as well... However I usually end up drooling all over my self attempting to get water out and breath at the same time. Good Times!


----------



## fIyingsuperpetis (Sep 20, 2006)

chuey said:


> My list:
> 
> But then, I'm not opinionated. Retailers are not allowed to be opinionated.
> 
> Chuey


Hahaha

20 years, and I've yet to find one that isn't...


----------



## sovietspyguy (Dec 4, 2005)

OnTheMoment said:


> Maybe this thread could be re-titled "purist/elitist/old curmudgeons complain about progress"


I second that.

Seriously, lighten up, this is sad. I definitely understand some of the things mentioned as fads or bad products, but there's a lot of "Well back in the day it was like this and it worked fine, why change it? EVER??"

Full-suspension a fad? Disc brakes? Are you serious? Have you ever used them? Have you ever tried a quick stop with wet v-brakes? Or maybe U-brakes were the best design, by far... If full suspension is useless we gotta tell the people that make our cars to quit putting it on there. Clearly they don't know what they are talking about.


----------



## misctwo (Oct 24, 2004)

sovietspyguy said:


> I second that.
> 
> Seriously, lighten up, this is sad.


Pot, kettle, black....whatever.


----------



## ekoostick (Oct 7, 2004)




----------



## El Caballo (Nov 22, 2004)

laffeaux said:


> Late '90s Shimano XT crankset (FC-M739)


+1 for the integrated large chainring/spider.

Does nothing: check.
Incompatible with anything previous or since: check
Makes it a lot more expensive to do basic maintenance: check

Also meeting those standards: the ISIS BB. Let's make an axle so big that we can't fit bearings inside the shell that last more than a few hundred miles!

Does nothing: check. Actually makes things worse.
Incompatible: check.
More expensive: check. Way more expensive than square taper.


----------



## ibike4fun (Jan 21, 2006)

Pedal clips with toe straps. 
Index shifting.
Non-sealed bottom brackets and hubs. (Everything should be sealed!)


----------



## Mountainbikextremist (Jan 15, 2005)

Maida7 said:


> the freeride huckster mentality


Quite frankly, i would like to see you try the stuff Robbie Bourdon does! Whats wrong with mentality of hucking off cliffs vs. the mentality of riding up a hill?? If ur doing what you enjoy, why the heck does it matter? I like going fast down hill and hucking my bike, i dont like climbing but i do it cause i have to. Period! I simply enjoy the downhill more. I went through my XC phase, and i dont miss it a bit. Does that mean there is anything wrong with the XC mentality? No! If you like climbing hills and riding over non-techy terrain nock your self out! Do what you like. Just dont insult another riding style cause you dont like doing it.


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

Mountainbikextremist said:


> Quite frankly, i would like to see you try the stuff Robbie Bourdon does! Whats wrong with mentality of hucking off cliffs vs. the mentality of riding up a hill?? If ur doing what you enjoy, why the heck does it matter? I like going fast down hill and hucking my bike, i dont like climbing but i do it cause i have to. Period! I simply enjoy the downhill more. I went through my XC phase, and i dont miss it a bit. Does that mean there is anything wrong with the XC mentality? No! If you like climbing hills and riding over non-techy terrain nock your self out! Do what you like. Just dont insult another riding style cause you dont like doing it.


Spoken like a true downhill/huckster/freerider. 

Most of us have been mountain biking longer than you've been alive. Keep that in mind. All your replies seem a bit defensive. Don't be all butt hurt...you're in a 'vintage' forum. There are a lot of old school guys there. Some move on with the times, some become retro grouches.

You have about as good of a chance explaining the merits of DH rigs to them as they have explaining the merits of full rigid hardtails to you.

I hate climbing. Love down hill. And I would never give up my full suspension bike...but it's also fun to smoke full sussies on a full vintage mtb up the hill...then kick their ass even more coming back down.


----------



## Bbasso (Oct 4, 2006)

I would have to say this was an odd one...


----------



## cegrover (Oct 17, 2004)

I like your checklist!


----------



## Clutchman83 (Apr 16, 2006)

Bbasso, I'd give my left nut for a hydraulic rim brake right now! Smooth feel, even if not super light, I think its bichin.


----------



## ekoostick (Oct 7, 2004)

I am with Clutchman on that one! If the trials riders catch wind of this, they will have your hyde!


----------



## RobynC (Feb 14, 2004)

This thread has been going on for a year and a half and I can't believe no one has mentioned these two words:

CLUB ROOST


----------



## acroy (Jun 20, 2006)

Don't knock Magura hydro rim brakes. They are STILL awesome!
No one has mentioned chainstay-mounted u-brakes??
Or how bout GripShift x-rays, that never quite worked with Shimano shifters!
Personally I think the current riser bar fad will go down in history as one of the worst. Let's make it heavier and weaker! yeah!


----------



## sovietspyguy (Dec 4, 2005)

acroy said:


> Don't knock Magura hydro rim brakes. They are STILL awesome!
> No one has mentioned chainstay-mounted u-brakes??
> Or how bout GripShift x-rays, that never quite worked with Shimano shifters!
> Personally I think the current riser bar fad will go down in history as one of the worst. Let's make it heavier and weaker! yeah!


I don't see where everyone gets this opinion that riser bars are inherently weaker. As if extruding or otherwise shaping metal into a straight bar shape is somehow a "magic" process that makes it ultralight and strong, and that the same process producing a different shape is evil and weak. If the bars are made right, right material, heat-treated or annealed, then they will be just as strong. There seem to be way too many people that see metalworking as some kind of trivial and simple subject that has been mastered ages ago, then they self-proclaim themselves as experts and casually state "A slight bend? Oh yeah, that's WEAK."

Please. There are plenty of books about metallurgy and metalworking that might help dispel the notion that straight lines are the strongest things since godzilla. A proper design with the proper materials as far as riser bars go will not be any weaker than a flat bar.


----------



## acroy (Jun 20, 2006)

sovietspyguy said:


> I don't see where everyone gets this opinion that riser bars are inherently weaker. As if extruding or otherwise shaping metal into a straight bar shape is somehow a "magic" process that makes it ultralight and strong, and that the same process producing a different shape is evil and weak. If the bars are made right, right material, heat-treated or annealed, then they will be just as strong. There seem to be way too many people that see metalworking as some kind of trivial and simple subject that has been mastered ages ago, then they self-proclaim themselves as experts and casually state "A slight bend? Oh yeah, that's WEAK."
> 
> Please. There are plenty of books about metallurgy and metalworking that might help dispel the notion that straight lines are the strongest things since godzilla. A proper design with the proper materials as far as riser bars go will not be any weaker than a flat bar.


well, this subject has been beat past death elsewhere....
all the risers i've seen are significantly heavier than flat. ie Easton's Monkeylight sl is 135g, vs ec90 is 99g, 35% heavier.
Does nothing: check (vs using flat with correct stem) except add a few ounces & fad factor.
Incompatible: check (oversize & rise means new stem sucka)
More expensive: check!
riser bar braces were a popular add-on a few years ago. Member those? They may qualify for this list as well....


----------



## sovietspyguy (Dec 4, 2005)

acroy said:


> well, this subject has been beat past death elsewhere....
> all the risers i've seen are significantly heavier than flat. ie Easton's Monkeylight sl is 135g, vs ec90 is 99g, 35% heavier.
> Does nothing: check (vs using flat with correct stem) except add a few ounces & fad factor.
> Incompatible: check (oversize & rise means new stem sucka)
> ...


I see where you're coming from, but wouldn't a taller stem also add weight?


----------



## collideous (Jul 1, 2006)

acroy said:


> Does nothing: check (vs using flat with correct stem) except add a few ounces & fad factor.
> Incompatible: check (oversize & rise means new stem sucka)


There's a much wider choice in sweeps and bar width with riser bars. If one looks for a wide flat bar for instance there are Salsa and Niner bars - and that's pretty much it. As far as incompatibility I think the bike industry has done us all a favor by creating the same 31.8mm size for road and mountain bikes. Having 25.4 and 26.0mm was just plain silly.


----------



## Mountainbikextremist (Jan 15, 2005)

acroy said:


> well, this subject has been beat past death elsewhere....
> all the risers i've seen are significantly heavier than flat. ie Easton's Monkeylight sl is 135g, vs ec90 is 99g, 35% heavier.
> Does nothing: check (vs using flat with correct stem) except add a few ounces & fad factor.
> Incompatible: check (oversize & rise means new stem sucka)
> ...


In terms of weight on my handlebars, i could care less. Im not a guy who counts grams if you look at my bike. I have riserbars on my Coiler, and they are much stronger looking than flatbars i have seen. They have a very thick center, and taper out at the ends. I have a hard time believing they are more expensive though. Yes, i cant use a standard stem with my handlebars though, but i dont really care. I dont think I will be breaking them anytime soon. I have risers cause they came on my bike. Does it make a big difference to me? Nope, could care less. I have never ridden flats on mtb before, so i couldnt say. My risers work fine for me though.... Here is a note though, if flat is stronger, all of the bones our body would be strait. Most of the bones in the body are curved to add STRENGTH. This includes all of the bones of the legs and arms in the Appendicular skeleton. Just a bit of biology FYI.


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

collideous said:


> There's a much wider choice in sweeps and bar width with riser bars. If one looks for a wide flat bar for instance there are Salsa and Niner bars - and that's pretty much it. As far as incompatibility I think the bike industry has done us all a favor by creating the same 31.8mm size for road and mountain bikes. Having 25.4 and 26.0mm was just plain silly.


Surly Torsionbars have some pretty good sweep to them. They're a good 'modern' flat bar.










I was a late comer to risers...but the upsweep along with being swept back makes them pretty comfy IMO. And until I made that change...I was 3* bend flats with bar ends my whole life. Now I like my flat bars with a bit more bent, but I can ride either and be just as comfortable.


----------



## Shayne (Jan 14, 2004)

*Favour? Hardly!*




collideous said:


> As far as incompatibility I think the bike industry has done us all a favor by creating the same 31.8mm size for road and mountain bikes. Having 25.4 and 26.0mm was just plain silly.


I could care less that road and MTB stems were a tad different. That what shims are for right?
This oversized bar/stem thing stinks. Increase in stiffness...sure, but will anyone but the most discerning rider notice...no (just like cranks, skip ahead). Pretty soon 25.4 bars won't even be available. I think I can count all the manufacturers that make 26.0 bars on one hand now and they're all pretty low end. So now I need a new stem if I want new road bars  compounded by the fact that my main road bike uses propriatary stems.
Its about as necessary as splined cranks  
And I was going to bag on Aheadsets but thanks to roadies holding out for so long there is still a good supply of threaded headsets and quill stems.


----------



## elee325 (Sep 27, 2006)

*Bar ends*

Am I the only one here who likes bar ends? I stopped using them a few years ago when the riser bars surfaced but I put them on again recently on my single speed and what a difference or I should say, advantageous they are when on a long climbs. It does look geeky on riser bars though, I must admit....


----------



## acroy (Jun 20, 2006)

Mountainbikextremist said:


> In terms of weight on my handlebars, i could care less. Im not a guy who counts grams if you look at my bike. I have riserbars on my Coiler, and they are much stronger looking than flatbars i have seen.


Can't argue with the "stonger looking" bit, I guess....
From outside! a few posts back:
"The number one current dumb fad is riser bars. As explained earlier, the right stem and flat bar combo can put your hands in the same place while being stronger and lighter. Keith Bontrager agreed with me on this topic over a beer once (pre Trek), and he knows more about making mountain bike components than most."

But let's face it, we're not gonna convince each other. End of the day, it's about having fun:thumbsup: and you can do that regardless of your bar, beer, or facial hair preference

Anyone mention URT (Unified Rear Triangle) a la Trek Y-Bike yet?
I did see a mention of "sweet spot", so i may not be the first to bring it up.
URT: the only design that is almost completely useless when you stand! yay!


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

acroy said:


> Anyone mention URT (Unified Rear Triangle) a la Trek Y-Bike yet?


Is that thunder I hear?


----------



## alexk (Sep 30, 2005)

elee325 said:


> Am I the only one here who likes bar ends? I stopped using them a few years ago when the riser bars surfaced but I put them on again recently on my single speed and what a difference or I should say, advantageous they are when on a long climbs. It does look geeky on riser bars though, I must admit....


No you're not the only one! I love them! In my mind they are one of the best after market bike accessory made. Nothing beats them for hunkering down on climbs, I blow most of my riding buddies out of the way on climbs and they also have riser bars. Ha ha hah!

Also they provide great hand protection on tight, twisty singletrack. I've overcooked it on some tight corners and ended up hitting small trees, if the bar ends weren't there my hand would've taken a fair bit of the impact but the bar end wore it instead. I've still got a 1993 pair of Onza L-bend bar ends and they're going strong, the best bar end ever made I reckon. Unless you like the pose factor of the titanium version that is. I use flat bars too.


----------



## alexk (Sep 30, 2005)

Rumpfy said:


> Spoken like a true downhill/huckster/freerider.
> 
> Most of us have been mountain biking longer than you've been alive. Keep that in mind. All your replies seem a bit defensive. Don't be all butt hurt...you're in a 'vintage' forum. There are a lot of old school guys there. Some move on with the times, some become retro grouches.
> 
> ...


Totally agree with you there Rumpfy. Like another post mentioned it's this kind of thing where the zen experience of mountain bike riding has been destroyed by the 'extreme' mentality. Of course all the marketing tossers cottoned on to that straight away as another gimmick to sell bikes.

Yeah and my middle name is extreme and I drive a Nissan X-Trail 'cos I'm just so extreme! 

Yeah and I'm just so full of it! 

Keep in mind _*mountain*_ bike riding: you do have to climb a hill or a mountain to go down the hill, it's in-bloody-evitable!

BTW 'bloody' is the great Australian adjective so don't take offence. I also reckon this thread is hilarious, there's been some fabulous design mistakes for sure.

And don't even get me started on Shimano Total Integration rubbish, what bollocks! Indexing the front derailleur was a totally spastic idea if there ever was one but unfortunately it's still here 15 years later. Thumbshifters thank you very very much!


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

alexk said:


> Totally agree with you there Rumpfy. Like another post mentioned it's this kind of thing where the zen experience of mountain bike riding has been destroyed by the 'extreme' mentality. Of course all the marketing tossers cottoned on to that straight away as another gimmick to sell bikes.
> 
> Keep in mind _*mountain*_ bike riding: you do have to climb a hill or a mountain to go down the hill, it's in-bloody-evitable!


Yeah, I'm very much an 'earn your return' kinda guy, but at the same time, I've gotta give respect to the North Shore/Freeride scene too...no way I could do what those guys do...and I'm a decent rider IMHO.

It's important to see both sides (old school vs. new school) with regards to riding style, bike set up, and parts/market trend. If you tunnel vision...well...we'd just be beating a dead horse trying to convince each other our way is better. 

I do think the SS and 29er movement is a good step towards bringing MTB back to the masses to enjoy...as crazy as those two nitches are. :smilewinkgrin:


----------



## minus9 (Oct 7, 2005)

Some are certainly repeats -----

Lizard skins
Shockster
SDG I-Beam seats/posts
Girvin forks and stems
Drilled out components of any sort
Bright colored tires
Stems without removable faceplates
Composite wheels (trying to relive the BMX mag wheel days)
Skinny semi-slick tires
Bikes produced by car companies
Ring-Go-Star
Anodized chainring bolts
URT frames


----------



## El Caballo (Nov 22, 2004)

Shayne said:


> And I was going to bag on Aheadsets but thanks to roadies holding out for so long there is still a good supply of threaded headsets and quill stems.


Better not. Having to make different forks for every length head tube, and having no height adjustment on your handlebars...now *that's* dumb.


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

El Caballo said:


> Better not. Having to make different forks for every length head tube, and having no height adjustment on your handlebars...now *that's* dumb.


Threadless headsets suck.


----------



## Shayne (Jan 14, 2004)

*Since You Brought It Up*



El Caballo said:


> Having to make different forks for every length head tube, and having no height adjustment on your handlebars...


Neither of your points are very valid.

1) Both threaded and threadless forks have to be cut. Manufacturers actually did us a favour by making threaded forks in several sizes so maybe you could get lucky and not have to cut it. All threadless forks have to be cut to lenght unless you ride a 25" frame or have an abnormally long headtube.

2) If you buy a showroom stock threadless bike now you will have 0 to maybe 10mm of vertical adjustment on your stem. If you built your bike from scratch and left a lot of extra steerer obvioulsy you'll have more room to play.
However if you buy a showroom stock threaded setup you will have from 15 to 30+mm of vertical adjustment in your stem. If you build your bike from scratch/upgrade the fork you can go the same route as threadless by getting a longer steerer and using spacers.
A stock threaded headset bike usually has _MORE_ height adjustment for your stem/bars.


----------



## Proformance Cycle (May 28, 2004)

To all:

Any suspension product made in the first staged of MTB Suspension.

The Isolater hub
The Tioga Tention rear Disc wheel
Rock Shox
The Desender bike

All the other junk made by people who were GUESSING on how it should work!


----------



## Mountainbikextremist (Jan 15, 2005)

*ISIS has present me with no problems*



El Caballo said:


> +1 \
> Also meeting those standards: the ISIS BB. Let's make an axle so big that we can't fit bearings inside the shell that last more than a few hundred miles!
> 
> 
> > I have been riding the stock Race Face SRS ISIS bb on my 05 Coiler to date and it has never complained once "and i am really hard on stuff!" I have had ZIPPO problems with ISIS BBs. So I donno, i have heard of people having problems with them but i have yet to find anything wrong with mine....


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

Proformance Cycle said:


> The Tioga Tention rear Disc wheel


I resemble that comment.


----------



## downhilljill (Apr 21, 2005)

....wait a minute. Your avatar.....

Is that DON?!?


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

downhilljill said:


> ....wait a minute. Your avatar.....
> 
> Is that DON?!?


It was....


----------



## Veloculture (Dec 18, 2005)

damn Jill, you got some good eyes.


----------



## downhilljill (Apr 21, 2005)

Rumpfy said:


> It was....


OK, I can't get the image out of my head...Don racing Keyesville in this get up, singing "I'll tumble for ya" as he rides down the hill.


----------



## dru (Sep 4, 2006)

*stupid fenders*

My vote goes for stupid THE type front and rear fenders. Remember when xc bikes were coming with these stock a few years back? A bike isn't a xcrosser so why try? Dumb, dumb, dumb....

I have used a rat tail more than a few times on road rides though.

Drew


----------



## southdowner (Oct 29, 2006)

Oh yes

THE PURPLE THING :nono: 

What were they thinking? I couldn't see it myself, why would I want my bike to look like a hairdresser rides it? I remember at one time you couldn't get anything in my local shop that wasn't purple  

and

all the magazines thinking all we want to do is jump 12ft canals landing on our back wheel, then nail that 30ft drop-off wearing motocross armour (well, that's when I stopped buying them, in the UK, about 5+ years ago?) rft:


----------



## needaframe (Oct 22, 2006)

magna bikes


----------



## Stinky Wiz (Jan 27, 2004)

*Projectile fork caps & Brahma's*

How about those plastic caps they used to use on almost all forks back in the day. I've personally witnessed them abuse two of my buddies, one got a new hairstyle when a cap ejected and reparted his old 'do; the other was the subject to much ridecule after his nipple was the target of a high velocity projectile that used to be part of the fork.

Then there's the handlebars that bent all the way around to form exagerated bar-ends. Those mo-fo's made it impossible to change grips or replace brake-levers/shifters. They were also mightily uncomfortable. Brahma's was it?


----------



## Onie (Sep 15, 2005)

Car-company produced/ inspired bikes. Just the thought, gives me go0sebumps! :nono: 

For me, conflict of interest: car companys are fossil fuel hogs then they'd promote bikes... That's a barmy idea and we all know it.

EwWwW!!! :madman:


----------



## Mike Oxmells (Mar 29, 2005)

Early Marin FS bike.

I'd love to find a photo, but I remember seeing a mid 90's Marin catalogue with a FS frame that 'worked' by having a seperate shock absorber built into each seatstay.

Must have been great to ride behind and watch the wheel sway with each pedal stroke.


----------



## Shayne (Jan 14, 2004)

*Yup, Same As Manitou's*

I'd never heard of that problem. I never rode one so I can't comment directly but it seems that it would be no more likely to move independantly than any telescoping fork.


----------



## Mike Oxmells (Mar 29, 2005)

I never saw anyone ride one, yet alone had a go myself.

I'd guess that each time you apply some pedal pressure on, the driveside chainstay would have compressed heavily. Forks have a rigid crown to keep the legs aligned.

This thing would have been like riding a fat girl on a trampoline.


----------



## Shayne (Jan 14, 2004)

*Same Deal*

Those rear ends also had a 'crown'

See this thread for pics.
http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=190779

I agree that it probably wasn't the best design but I don't see it being any flexier than telescoping forks which still seem to be hanging around.


----------



## Mike Oxmells (Mar 29, 2005)

I quirte like that Manitou.. How rigids was it?

That suspension design doesn't seem to have stood the test of time. Why not have one shock above the brace?


----------



## Shayne (Jan 14, 2004)

*I Don't Think It Was meant To*



Mike Oxmells said:


> That suspension design doesn't seem to have stood the test of time. Why not have one shock above the brace?


The idea behind that was to get into the rear suspension market as quick as possible... just modify a fork to fit where the sear stays shoule be.

Several makers also did that with Rock Shox Mag series forks.


----------



## Boy named SSue (Jan 7, 2004)

Shayne said:


> Neither of your points are very valid.
> 
> 2) If you buy a showroom stock threadless bike now you will have 0 to maybe 10mm of vertical adjustment on your stem. If you built your bike from scratch and left a lot of extra steerer obvioulsy you'll have more room to play.
> However if you buy a showroom stock threaded setup you will have from 15 to 30+mm of vertical adjustment in your stem. If you build your bike from scratch/upgrade the fork you can go the same route as threadless by getting a longer steerer and using spacers.
> A stock threaded headset bike usually has _MORE_ height adjustment for your stem/bars.


I totally agree and even more so, once you figure that many threadless setups now have stems with 5 to 10 degree rise that can be flipped to be negative 5 to 10 degrees, there can be a whole lot more adjustment in the threadless setup than the spacer stack gives alone. Most of my threaded stems have an inch of adjustment if you pay attention to the minimum insertion mark on the quill. I totally find a larger range of adjustment in my threadless setup than in my threaded.


----------



## ThisIsMyName (Jul 13, 2006)

I don't get the association of fad with bad product inherent in much (read not all) of this thread. Sometimes stuff has a short shelf-life because of rapid innovation. To retrospectively look at a product and say it was bad, in the absence of new innovations and what we now know, five, ten, twenty years on seems a little easy as it ignores the contemporary context that the product existed in. I mean, you surely would have been considered a genius, had you knowledge of bikes from 2006 in 1990. :rant: :nono: 

In addition, how are Camelbaks and Camelbak-like products a fad or bad products? They've been around for many years and their popularity doesn't seem to be abating much at all. So they can't be a fad by definition. They also certainly aren't a bad product. You may think of them as being superfluous overkill, but they do what they are designed to do, genreally speaking, quite well. Therefore, they are neither a fad nor a bad product, in spite of what your personal opinions of their utility are. :rant: :nono: And no, your personal opinion about the necessity of a product doesn't make it either a fad or a defective (bad) product. 

I'm not trolling. I swear. I'm just stating what should be obvious.  Take that and go camping Mr. Fashion Policeman. In case you were wondering I no longer wear a Camelbak. I've discovered that a couple of 600 ml water bottles more than suffice for a 2-3 hour ride. That doesn't mean I could give two nickels about people who feel they do need a Camelbak for short rides. 

Oh yeah, I wear long fingered gloves for cross country riding in the summer, is that okay? :smilewinkgrin:


----------



## Twisted Trail (Oct 13, 2006)

*only to mention a few*

I add my vote for ...
Under the chain stay U-brakes

"Snake skins" (or something like that) that were Kevlar strips installed internally in the tire to make your tires puncture proof, but cost more than a tire, and only lasted a couple of rides before they would break down and cause a flat by the pieces eating through the tube.

"9 speeds".......where will it ever end??? Do we really need 27 gears instead of "only" 24 gears, when many people are finding ONE gear to be just fine? Bring back the 7 speed block!!!!


----------



## stevefo (Nov 25, 2006)

Shayne said:


> what do you need one for unless you're going on some kind of marathon 100+ mile ride?
> I can put 60+ miles on with only 2 water bottles easily. I have no need for anything more than that. The jersey comment was mostly tongue in cheek. Although on my Alan 'cross bike I have to use my jersey pockets if I want water....it has no braze-ons; a true cyclocross frame.


If you lived in a HOT climate I guarantee that you would think Camel Backs were the best thing since sliced bread. Opinions are like A-Holes and here are mine!

Water Bottles
1) Adds weight to the bike 
2) 1, 2 or 3 bottles on a bike make it a little sluggish. Ex. As you drink the water from each bottle the water splashes around inside causing a counter balance.
3) I used to lose them on the trails.
4) Not good to reach down and grab one as you hit a root while clipped it. (Personal experience. don't ask)
5) Where do you put your tools, pump, etc... I can't stand that crap hanging all over my bike.

Camel Back
1) Can carry 70 to 100oz of water.
2) Holds my tools, tube, patch kit, lighter, power bars, mag lite, pump etc.......
3) Easy to drink from while riding.
4) Acts as a great air bag when you fall.
5) Everything in one convenient easy to carry tight and compact pack.:thumbsup:


----------



## Repack Rider (Oct 22, 2005)

How about the seatpost that changes angles?


----------



## Repack Rider (Oct 22, 2005)

Did anyone mention adjustable head tube angle?


----------



## pinguwin (Aug 20, 2004)

I'm starting to think a little like the post from thisismyname the other day. Are water bottles really the worst thing out there? I doubt it, not everyone is from a hot climate and it's kind of like saying downhill bikes suck because I'm into hill climbs.

Also, is the adjustable headset angle a bad idea because it sounds stupid or because "I rode one and the thing came loose every ten minutes." Perhaps we should be saying why these things are bad.

Not ripping on these two posters in particular, mind you. I find this an interesting thread. 

Penguin


----------



## Repack Rider (Oct 22, 2005)

pinguwin said:


> Perhaps we should be saying why these things are bad.


We don't need to do that. Good ideas MAKE MONEY for someone.

Bad ideas disappear into my files until the invention of the Internet.


----------



## GRAVELBIKE (Oct 7, 2006)

My silent MachineTech rear hub was kinda cool when it worked, but I seemed to have fewer issues with an LX rear hub during the same time frame.


----------



## Dwight Moody (Jan 10, 2004)

Mike Oxmells said:


> This thing would have been like riding a fat girl on a trampoline.


What's wrong with that?


----------



## pinguwin (Aug 20, 2004)

MileHighMark said:


> My silent MachineTech rear hub was kinda cool when it worked


Wasn't that the one with the roller clutch instead of pawls & wratchets? Seemed like a cool idea when it was above freezing. I didn't have one but my friend did and it never worked, even after replacing it twice. They company, based in southern California finally said, 'Northern Minneosota in the winter, how cold is it there?" "Oh, about 10F" (approx -10C) he replied. They said, "Well, we never really tested it in cold weather".

Penguin


----------



## GRAVELBIKE (Oct 7, 2006)

pinguwin said:


> Wasn't that the one with the roller clutch instead of pawls & wratchets? Seemed like a cool idea when it was above freezing. I didn't have one but my friend did and it never worked, even after replacing it twice. They company, based in southern California finally said, 'Northern Minneosota in the winter, how cold is it there?" "Oh, about 10F" (approx -10C) he replied. They said, "Well, we never really tested it in cold weather".
> 
> Penguin


That's the one. You lubed it with motor oil, which was a mess. Even in warmer climates the thing would still "drag," causing inevitable chainsuck.


----------



## bjunsveltie (Oct 27, 2006)

Isnt there a working theory/wives-tale that weight on your body takes less energy to move than weight on your bike? Its something I heard from some roadies long ago as the explination for the storage panels on the back of jerseys.


----------



## bluebomberx (Aug 24, 2006)

I seem to recall riser bars being around for well over a decade. How is that a fad?


----------



## Tracerboy (Oct 13, 2002)

acroy said:


> Can't argue with the "stonger looking" bit, I guess....
> From outside! a few posts back:
> "The number one current dumb fad is riser bars. As explained earlier, the right stem and flat bar combo can put your hands in the same place while being stronger and lighter. Keith Bontrager agreed with me on this topic over a beer once (pre Trek), and he knows more about making mountain bike components than most."


Keith Bontrager is the new Chuck Norris of Mountain Biking!


----------



## Tracerboy (Oct 13, 2002)

How about the Christini All Wheel Drive Bike?


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

Sedated said:


> Keith Bontrager is the new Chuck Norris of Mountain Biking!


Don't let the Fat Chance guys hear you say that.


----------



## Redcoat (Mar 16, 2006)

*Old Junk*

Anyone remember those HiteRite springs?
And, only a dyed-in the-wool Retro-Grouch would not like CamelBaks.


----------



## pinguwin (Aug 20, 2004)

Redcoat said:


> And, only a dyed-in the-wool Retro-Grouch would not like CamelBaks.


This may be flamebait and if so, I'll bite. I probably am a retro-grouch but this is entirely irrelevant to cambelbaks. I simply don't like a large, heavy object on my upper back. I think they are great ideas if don't mind this feeling but not everyone does. I bought a camelbak, used it a few times, and gave it away. Besides, Kleins have three water bottle mounts and that's fine with with me.

Yeah, probably a retrogrouch and proud of it.

Penguin


----------



## Tracerboy (Oct 13, 2002)

vdubbusrider said:


> what the heck was everybody thinking when they cut the bars down until the brake levers touched eachother. why did just about every mountain biker in the sport follow the trend. it was aweful.


Because the Pros did it. But I agree with you VDub.Steering sucked with way too narrow bars.


----------



## Repack Rider (Oct 22, 2005)

Built4Speed said:


> Because the Pros did it. But I agree with you VDub.Steering sucked with way too narrow bars.


How about these weird one-off, too narrow bars? The stem has a quick-release, and slides up and down.


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

Repack Rider said:



> How about these weird one-off, too narrow bars? The stem has a quick-release, and slides up and down.


Haha...there's a lot of stuff going on there.


----------



## BikeSATORI (Mar 20, 2004)

Repack Rider said:


> Did anyone mention adjustable head tube angle?


still around, and I kinda dig it. on the Commencal Meta4X









hell, may as well bring this thread into the new year as well! :thumbsup:


----------



## filtersweep (Oct 15, 2004)

Aerobars on mtn bikes. For the love of god, why?? I haven't seen that since I left the US---


----------



## ilostmypassword (Dec 9, 2006)

single speed?


----------



## merlinxlmman (Dec 9, 2006)

*heavy packs for training!!*



bulC said:


> Now for a truly long ride they are great. But I always wonder what the heck folks put in their huge packs for a 2-hour ride on local trails here that I don't have in my bike's frame pack, water bottle, or back pockets.
> Even sillier are roadies, well, not really roadies, MTBers on pavement from the look of their visored helmets, pedaling the valley loop with a huge pack. Sometimes when I pass them I ask them if they're going camping.


If you ride every day with an extra twenty pounds, climbing hills etc, using heavy tires and wheels...your body adapts to the extra load. On RACE day you put on the race wheels and dump the twenty pound Camelbak. It makes you feel like you are riding on all kinds of performance enhanceing banned substances and it costs you nothing


----------



## merlinxlmman (Dec 9, 2006)

*Bar ends*



Built4Speed said:


> During mountain biking's early years,many products and fads appeared.What,in your opinion,is the worst fad or product ever? Yeah,we already know what you think about Biopace.


Since biopace is off the list, I would have to say the long curved bar ends. I tried them and found out that I stared at them and worried they would hook a tree branch. I also found that I rarely actually put my hands on them.


----------



## Niner_Nutt (Dec 31, 2006)

*Spritle and Chim Chim*

Were "Chim Chims" those brake lever extenders so you could brake from your bar ends made by Paul's Components? I've got a near mint set in fabulous anodized purple in the basement. What was I thinking? Anybody want em?  (Although I got them around the same time as I met my ex-wife and guess which is still around?)


----------



## tonyfromDC (Nov 17, 2005)

Built4Speed said:


> During mountain biking's early years,many products and fads appeared.What,in your opinion,is the worst fad or product ever? Yeah,we already know what you think about Biopace.


This thread is two years old and it may just be the *worst mountain bike fad* ever.


----------



## ATL MTN Biker (Jan 21, 2007)

Built4Speed said:


> During mountain biking's early years,many products and fads appeared.What,in your opinion,is the worst fad or product ever? Yeah,we already know what you think about Biopace.


Sorry for the stupid question, but whats so bad about Biopace? My old beater (early 90s Nishiki Colorado) that I recently got going again has that. Its always been a good bike and shifted pretty good.

Just curious...


----------



## BikeSATORI (Mar 20, 2004)

ATL MTN Biker said:


> Sorry for the stupid question, but whats so bad about Biopace? My old beater (early 90s Nishiki Colorado) that I recently got going again has that. Its always been a good bike and shifted pretty good.
> 
> Just curious...


I'm really not sure... I'm still waiting for them to make some biopace wheelsets...


----------



## Intense5point5 (Jan 25, 2007)

Worst Fads/Products for MTB'ing ever? Four things immediately knock down my makeshift mental barriers of my bike related sanity in full fledged flamboyant glory. Elastomers, anything that used them, Noleen/Girvin front suspension forks, and any bike with a word that starts with P and ends in acific
(The last thing would fit better under the most dangerous fads.)


----------



## jack lantern (Jun 23, 2006)

*Wow, this is an old thread!*

I've seen this thread for some time now and never bothered to read it in it's entirety until the other day and jeez, there's some funny stuff within it. For what it's worth I'll throw my cards on the table regarding bar-ends. I remember getting a set of what I believe were the original Onza bar-ends back when they came out and thought they were the coolest thing ever. Sure a bit heavy but at the time I was doing alot of climbing on my road bike and they simulated the position of the road hoods so well it was an instant necessity, for me anyway. After a few months I decided to cut half the length off them (like the newer stubbie models) and was even happier. I wish I could say I thought of this but truthfully I saw a friend do this to lighten up his bike (yeah, I know... ). Anyway, I'm still a fan of bar-ends, just not the L bend version. I still get squeamish whenever I see someone riding around with a set of L bend bar-ends turned straight up. True they're doing it for comfort so they can continue to ride and that's a good thing but :eekster: !

I worked at shop in the Bay Area from the mid 80's into the 90's and of all the stuff I sold a few things stick out:
1) those frame mounted shoulder bags....oye!
2) Shimano Shark Fins (was it just me or did those things fly off anyone else's bike once a little dirt and mud got underneath 'em?).
3) Paul Chim-chims...seemed like a law suit just waiting to happen.
4) the various Mag-lite holders (from Suntours front wheel QR mount to the heavy DKG (?) handlebar mount. I think a lazer pointer puts out more light then those mini-mags.)
5) putting pieces of inner tube over ones headset to help seal them up (pre-Lizard Skin and generally a lame idea).

I'm sure there's more and let it be known that I tried all the above mentioned items, except the shoulder bag  , so I'm just speaking from personal experience. Nothing more irritating then reading someones rants about stuff they've never even used before. I'm sure we've all worked / riden with the type before.


----------



## Intense5point5 (Jan 25, 2007)

I Cannot believe no one has mentioned this before... Remember the automatic shifting bikes? Yeah those pieces of crap. The rear wheel had 3 WEIGHTS in it that would pull out 3 bars in a hub with centrifugal motion to move a rear derailleur. The 7 gears on the hub were fixed in place and the freewheeling mechanism was integrated into the cranks between the chainwheel and crank arms. What a nightmare. I had to service one of those f'ing things. I forget what it was called but I was working on it. Getting it to shift right was impossible. Oh...and why in the hell would you put centrifugal weights in the rear wheel????


P.S. Remember Power-Curve frames?


----------



## mtnbiker72 (Jan 22, 2007)

Anodized $300 made in the USA rear derailuers!!!

a $30 Shimano derailuer worked 10X better

Sorry if this has already been mentioned


----------



## SimonMW (Mar 12, 2007)

I'm new here, hi!

Anyone remember Sharkfins? Useless pieces of plastic that were supposed to protect the frame from the chain, and stop the chain from getting jammed if it came off. Didn't work, and it never stayed stuck to the frame in wet conditions.

Regarding the Camel things, a lot of the modern bikes, particularly full sus seem to only have one bottle cage attachment. Where do the others go?

Biopace is cool. I just dug out my old 1992 Marin Palisades and took it into Wales the other day.


----------



## Guest (Mar 12, 2007)

grip sh*ts

srp bolts and alumininum c-ring bolts

"mountain goat" by SyCip, teehee, what's in a name?


----------



## Guest (Mar 12, 2007)

_"mountain goat" by SyCip_

I guess that falls under "2007 Retro Bikes"

A "goat registry" for "legendary" 2007 "retro" bikes http://www.firstflightbikes.com/NewGoat.htm The "rebirth of a legend" that is as alive as ever and has _nothing_ to do with the business model.

"yeti" by schwinn

"ibis" made in japan

brand name dilution


----------



## kenjihara (Mar 7, 2006)

*Flat bars?*



C.Savage said:


> Sadly not a fad but still ugly are unpainted frames, silver is just sooooo boring. Worst product has got to be flat bars. And I say bring back anodizing to all it's full glory.


You're saying that riser bars are superior to flat? You do realize that you could save weight and have a stronger bar in the same position if you used a steeper angled stem and a flat bar, right?


----------



## KDXdog (Mar 15, 2007)

Back to ZAP
He started arguments where there didn't need to be any, promoted a bunch of the foolish trends mentioned here, "moto-this and Taco-that", bashed "the man-big bike co's" relentlessly, then took a job at Trek.
I met him a few times, at Mt Snow Nationals, he was such a tool, Ned Overand apologised to me FOR him!
For the record, I'm half Mexican, so it's not an anti Mex thing.

Hmm, after that, roadies bringing the " Holier than thou" attitude to the sport.


----------



## Brutal Cycles (Feb 16, 2007)

willy2004 said:


> _"mountain goat" by SyCip_
> 
> I guess that falls under "2007 Retro Bikes"
> 
> A "goat registry" for "legendary" 2007 "retro" bikes http://www.firstflightbikes.com/NewGoat.htm The "rebirth of a legend" that is as alive as ever and has _nothing_ to do with the business model.


The business model, no. The bikes themselves, plenty. The new mountain goats are a result of thousands of hours of effort on the part of two of Goats biggest fans and the skilled Sycip brothers, with the blessing of Mountain Goat founder Jeff Lindsay himself. The classic goat frames in FFB's collection were thoroughly researched, and every attempt was made to adhere to the original designs and construction methods, while poring over modern ride geometry and tubing & frame components (which the original MG would today be choosing from as well) all to build a tiny, miniscule run of special, updated versions of those original frames which would be the Goats of today if the company had gone on uninterrupted. Hence the name on the downtube, given by Jeff Lindsay, at no cost to the project.

I definitely understand the appeal of an original, vintage Mountain Goat made by the four founding members, but I also understand that even if Mountain Goat had survived the mid-90's Crush, it wouldn't be those four guys today struggling to get by making frames themselves anyway. Yet I wouldn't think of their bikes as any worthy of the name than my own original Goats. At that highest level of craftsmanship, the differences in the welds of two masters is imperceptible, and the bike is about the design and the finished product more than it is about which trusted artisan happened to be holding the torch that day.

They ARE modern Mountain Goats.


----------



## dan0 (Oct 12, 2005)

how about 
not using water to wash your bike and/or not washing your bike
around here (new england) the "new" thing is not to wash your bike with water?
according to the "experts" washing the bike with water will make all the bearings go bad and force dirt into them . they suggest letting the mud dry (on the frame and bearings) and brushing it off . 
how the mud and water dont get into the bearings in the first place is not mentioned and neither is how using a dry brush to push and scrape dirt across the paint & bearings is benificial:skep:


----------



## IF52 (Jan 10, 2004)

dan0 said:


> how about
> not using water to wash your bike and/or not washing your bike
> around here (new england) the "new" thing is not to wash your bike with water?
> according to the "experts" washing the bike with water will make all the bearings go bad and force dirt into them . they suggest letting the mud dry (on the frame and bearings) and brushing it off .
> how the mud and water dont get into the bearings in the first place is not mentioned and neither is how using a dry brush to push and scrape dirt across the paint & bearings is benificial:skep:


Here is the problem; when people hose stuff off they tend to blast the **** out of it with high pressure. So when they hit the openings on the bike, like the hubs, headset and BB, as well as the vent holes in the stays, water gets forced in. If you let the mud dry on it will flake off and then you can wipe the bike down with pledge or some kind of car detailing spray. Sure some water/slop will get in, but not as much as when you blast it with a hose.

And yes, after nearly 10 years in a shop back in the late 80s to mid 90s you could see the difference between who blasted their bikes and who didn't when you did an overhaul. Granted hubs, headset, BBs, etc have much better seals now than the 'loose ball' type systems on most bikes bike then.


----------



## First Flight (Jan 25, 2004)

willy2004 said:


> "mountain goat" by SyCip, teehee, what's in a name?


Willy (and all)
Here is the other side of the story.

As you may or may not know, we do quite a bit with the older mountain bikes on our web site. Since we have been out there a while, we get lots of inquiries from folks with older bikes. Many of them put there old rides up while life, jobs and kids take over for a bit. As we all were getting a little bit heavier and a little less agile (if you're not there yet, it's comin') things like shocks that work and decent brakes become more important. The typical conversation goes something like this: "I love my old "insert brand here" but the shock is blown........of course it is 1" with 48mm of travel......what can I do. Well, you could put a Marzocchi on it (which is no longer an option since they opted out of making 1" forks, leaves RST now) which is V brake only.....new brakes, well your levers won't work.....new levers, now your shifters are connected to the brake levers.......new shifters, well nothing available in 7 speed anymore, how 'bout 8/9 speed........new wheels and cassette. Now you have spent $800 upgrading your old bike and, oh yeah, remember the handling you love? gone, ruined by an 80mm fork.

We decided to do something about it as opposed to sitting around and *****ing about it. Many of the small brands, that we all admire, either died or were bought out in the mid-late 1990's: Fisher, Klein, Salsa, Mountain Goat, Fat Chance, Ibis, Bontrager plus many others. Since their demise predates much of the Internet, much of the history is lost on the newest generation of riders. How many people that started riding in the last 5 years know that Bontrager is anything more than a name of road wheels, comfort bike tires or floor pumps? I think it is a shame that much of this could be lost.

So, we studied our collection of 15 or so vintage Goats along with our collection of catalogs and magazines. I then blended that in with 23 years of riding and selling mountain bikes to come up with a frame that was "true" to the legend while allowing the use of modern components. We took high quality double butted Reynolds tubing, head tube reinforcements, Salsa drop outs, wishbone stays, head badges from the original mold, paint by the same painter (using many of the same templates from 15 years ago) and blended them into a frame that we are proud of. Sycip bikes have always struck us as finely crafted frames and they had worked with Jeff Lindsay so that was a natural fit. We had been in contact with Jeff Lindsay for 5 or 6 years and approached him with the idea. His exact quote was "go for it, but I want nothing to do with it". Jeff went back to his first love of working with glass and left the bike industry behind.

Well, are these "real" Mountain Goats?? I guess it depends on your perspective. Should a company die just because the founder dies or quits? We've built a frame that in my opinion, is nearly identical to what Jeff Lindsay would be building if he had continued. I don't think he would have ignored disc brakes and longer travel suspension forks but would have changed his frames to accommodate them.

What I do know, without question, is the joy that we have brought to at least a handful of customers. Mark was almost in tears when he picked his bike up. He just stood there for 15 minutes walking around it before he even touched it. His wife later told me that she was so glad that he could finally get "his" Goat since she had heard about that damn bike for a dozen years. It is also odd that almost half of our bikes have been sold overseas,without advertising. Could it be that overseas enthusiast have more appreciation for our heritage than we do?

Well, I could go on but my fingers are tired. Just think about all sides before you start cracking on someones project. It might not be for you, which is cool, and if you don't think it is "real", I fully understand but for many of us that couldn't afford the bikes 15 years ago making $5 an hour, it is as close as we will ever get.


----------



## dan0 (Oct 12, 2005)

IF52 said:


> Here is the problem; when people hose stuff off they tend to blast the **** out of it with high pressure. So when they hit the openings on the bike, like the hubs, headset and BB, as well as the vent holes in the stays, water gets forced in. If you let the mud dry on it will flake off and then you can wipe the bike down with pledge or some kind of car detailing spray. Sure some water/slop will get in, but not as much as when you blast it with a hose.
> 
> And yes, after nearly 10 years in a shop back in the late 80s to mid 90s you could see the difference between who blasted their bikes and who didn't when you did an overhaul. Granted hubs, headset, BBs, etc have much better seals now than the 'loose ball' type systems on most bikes bike then.


I understand about not using high pressure, and I think what has happened is that do not use high pressure water to wash your bike has become do not use water. through faulty word of mouth
I dont know where you live but here in NE the mud doesnt gently flake off. once dried it has to be scraped and scrubbed off with a fairly stiff brush. so now which is better
you submerge your ride and generally get mud and water caked all over your bearings and paint
do you rinse it off with a hose (no nossle) and soap and water cleaniing followed by towel dry and lube as soon as you get home
or
let the mud dry (on the paint and in the bearings) then scrape and scrub it off
and hope none of the grit is still stuck to the bearings. not to mention what your paint job will look like . anyone recommend brushing dirt and mud off of their cars? how about not using a car wash (talk about high pressure hot water and soap being blasted at your wheel bearings and under carriage). my truck has well over 100000 miles on it and I never had an issue with bad bearings from washing


----------



## ssmike (Jan 21, 2004)

willy2004 said:


> _"mountain goat" by SyCip_
> 
> I guess that falls under "2007 Retro Bikes"
> 
> A "goat registry" for "legendary" 2007 "retro" bikes http://www.firstflightbikes.com/NewGoat.htm The "rebirth of a legend" that is as alive as ever and has _nothing_ to do with the business model.


Keeping alive a great marque and doing it in the exact tradition that it was founded on is incredibly honorable. Mountain Goat was and is an incredibly crafted rolling work of art!

Jeff, First Flight Bikes and Mountain Goat, you get two thumbs way up :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

wiley2004 - thanks for choosing your minimal posting so wisely :nono:


----------



## IF52 (Jan 10, 2004)

dan0 said:


> I understand about not using high pressure, and I think what has happened is that do not use high pressure water to wash your bike has become do not use water. through faulty word of mouth
> I dont know where you live but here in NE the mud doesnt gently flake off. once dried it has to be scraped and scrubbed off with a fairly stiff brush. so now which is better
> you submerge your ride and generally get mud and water caked all over your bearings and paint
> do you rinse it off with a hose (no nossle) and soap and water cleaniing followed by towel dry and lube as soon as you get home
> ...


I would argue Georgia clay is worse and that is where I started riding and where I worked in a shop. Back then the seals on bearings were pathetic at best. The exception were products from the likes of Phil Wood and Chris King. Your points are legit, I'm just saying that when people asked us how they should wash off their bikes we implored them to NOT use high pressure hoses. Yet I can't count the number of time I would see people at car washes blasting their bikes off after a ride. Have you overhauled many bikes? Are you telling me you don't see the results of power washing?

When I wash of my bikes I use gentle hose pressure at most and then bouce the bike to knock stuff of. Wet rag after that takes care of the rest. If it is not totally caked the previously mentioned flake and pledge method works great.

Newer vehicle bearings tend to have better seals and they can fail pretty quickly. I replaced the fronts on my older Porsche at 100K. Folks I know with newer GM products barely make it to 50K before the front ends on their cars need rebuilding.


----------



## dan0 (Oct 12, 2005)

IF52 said:


> I would argue Georgia clay is worse and that is where I started riding and where I worked in a shop. Back then the seals on bearings were pathetic at best. The exception were products from the likes of Phil Wood and Chris King. Your points are legit, I'm just saying that when people asked us how they should wash off their bikes we implored them to NOT use high pressure hoses. Yet I can't count the number of time I would see people at car washes blasting their bikes off after a ride. Have you overhauled many bikes? Are you telling me you don't see the results of power washing?
> 
> When I wash of my bikes I use gentle hose pressure at most and then bouce the bike to knock stuff of. Wet rag after that takes care of the rest. If it is not totally caked the previously mentioned flake and pledge method works great.
> 
> Newer vehicle bearings tend to have better seals and they can fail pretty quickly. I replaced the fronts on my older Porsche at 100K. Folks I know with newer GM products barely make it to 50K before the front ends on their cars need rebuilding.


makes you wonder why bike bearings dont last 50k 
remember zirc fittings, now everything is throw away


----------



## IF52 (Jan 10, 2004)

dan0 said:


> makes you wonder why bike bearings dont last 50k
> remember zirc fittings, now everything is throw away


Yep. Now if you want to service the wheel bearing on your car you have to replace the entire hub assembly.

I think on bicycles one of the things that compounds the problem is the quality of the bearings. The bearings used in top line Campy stuff like Record and Shimano Dura Ace were actually very high grade, like grade 25. Many other applications were as low as Grade 1000. I remember overhauling low mileage bottom brackets on some mid level bikes back in the early nineties and finding the bearings had literally crumbled. And just stacking in new high grade bearings wouldn't help because the races were low quality as well. Now consider minimal or nonexistant seals and the small size of the bearing surfaces and your start to run into problems.

On the other hand, I have overhauled high end Campy and found the grease was still tan after huge mileage and adverse conditions.

Also consider the fact that many shops simply throw the bikes together out of the box as quickly as possible without considering how well or poorly the bearings were adjusted at the factory.When I first started working at the shop we ALWAYS opened the headsets and injected new grease in, and made sure the hubs and BBs were adjusted and trued the wheels, no matter what price level the bike was. Believe it or not other shops in town didn't come close to this level of attention. We had guys come to work for us from other shops who were shocked by how much time we 'wasted' on assembly. They were used to getting paid by the bike build and would normally slap the bikes together. I was at a major shop in my area the other day and they told me they don't even test ride the bikes after assembly. WTF?

And consider the crappy grease and how little of it is applied by the factory. Some assemblies that I have opened on new bikes looked like the factory grunt had used spray lube instead of grease.


----------



## kenjihara (Mar 7, 2006)

As far as fads go...

The unusually shaped frames just for attention's sake, like the Haro frames with the v-bar top tube or the GT triple triangle frame. They called attention to the frame and supposedly added stiffness, side effects being awkward geometry and more / heavier tubing in the 'enhanced' area. I never got why anyone would want seven or eight inches of extra tubing on a bike to make it look 'cool'. The v- bar was the same, just longer / heavier top tube to make it look cool. 

I can't help bu feel like most of mountain biking's technological breakthroughs since '95 have been the industry fixing things that aren't broken for the sake of keeping the market alive. 

Over the last fifteen years, frames have gotten less, not more durable. Bikes have gotten more complicated and less user-friendly. KISS rule in full effect, people.


----------



## ssmike (Jan 21, 2004)

kenjihara said:


> As far as fads go...
> 
> The unusually shaped frames just for attention's sake, like the Haro frames with the v-bar top tube or the GT triple triangle frame. They called attention to the frame and supposedly added stiffness, side effects being awkward geometry and more / heavier tubing in the 'enhanced' area. I never got why anyone would want seven or eight inches of extra tubing on a bike to make it look 'cool'. The v- bar was the same, just longer / heavier top tube to make it look cool.
> 
> ...


Actually...the main goal in the v-bar top tube was to improve stand-over height. Granted, the very early frames with the super short head tube were kind of silly. But as the v-bar progressed into the early/mid 90s it was to improve stand-over height. As suspension increased bottom bracket heights, the v-bar was even more crucial in improving stand-over height. The v-bar was a method of dropping the top tube without adding additional supports. Now, a v-bar or a dropped top tube with gussets is common-place, so I hardly think it is a fad now, but mainstream.


----------



## Pants2112 (Mar 7, 2007)

Sedated said:


> How about the Christini All Wheel Drive Bike?


That idea never really caught on. I remember reading a test ride of that bike about 4 years ago in Dirt Rag and thought that would be pretty cool. I think about a month later I saw the same bike but with Jeep plastered all over it. I never saw anything about all-wheel drive mtn bikes again. No doubt a fad that never quite caught on.:thumbsup:


----------



## BikeSATORI (Mar 20, 2004)

Pants2112 said:


> That idea never really caught on. I remember reading a test ride of that bike about 4 years ago in Dirt Rag and thought that would be pretty cool. I think about a month later I saw the same bike but with Jeep plastered all over it. I never saw anything about all-wheel drive mtn bikes again. No doubt a fad that never quite caught on.:thumbsup:


Christini sure is getting noticed in the moto world right now though. Check the latest cycle world (I think it was, I could be confused with a dif. mag. though)... Pretty innovative design, integrated to the frame/headtube area and all... must be interesting to throw a leg over...


----------



## Mountainbikextremist (Jan 15, 2005)

kenjihara said:


> I can't help but feel like most of mountain biking's technological breakthroughs since '95 have been the industry fixing things that aren't broken for the sake of keeping the market alive.


The biking world has come A LOOONNNGGG way since 1995! The suspension world has fixed may issues that needed to be fixed. Heh, like elastomer sprung forks I think this is a very good thing. Suspension really sucked back 95---look at the lineups that Fox, Marzocchi, Rockshox, etc. offer! They perform MUCH better, are much more durable, and are offered anywhere in between userfriendly "lack of dials and gadgits" all the way up to extensive tunability so the experienced rider can achieve exactly the feel he/she wants to suit their style and terrain. I can even see a HUGE difference between 03 and 07. I know that disc brakes where either just hitting the market or werent even there in 1995. There again, is another big advance. I have ridden Cantilever and V-Brakes before, and I would NEVER go back to them after riding my Hayes 9 Hydros! Cantis just plain scare me shiteless...i donno what the engineers were even thinking In my experienced opinion, v-brakes really suck... I havent even begun to touch on the things that have brought biking to the next level!



> Over the last fifteen years, frames have gotten less, not more durable. Bikes have gotten more complicated and less user-friendly. KISS rule in full effect, people.


High end bikes have become more complicated over the years, but it aint rocket science. A simple mountain hardtail is still easy to find. One with a ridgid fork...that may be a different story. But it does not take a genious to figure out how to set the sag on a Marzocchi Dirt Jumper. Avid BB7 Disc Brakes are no more complicated than V-Brakes...I have had a set apart before. Hydrolic Disc Brakes are not even that complicated in all reality. All they are is piston which pushes fluid through a line, pushing on 2 pistons that, push 2 pads on a rotor. Shimano still uses the same concept with derailleurs, exept they have added a bit more material for durability, and are using bearings instead of plastic shims in the higher end shifters. They obviously have refined the look as well. You suuuurrrrrre about durability?


----------



## SnowMongoose (Feb 18, 2007)

holy balls, I had forgotten how much I wanted a Y-bike when I was younger.
the need is back, and I sorta have money this time.
well, there goes the FS-29er plan.
lol


----------



## kenjihara (Mar 7, 2006)

"You suuuurrrrrre about durability?"

Yes I'm sure. Cromoly frames don't fatigue like aluminum frames do. I could probably will my Bontrager frame to my grandkids. Fatter tubes doesn't necessarily mean stronger, it just means stiffer. They started doing aluminum frames to save weight, then started making really heavy aluminum frames so they were durable. What's the sense in that?


----------



## mishap (Jan 27, 2007)

kenjihara said:


> "You suuuurrrrrre about durability?"
> 
> Yes I'm sure. Cromoly frames don't fatigue like aluminum frames do. I could probably will my Bontrager frame to my grandkids. Fatter tubes doesn't necessarily mean stronger, it just means stiffer. They started doing aluminum frames to save weight, then started making really heavy aluminum frames so they were durable. What's the sense in that?


They don't fatigue as quickly but they sure do rust up nicely.

My market hyped and useless triple triangle '96 GT Zaskar has held up 11 years now including 3 seasons of racing and thousands of trail miles. It defies common sensibility that a 4lb piece of 6061 can hold up to that much abuse under my 170-190lb butt and outlive every component ever put on it. That said, I know it's on borrowed time but another 3-4lb aluminum frame w/ fairly high quality is only $300 away. Lightweight steel is at least double that and possibly only marginally less fragile. XC raceable bikes that last forever are built too heavy.

Bike manufacturers have to ride that thin line of durability vs. weight reduction. Build a XC hardtail race bike at 30lb and it'll probably outlast the rider. They would never have to worry about a warranty unless the bike got hit by a car. Unfortunately it also won't be competitive. It'd only be a matter of time before a competitor build a 29lb bike w/ only a slight reduction in durability. Soon enough, its 23lb hardtails for everyone and sub 20 for the pros. That also doesn't stop weight weenies from further pushing the envelope by dremeling and shaving further. People who go for Scott Scales usually know the cost of 2lb of carbon is more than the grotesque MSRP. It's just like F1 racing...if the part isn't worn out by the end of the race, it isn't light enough.

The other end of the game is people are doing more extreme riding than ever before. I don't recall many people hucking Y-33's off a 7ft log ramp or attempting a 360 w/ old steel frames. I wouldn't have ridden my LTS off a two story building like kids do these days. I actually destroyed it riding off a curb. Bike companies are forever associated w/ their product regardless how far beyond the specs people ride them. Bikes today are technologically superior and much better quality controlled compared to the experimental days but people have also found more creative ways of destroying them.


----------



## SimonMW (Mar 12, 2007)

I agree. Thats the one thing I am worried about when spending a lot on a new bike. I know for a fact that the alu frame won't last anywhere near as long as a steel one. Though I suppose on a full suspension bike it won't be so much of a problem. If it was a hardtail bike I would be a lot more worried about metal fatigue.


----------



## outside! (Mar 15, 2006)

kenjihara said:


> Yes I'm sure. Cromoly frames don't fatigue like aluminum frames do. I could probably will my Bontrager frame to my grandkids.


Kind of correct, but not really, too general. Many alloys of steel (including chromoly) exhibit a "fatigue limit". As long as the stresses remain below the fatigue limit, the part will not fail due to fatigue. Having said that, many steel frames have areas where the stresses are above the fatigue limit in order to save weight (Ritchey P series for instance). They may be designed for 500,000,000 stress cycles, but they are still above the fatigue limit and will eventually fail due to fatigue (unless they are stressed above the yield limit or corrosion causes failure first).

Hey, I love steel frames, but light weight steel frames are not forever. Corrosion is a significant long term issue for steel. I know this because I collect old tools. After you are gone and your thin tube Bontrager sits in the rafters of the unheated garage for 50 years, I would not be confident in that frame (of course I will be like 140 then). A well designed and constructed titanium frame is probably as close to a forever frame as you will get. I don't believe in carbon fiber frames for long term use.

Outside!


----------



## BikeSATORI (Mar 20, 2004)

kenjihara said:


> "You suuuurrrrrre about durability?"
> 
> Yes I'm sure. Cromoly frames don't fatigue like aluminum frames do. I could probably will my Bontrager frame to my grandkids. Fatter tubes doesn't necessarily mean stronger, it just means stiffer. They started doing aluminum frames to save weight, then started making really heavy aluminum frames so they were durable. What's the sense in that?


how did this turn into a chromoly vs. aluminum discussion???! :madman:

Where did you get the idea that the bike industry no longer produces chromoly frames anyway?


----------



## Danke (Sep 19, 2005)

Mojo's are close to being the worst but at least they didn't seem to invade my part of the world. I did have to sit through mojo shootouts, and send in your picture of a mojo for a computer matchup of a similar mojo near you etc.


----------



## IF52 (Jan 10, 2004)

outside! said:


> Kind of correct, but not really, too general. Many alloys of steel (including chromoly) exhibit a "fatigue limit". As long as the stresses remain below the fatigue limit, the part will not fail due to fatigue. Having said that, many steel frames have areas where the stresses are above the fatigue limit in order to save weight (Ritchey P series for instance). They may be designed for 500,000,000 stress cycles, but they are still above the fatigue limit and will eventually fail due to fatigue (unless they are stressed above the yield limit or corrosion causes failure first).
> 
> Hey, I love steel frames, but light weight steel frames are not forever. Corrosion is a significant long term issue for steel. I know this because I collect old tools. After you are gone and your thin tube Bontrager sits in the rafters of the unheated garage for 50 years, I would not be confident in that frame (of course I will be like 140 then). A well designed and constructed titanium frame is probably as close to a forever frame as you will get. I don't believe in carbon fiber frames for long term use.
> 
> Outside!


I'd hardly consider Al as long lived as any steel frame though. Al has oxidation issues, and being less noble than the typical fastener, etc. that is stuck on a frame only exacerbates the issue. And sweat, water, etc. only compound this.


----------



## KDXdog (Mar 15, 2007)

See, this VS that, again, the ZAP influence! 

Aluminum, steel, bamboo....who cares? I guess stupid arguments could be a fad....

Ride what you like, buy what you like.

By the way, a big congrats to the "new" Mountain Goat guys for doing it right!

I only wish Chris Chance would give his blessing, no strike that, start making bikes again!


----------



## IF52 (Jan 10, 2004)

KDXdog said:


> See, this VS that, again, the ZAP influence!
> 
> Aluminum, steel, bamboo....who cares? I guess stupid arguments could be a fad....
> 
> ...


True. Every material has its fan and each has its place. None is perfect for a variety of reasons. Same applies to component applications. To touch the example of brakes that was raised earlier, disc brakes are nice because you can crunch a wheel and still have functioning brakes. On the other hand they have less swept area than a typical rim brake, and smaller pad surface. On they other hand they don't effect your tires when they heat up, which is why drum brakes are used on tandems as drag brakes for long hills.

Has mountain biking advanced a lot in the last 15 years? Sure. Is it all for the better? Not in my opinion.


----------



## Repack Rider (Oct 22, 2005)

This thread would be incomplete without the UniDisc wheel covers.

The company sent me a set around 1987. I put them on my bike and went for a short ride, returning a few minutes later to remove them from the front wheel, because every gust of wind steered me somewhere I didn't want to go. When Laurent Fignon lost the Tour to Lemond by 8 seconds on the final time trial, it was obvious to me that his disc front wheel made it impossible for Fignon to steer a straight line, and the extra distance probably cost him the Tour.

There is no point to these things except to look cool, and they don't even accomplish that. They make you look like a geek.


----------



## kenjihara (Mar 7, 2006)

Shayne said:


> I could care less that road and MTB stems were a tad different. That what shims are for right?
> This oversized bar/stem thing stinks. Increase in stiffness...sure, but will anyone but the most discerning rider notice...no (just like cranks, skip ahead). Pretty soon 25.4 bars won't even be available. I think I can count all the manufacturers that make 26.0 bars on one hand now and they're all pretty low end. So now I need a new stem if I want new road bars  compounded by the fact that my main road bike uses propriatary stems.
> Its about as necessary as splined cranks
> And I was going to bag on Aheadsets but thanks to roadies holding out for so long there is still a good supply of threaded headsets and quill stems.


Basically, it always sucks to have Stuff that doesn't work with your other Stuff, but that's what the Industry is always pushing.


----------



## kenjihara (Mar 7, 2006)

Mountainbikextremist said:


> The biking world has come A LOOONNNGGG way since 1995! The suspension world has fixed may issues that needed to be fixed. Heh, like elastomer sprung forks I think this is a very good thing. Suspension really sucked back 95---look at the lineups that Fox, Marzocchi, Rockshox, etc. offer! They perform MUCH better, are much more durable, and are offered anywhere in between userfriendly "lack of dials and gadgits" all the way up to extensive tunability so the experienced rider can achieve exactly the feel he/she wants to suit their style and terrain. I can even see a HUGE difference between 03 and 07. I know that disc brakes where either just hitting the market or werent even there in 1995. There again, is another big advance. I have ridden Cantilever and V-Brakes before, and I would NEVER go back to them after riding my Hayes 9 Hydros! Cantis just plain scare me shiteless...i donno what the engineers were even thinking In my experienced opinion, v-brakes really suck... I havent even begun to touch on the things that have brought biking to the next level!
> 
> High end bikes have become more complicated over the years, but it aint rocket science. A simple mountain hardtail is still easy to find. One with a ridgid fork...that may be a different story. But it does not take a genious to figure out how to set the sag on a Marzocchi Dirt Jumper. Avid BB7 Disc Brakes are no more complicated than V-Brakes...I have had a set apart before. Hydrolic Disc Brakes are not even that complicated in all reality. All they are is piston which pushes fluid through a line, pushing on 2 pistons that, push 2 pads on a rotor. Shimano still uses the same concept with derailleurs, exept they have added a bit more material for durability, and are using bearings instead of plastic shims in the higher end shifters. They obviously have refined the look as well. You suuuurrrrrre about durability?


Well, you certainly posted a lot of photos, I'll give you that. Are those your bikes?

I guess you saying that you're petrified to ride with cantilever brakes seems a little melodramatic; a properly tuned set of rim brakes offers plenty of stopping power for me without having to worry about warped rotors or the extra weight. But I'm a lightweight, finesse style rider, not a hammerhead. I like straightforward, simple to maintain, relatively affordable, reasonably lightweight stuff. Most of my bikes are hardtails or softtails in the 24 to 26 pound range.

I'm not afraid of technology or anything. I have seen some cool suspension stuff come out in the last few, including some of the forks, but for the most part I like relatively simple coil-sprung forks that cost less than my car. Remember the old 8 speed Deore XT group? That was the sweet spot for me; I'd still build up a bike with that stuff over anything else. And steel frames? I like the way they ride.

I have newer, "fancier" bikes, but I still ride my Bontrager a lot.


----------



## SimonMW (Mar 12, 2007)

Last few days I've been enjoying my 1992 Marin Palisades with Biopace chainset, canti brakes and non existent wheel bearings 

Its going in for a service on said wheel bearings on Weds. I just hope the guy there doesn't laugh too much at what a bodge my bike is these days!


----------



## IF52 (Jan 10, 2004)

kenjihara said:


> ...And steel frames? I like the way they ride.
> 
> I have newer, "fancier" bikes, but I still ride my Bontrager a lot.


I think folks are shocked when they get a chance to ride a nice steel frame. Since Al is pretty much what is available to the average rider these days they figure it must be the best material going. Then they get on 'old technology' steel and are blown away by how good it feels and how well it handles.

As an example of this, look the reviews on this site for a reasonable current and affordable 853 tubed frame, the Jamis Dragon, and notice high highly it is rated and how many reviewers comment on how much more comfortable the ride is than their Al bikes.


----------



## SimonMW (Mar 12, 2007)

It is puzzling why Alu is being used in hardtails. I can understand it for full suspension bikes, but I would have thought a hard tail would need steels characteristics.


----------



## aka brad (Dec 24, 2003)

*Shockster..*

The add on rear suspension..

Brad


----------



## Repack Rider (Oct 22, 2005)

This looks like a lot of engineering for a dumb product.

Anyone know if this ever made it out of the trade show booth and onto an actual bicycle?


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

that was before someone invented the fat tire...


----------



## Boy named SSue (Jan 7, 2004)

Repack Rider said:


> This looks like a lot of engineering for a dumb product.
> 
> Anyone know if this ever made it out of the trade show booth and onto an actual bicycle?


I read a review somewhere once but it might have been a different companies' attempt at the same thing. The reviewer used it on a touring bike accross rough roads and actually didn't totally hate it. Might have been in dirtrag. Of course a review doesn't mean it ever made it to stores, just one step further than a trade show floor.

With regards to the unidisk you posted above, my first year college roomate had a very ugly schwinn with lots of neon and one of those on the rear wheel. He wore neon yellow Oakley blades to boot. I was rather embarassed to ride with him some times. He was pretty into the whole 'extreeme' thing in the early 90's.


----------



## Guy Debord (Jun 6, 2007)

Worst product ever? Riser bars. No need to weaken a tube with a bend when you can just have a higher stem. I think what you need is a wide flat bar.


----------



## KDXdog (Mar 15, 2007)

I remember a racer on an white Off-Road (pre-ProFlex) had a crowd around him at a race in MA many years ago. He was talking about the super-isolator hub up front. No one seemed to be impressed by it, I just let a few lbs out of my front tire to replicate the "movement".


----------



## IF52 (Jan 10, 2004)

Guy Debord said:


> Worst product ever? Riser bars. No need to weaken a tube with a bend when you can just have a higher stem. I think what you need is a wide flat bar.


How does the bend weaken the tube? For example, were do rigid forks with curved blades typically fail, at the bent section? No, usually up in the straight section within a few inches of the crown.


----------



## soreyes (Mar 16, 2007)

Repack Rider said:


> This thread would be incomplete without the UniDisc wheel covers.
> 
> The company sent me a set around 1987. I put them on my bike and went for a short ride, returning a few minutes later to remove them from the front wheel, because every gust of wind steered me somewhere I didn't want to go. When Laurent Fignon lost the Tour to Lemond by 8 seconds on the final time trial, it was obvious to me that his disc front wheel made it impossible for Fignon to steer a straight line, and the extra distance probably cost him the Tour.
> 
> There is no point to these things except to look cool, and they don't even accomplish that. They make you look like a geek.


They might keep the derailleur out of the spokes and save a hanger


----------



## lucifer (Sep 27, 2004)

SimonMW said:


> It is puzzling why Alu is being used in hardtails. I can understand it for full suspension bikes, but I would have thought a hard tail would need steels characteristics.


Two things.
It's cheap
And its easily welded by robots, and using the same welding and finishing consumables as the FS bikes.


----------



## Irrenarzt (Apr 19, 2006)

kb11 said:


> Curious as to why you have Shaun Palmer on your list?


He's a c0cksucker maybe?

I outdrank that little biitch when I was 16 at the US Open back in 86. He deserves no respect.


----------



## Shayne (Jan 14, 2004)

*Rigid Forks:*

All (I think) the unicrown forks that I've broken or personally seen broken have broken in the bend of the crown.


----------



## IF52 (Jan 10, 2004)

Shayne said:


> All (I think) the unicrown forks that I've broken or personally seen broken have broken in the bend of the crown.


We had a lineup of perhaps 10 or 20 bent unicrown forks at the shop and not one was bent in the bend at the crown. Almost every one was bent a inch or two down in the straight part of the fork blade. A couple maybe started closer to the bend, but the bend didn't fail.

And what about drop bars? Shouldn't those be snapping off at the bends left and right? I've seen them fail, but usually closer to the clamp and oftentimes starting from a big scratch some ape put in the bar when they installed it.


----------



## SicBith (Jul 24, 2006)

sure guy. try going on a 6hr non supported backcountry ride with 3 bottles of water. yep it's all you'll need on 16 mile local race series loop. Have a great ride.


----------



## tibug (Dec 5, 2006)

C.Savage said:


> Sadly not a fad but still ugly are unpainted frames, silver is just sooooo boring. Worst product has got to be flat bars. And I say bring back anodizing to all it's full glory.


Naw, unpainted frames are awesome. And it's not silver!:madman: It's more of a gunsmoke gray, I'd say. I'll take mine raw please!

Me caveman.
Tim


----------



## pinguwin (Aug 20, 2004)

SicBith said:


> try going on a 6hr non supported backcountry ride with 3 bottles of water.


I don't now where you live or the environmental conditions of your area but after drinking 2.5 liters of water before a ride, I can get by on a six hour, or even longer, ride with the three bottles. When I'm in the desert, this isn't going to work but it does most of the places that I ride.

I was just backpacking in extremely rough conditions where I could get by on one bottle for a 6-8 hour day and some days I would have to drink nothing after the morning fill.

'Guin


----------



## SicBith (Jul 24, 2006)

I'm pysched that your body can pull that off. I live at 9000', and ride mostly above 8000'. In this enviornment you need 100oz of water to keep at it for 6hrs. Not to mention a lot of food to.


----------



## ColoradoRyan (Jun 16, 2007)

wow, can't believe i read through this whole thread in one sitting! sure puts things in perspective though.... 

I hate riser bars! (for xc) Not because they are weaker or more complicated than they need to be but because most people cringe at putting bar-ends on them (looks clunky), and bar ends are an extremely useful product for xc. I personally think riser bars are partially responsible for the demise of bar ends...

which brings about a clarification needed: why are people afraid of hooking L-bends on trees but not stubbies? with an L-bend you are way more likely to deflect off said tree where as a stubby will catch it and keep it, right? I never hooked my L-bends.

I am now so ticked I let my L-bend Onzas go with my circa '94 GT (1st real mtn bike, had triple triangle, a U-brake and rigid fork and very narrow flat bars) I sold a few months ago. I loved those bar ends!

retro grouches get created because: people are often more fond of what they were imprinted on than what comes later. Example: imprint an animal on a human at birth, then show it its real parent, who does it like most? functionality doesn't matter. Example: old toys, old cartoons, old cars, old movies, old anything.

I've done it too, I was out of mtb for a number of years when a LOT changed, and I found myself sneering at products in the shop JUST because they were new and weren't what I identified with mountain biking. Now I check myself and ask if the product will make me enjoy riding more, and if there is a chance of that, I'll try it.

Example: Can't believe some think a 26" bar is too narrow, as I'm about to put a 25.75 on my new build and it looks HUGE compared to my 19.5 effective bar I'm using now (effective meaning after accounting for bar ends of course)

That's what led me to this forum, how much to cut off my bars, because they're already way too wide right?

Or is that just my retro snobbiness? How do I know they're too wide when I haven't even tried them yet?!?!?

So I'm going for it, full width man, just like the original MTB'ers weren't afraid to try something new, neither am I. 

Imagine what the retro grouch roadies and townies thought of people taking their 3 speeds into the mountains: that's not what cycling is about! right?  

I remember one day mid 90's seeing an older rider with a new fangled front suspension and he commented how much less it beat up his aging body and he could still get out there and ride...

had a young friend that went full suspension when it was just catching on and he called it the 'caddy' cuz it was comfy...

so how is it people can knock full suspension which is more comfortable and 'new fangled' and 'complicated', and on the same coin say how 'wonderful' steel is because it's 'comfy' ?

how can people knock single speed cuz it's 'a new fad' , when the first bikes were single speed? 

how can hard-tail purists knock single speed, where single speed is just a more challenging way to ride the mountain, and then pat themselves on the back cuz they cleaned that nasty rockfield with no rear suspension???

just cuz it's old don't make it better. just cuz it's new don't make it better.

figure out your use, and decide from there.

I'm all about the combination of old and new to create what works best. 

I don't like the fact that today's bikes don't have bar ends, that everybody wants to be a downhiller / dirt jumper cuz it's cooler, but hey, if that's what gets them outside and on a bike, so be it!


----------



## thecrazyfinn (Apr 7, 2007)

useless fads? 

1. flat bars/bar ends. Just get a set of wide-ish drops. Bar ends only exist to give back the 'on the hoods' position you lost by using flat bars. And you've now got something else to fail (bar end clamps). Riser bars for comfort/descending, drops for aggressive XC/climbing. And climbing in the drops is even better than on the hoods/barends.

2. Low spoke count wheelsets. No lateral stiffness, proprietary heavy spokes, heavy rims right where you don't want the weight and often proprietary spoke wrenches. Oh,a nd overpriced with little actual weight advantage. Just go for 32 spoke wheels, 28 if you're lightweight or a precision rider.

3. Long-travel XC bikes. They climb badly. Fork lockout is only a hack to solve a problem that short-travel and rigid bikes don't have.

4. Aluminum forks. Harsh, poor riding forks drove the jump to suspension.

5. Department store FS bikes. A class-action suit or three waiting to happen.

6. Gel seat covers. Only a bonus if you never ride more than 5 miles.

7. U-Brakes. Incompatible with any other system, poor mud clearance, horrid location on most implementations. Good braking power was their sole redeeming quality.

8. Under-top-tube cable routing. Pretty but annoying to anyone who's ever tried to carry a bike with this setup. top and side routing are far better, and so is downtube routing in dryer climes.

9. Indexed front shifting. Shimano & Campy got this right on road bikes, but the crappy 3-position setup on MTB shifters makes for poor shifting performance up front. Either give us trim or friction. 

10. 3 ring cranks on 8/9 speed drivetrains. Rear shifting works better than front shifting. Wide-range cassettes allow for completely usable gear ranges from 2 rings. Ritchey had it right with the 2x9. triples only make sense with smaller rear ranges.


----------



## Irrenarzt (Apr 19, 2006)

hey Ryan, I've got a set of Ti Avenir bar ends you might be interested in. Real similar to the Onza but with a wider Ti clamping zone (less pressure on the bars). Hit me up.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

ColoradoRyan said:


> wow, can't believe i read through this whole thread in one sitting! sure puts things in perspective though....
> 
> I hate riser bars! (for xc) Not because they are weaker or more complicated than they need to be but because most people cringe at putting bar-ends on them (looks clunky), and bar ends are an extremely useful product for xc. I personally think riser bars are partially responsible for the demise of bar ends...
> 
> ...


i like the way you see things. i don't want discs. i don't mind other peopple have them. i do mind those people whining about brake studs on frames and forks and asking companies to take it out.
i didn't mind other people rriding FS. i did mind them whining HTS should be dead. same w/singlespeeds, 29ers, risers etc.. etc.. there is always someone who can't ride his azz on the trail but he rules bikedom on the net. bikes are nice.. people sometimes are not.


----------



## ColoradoRyan (Jun 16, 2007)

colker1 said:


> bikes are nice.. people sometimes are not.


that's a great quote!


----------



## dragonhead08 (Mar 19, 2007)

*My starter bike*

Its still fun to ride. I'm surprised how light it is.


----------



## bermluvr (Aug 2, 2006)

Shayne said:


> Personal preferance here just like your preference toward riser bars
> 
> 2 water bottles cary all the water I'll ever need. If for some reason i would ever feel like carrying more there's room for 3 bottles in my jersey too.


I use my camelbak for carrying everything else I might want to take on a long ride. (plus water of course) I dont use it very often as most of my rides are 20k or less, but camelbaks are definitely NOT the worst invention/fad..... I dont really know if i have the answer but I do hate flat bars as mentioned above...  thats just a preferential thing though. Biopace really did suck


----------



## IF52 (Jan 10, 2004)

ColoradoRyan said:


> wow, can't believe i read through this whole thread in one sitting! sure puts things in perspective though....
> 
> I hate riser bars! (for xc) Not because they are weaker or more complicated than they need to be but because most people cringe at putting bar-ends on them (looks clunky), and bar ends are an extremely useful product for xc. I personally think riser bars are partially responsible for the demise of bar ends...
> 
> ...


To boil all that down, your saying let's all try not to be so dogmatic? :thumbsup:

Like Colker said, I don't mind folks using new stuff, just don't shove it down my throat. Almost everything has an advantage in some way over something else. Take the disc versus rim brake example I gave a few posts earlier.

As to steel being comfy, full suspension etc. well, I think they are basically two different arguements. Steel is generally more comfy that aluminum in my opinion and more adaptable to different sizes and styles of riders than aluminum or Ti. Again, in my opinion. Full suspenion is just more than I want to have to deal with as far as tuning an maintenance is concerned. And since I am not inclined to huck off of anything anytime soon, more than I need. And for a lot of riders that is the case. That doesn't mean FS is bad, just unnessessary for some.

In many ways 'New' can be a problem. A lot of folks are all too willing to jump on the next 'New' thing and adopt it as the best thing ever. I guess it does help push development, but it sure does create a lot of waste.


----------



## SimonMW (Mar 12, 2007)

> 9. Indexed front shifting. Shimano & Campy got this right on road bikes, but the crappy 3-position setup on MTB shifters makes for poor shifting performance up front. Either give us trim or friction.


Absolutely. Major pain in the arse,

Thats why my next bike is going to be Rohloff equipped. I've had it with dérailleur's.


----------



## Intense5point5 (Jan 25, 2007)

Elastomers. and Shimano's 14-speed cassette patent. The patent isn't a fad, but just imagine if they actually produced this with a shifter and derailleur to go with them... 700c x 23c spandex monsters would buy those components faster than they could grab that white bar tape....which by the way is also stupid. I know people tell you that the white bar wrap allows you to tell when your bar tape is dirty, but they look nasty if touched by ungloved hands. I think the color white should be prohibited from biking..... I own a '02 Giant Downhill bike in White w/red logo's... You couldn't clean it to it's original hue, even if you had a bucket of acetone and 80 grit sand paper....


----------



## Repack Rider (Oct 22, 2005)

Odyssey was odd, y' see.


----------



## pinguwin (Aug 20, 2004)

Repack Rider said:


> Odyssey was odd, y' see.


Was there any situations where this sort of thing worked? I've always thought this a silly idea but wouldn't want something that kept me from steering quickly. However, I've never tried it and wondered if there was some very specific situation where it would actually help.

Pinguwin


----------



## Intense5point5 (Jan 25, 2007)

In that article about the oddyssey stabilizer, is it 6 or 7 way adjustability? That sounds kind of like modern day forks with bound, rebound, lockout, preload, damping, high speed/low speed compression, sag, compression slope, adjustable travel, and other things like those handlebar mounted lockout levers! How quickly do you need to adjust the damn thing? Riding one style of suspension behavior will improve your riding skills and response times in awkward/difficult trail situations.


----------



## IF52 (Jan 10, 2004)

That thing was just like the steering dampers you see on roadrace motorcycles. We only sold 1 to a kid who was absolutely chomping at the bit to get one on his bike. It was a pain to install, but it worked OK. It didn't keep you from being able to steer, it just helped keep the bars from getting kicked around so much by glancing blows from rocks and roots. And we had plenty of those in North Georgia.

Where they say it is 7 way adjustable, I think they meant it had 7 clicks of damping adjustability.

*EDIT* edited for spelling


----------



## Repack Rider (Oct 22, 2005)

pinguwin said:


> Was there any situations where this sort of thing worked? I've always thought this a silly idea but wouldn't want something that kept me from steering quickly. However, I've never tried it and wondered if there was some very specific situation where it would actually help.
> 
> Pinguwin


Here is my standard of usefulness, which has been the standard ever since the first rider looked for a technological edge. If you want to show how well your stuff works, use it in races. If racers using it were successful, everyone would be using them.

They had their shot at the market, and the market yawned.


----------



## FixThatBike (Jun 24, 2005)

That thing is fugly. Check out the Hopey ...

http://www.mtbr.com/reviews/Extras/product_68285.shtml

It is a current version of the steering damper that gets great reviews. Would probably be a lot more popular if it wasn't so expensive and heavy.


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

650b or (nominally) 27.5" wheels for mountain bikes.


----------



## girlonbike (Apr 24, 2008)

turbodog said:


> 650b or (nominally) 27.5" wheels for mountain bikes.


Oooooooo. I'm going to disagree. I don't even have one but understand the appeal and functionality. You're definitely gonna cause a firestorm though.


----------



## pinguwin (Aug 20, 2004)

turbodog said:


> 650b or (nominally) 27.5" wheels for mountain bikes.


I'm going to chalk this one up to trolling. At the very least, your .sig ("29er = Hybrid Bike") might suggest that 29'ers are even worse.


----------



## Repack Rider (Oct 22, 2005)

turbodog said:


> 650b or (nominally) 27.5" wheels for mountain bikes.


Because...?


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

Repack Rider said:


> Because...?


Because Turbodog is just trolling and he has just come from under the bridge over here:
http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=906469﻿
No Love for the 26" ?


----------



## jeff (Jan 13, 2004)

They said the same thing about snowboards and more recently shaped then fat/rockered skis.


----------



## Konasun (Jan 6, 2014)

Love my Ubrakes under the chain stays. Far more powerful that canti's.


----------



## Konasun (Jan 6, 2014)

RonSonic said:


> Dumbest thing ever: U-brakes under the chainstays. That gets number one because it afflicts a lot of cool old bikes that would otherwise be wonderful.
> 
> I have XT U brakes on my Stumpjumper and they are awesome. No doubt, they are very powerful. I don't ride in the mud so I couldn't care less about that complaint.


----------



## bitflogger (Jan 12, 2004)

Martin.mac.au said:


> I think whoever put down bar ends and Camelbaks needs a whack with the stick of common sense.


They can just get fecal contamination from the dirt their tires kick up on the bottles and suffer when the bottles are empty.

Bar ends did make some sense when mountain bikes were imitating road bikes on dirt.


----------



## Jak0zilla (May 16, 2010)

bitflogger said:


> Bar ends did make some sense when mountain bikes were imitating road bikes on dirt.


Just because they've fallen out of fashion doesn't mean that bar-ends are a "roadie" thing. Unless having access to multiple hand positions is a roadie thing. If so, I'm a roadie.

I guess I'd better buy a power meter and some "kit". And maybe a really expensive CNC'ed aluminum computer mount. Yeah, that's the ticket.


----------



## andy f (Jan 13, 2004)

Konasun said:


> Love my Ubrakes under the chain stays. Far more powerful that canti's.


Under the chainstay u-brakes were the reason I bought a Bridgestone MB-3 in 1988. It was the only bike I could find that didn't have them. So in an odd way, I love u-brakes too. Without them, I would never have purchased one of my all time favorite bikes.


----------



## bitflogger (Jan 12, 2004)

Jak0zilla said:


> Just because they've fallen out of fashion doesn't mean that bar-ends are a "roadie" thing. Unless having access to multiple hand positions is a roadie thing. If so, I'm a roadie.
> 
> I guess I'd better buy a power meter and some "kit". And maybe a really expensive CNC'ed aluminum computer mount. Yeah, that's the ticket.


I think you read too much into it. I was on my retro classic Fat Chance, road bike and modern MTB yesterday, and a friend's classic MTB last week. The older bikes stretch or seat me more like the road bike and the alternate hand position is nice. Same loop on my thoroughly modern bike never had me wanting a different way or place to grab the bike.


----------



## laffeaux (Jan 4, 2004)

bitflogger said:


> I think you read too much into it. I was on my retro classic Fat Chance, road bike and modern MTB yesterday, and a friend's classic MTB last week. The older bikes stretch or seat me more like the road bike and the alternate hand position is nice. Same loop on my thoroughly modern bike never had me wanting a different way or place to grab the bike.


The biggest difference for me is handlebar widths. On a narrow bar (22-23 inches) I really like bar ends and still use them. On wider handlebars bar ends are not comfortable as they put my wrists at an awkward angle. I use bar ends less on "modern" bikes because of the different handlebar.


----------



## andy f (Jan 13, 2004)

laffeaux said:


> The biggest difference for me is handlebar widths. On a narrow bar (22-23 inches) I really like bar ends and still use them. On wider handlebars bar ends are not comfortable as they put my wrists at an awkward angle. I use bar ends less on "modern" bikes because of the different handlebar.


Ha! My first 685 mm handlebar was such a revelation for me after years on 585 mm (and narrower!) bars. I stopped using bar ends with that change. Like you said, they aren't as comfortable on a wider bar and since the bars had 25-50 mm rise, they weren't as necessary for comfort with the decreased saddle to handlebar drop.

These days, I have 55 mm stem/780 mm bar on one bike and 60 mm stem/725 mm bar on another, both with only 25-30 mm saddle to handlebar drop. It takes more body English to get into a powerful position in certain situations but overall, it's a very positive change compared to my days of 130 mm stems, 585 mm bars, and 100 mm saddle to handlebar drop.


----------



## moefosho (Apr 30, 2013)

Went back and read the first couple pages from back in 2005. People were complaining about the whole "9 speed cassette fad". If they only knew what was to come!


----------



## 8iking VIIking (Dec 20, 2012)

moefosho said:


> Went back and read the first couple pages from back in 2005. People were complaining about the whole "9 speed cassette fad". If they only knew what was to come!


Good stuff! I also saw several mentions of tubeless


----------



## EmbraceTheHate (Sep 9, 2012)

I like the water bottles camelbak debate LMAO. 

Water bottles SUCK

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## moefosho (Apr 30, 2013)

"suspension. once i read on an english mtb an interview w/ ross schaeffer. he was blaming susp from turning the mtb from an all around bike to trail closure and obnoxious behaviour tool. i'm with him. "


LOL


----------



## 70sSanO (Nov 20, 2013)

Mountain e-bikes.

I am sure hoping this is a fad because it has the potential to ruin the sport if left unchecked.

Even worse than SUP surfers in the lineup.

John


----------



## andy f (Jan 13, 2004)

moefosho said:


> Went back and read the first couple pages from back in 2005. People were complaining about the whole "9 speed cassette fad". If they only knew what was to come!


I decided to look back and was surprised by all of the anti-Camelbak sentiment. I'm still using the same Ultimate Directions pack I bought in the late '90s when I lived in Tucson, AZ. I used to drink a full 128 oz. bladder full of water plus two 28 oz. bottles of Cytomax/Gatorade on a 2-3 hour ride in the summer there. I no longer keep a bottle of rubber cement for removing small, fuzzy cactus needles from my skin in my pack, though.


----------



## hollister (Sep 16, 2005)

Cannondales


----------



## iscariot (Oct 24, 2006)

turbodog said:


> 650b or (nominally) 27.5" wheels for mountain bikes.


100% true.


----------



## 8iking VIIking (Dec 20, 2012)

turbodog said:


> 650b or (nominally) 27.5" wheels for mountain bikes.


And the trolling continues!

On an unrelated note, the worst fad BY FAR was 26" wheels. I'm so glad they finally went the way of the dinosaur


----------



## Jak0zilla (May 16, 2010)

hollister said:


> Cannondales


Amen.


----------



## LeeDumler (May 23, 2014)

8iking VIIking said:


> On an unrelated note, the worst fad BY FAR was 26" wheels. I'm so glad they finally went the way of the dinosaur


Me too! I love how cheap 29ers and 27.5ers have made the "obsolete" 26" wheel bikes in the second hand market.


----------



## Konasun (Jan 6, 2014)

70sSanO said:


> Mountain e-bikes.
> 
> I am sure hoping this is a fad because it has the potential to ruin the sport if left unchecked.
> 
> ...


 Absolutely agree. SUP's are a big part of the reason I stopped surfing. Watching a couple greedy kooks outside everybody and paddling into every wave just burned me up. I used to get out of the water feeling good but too often it just became a negative experience. These battery powered bikes will just put more people on the trails that would not otherwise be there. I hope It doesn't happen to Mtn Biking.


----------



## laffeaux (Jan 4, 2004)

Konasun said:


> These battery powered bikes will just put more people on the trails that would not otherwise be there. I hope It doesn't happen to Mtn Biking.


As long as the e-bikes don't start winning all of the Strava segments I'm okay with them.


----------



## syklystt (Mar 31, 2010)

in the world of engineering, we try to solve problems, Please feel free to describe the problems solved by this 650B reprise lately?

and I so like the idea of an e-bike using strava.....oh ya....here I come to bust up your day!...Bwhaaaaaaaa...I never thought of that one...I think it will help calm some folks down a bit....cause nobody will know for sure. There will be more e-bikes on the trails than 650B's in the near future as China continues to saturate the market with electric vehicles (and it seems that everyone wants it all to be easier).


----------



## laffeaux (Jan 4, 2004)

syklystt said:


> in the world of engineering, we try to solve problems, Please feel free to describe the problems solved by this 650B reprise lately?


I'm not sure it solve s a problem per se. It's just another option. Kids start off on a bike with 12" tires, eventually move to a 16" tire, then 20", then 24" and eventually 26" wheels - and then 650b or 29" if they are lucky.  No one complains that there are too many sizes in kid's bikes. Why do people want to limit adult to either one or two sizes? Imagine if clothes only came in one size.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

laffeaux said:


> I'm not sure it solve s a problem per se. It's just another option. Kids start off on a bike with 12" tires, eventually move to a 16" tire, then 20", then 24" and eventually 26" wheels - and then 650b or 29" if they are lucky.  No one complains that there are too many sizes in kid's bikes. Why do people want to limit adult to either one or two sizes? Imagine if clothes only came in one size.


 i believe the argument to be fragile. What's wrong w/ more options? It's a manufacturer's nightmare. We depend on manufacturers and shops to be able to ride. When those are faced w/ stocking many options, their viability is compromised. 
There is so much you can tune in a bike's ride using geometry> chainstay length, head angle, wheelbase, fork rake... changes that are better absorbed within manufacturing than another wheel size. 
Everybody is spoiled and pampered these days.. everybody needs options, now.


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

colker1 said:


> i believe the argument to be fragile. What's wrong w/ more options? It's a manufacturer's nightmare. We depend on manufacturers and shops to be able to ride. When those are faced w/ stocking many options, their viability is compromised.


I agree. And that's why the 26" is dying.


----------



## laffeaux (Jan 4, 2004)

colker1 said:


> i believe the argument to be fragile. What's wrong w/ more options? It's a manufacturer's nightmare. We depend on manufacturers and shops to be able to ride. When those are faced w/ stocking many options, their viability is compromised.
> There is so much you can tune in a bike's ride using geometry> chainstay length, head angle, wheelbase, fork rake... changes that are better absorbed within manufacturing than another wheel size.
> Everybody is spoiled and pampered these days.. everybody needs options, now.


In that case get rid of the 26 inch wheel. I've been on a 650b for 5 years, and a 29er for 3 years before that. I still ride my vintage 26ers but would not consider buying a new 26er.


----------



## syklystt (Mar 31, 2010)

laffeaux said:


> I'm not sure it solve s a problem per se. It's just another option. Kids start off on a bike with 12" tires, eventually move to a 16" tire, then 20", then 24" and eventually 26" wheels - and then 650b or 29" if they are lucky.  No one complains that there are too many sizes in kid's bikes. Why do people want to limit adult to either one or two sizes? Imagine if clothes only came in one size.


If they are lucky.....i like that.
Actually, I've always been a proponent of "a bike for every occasion"...a motorcycle too..my issue is that they are stopping production on alot of stuff to make way. That actually is reducing my choices on my 26"......but really just playing devils advocate here....I'll adapt when necessary. 
I agree with the 29" option...just gettin' silly with incremental steps...especially when they dont really solve any perceived issue.


----------



## syklystt (Mar 31, 2010)

colker1 said:


> i believe the argument to be fragile. What's wrong w/ more options? It's a manufacturer's nightmare. We depend on manufacturers and shops to be able to ride. When those are faced w/ stocking many options, their viability is compromised.
> There is so much you can tune in a bike's ride using geometry> chainstay length, head angle, wheelbase, fork rake... changes that are better absorbed within manufacturing than another wheel size.
> Everybody is spoiled and pampered these days.. everybody needs options, now.


as a person thats been in manufacturing all my life, I totally agree....they are tooling up fo all new stuff, thats a huge investment between alot of comapnies. I'd love to have been in the meetings that were instrumental in taking the industry in this direction, only a few years after the big 29" influx.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

laffeaux said:


> In that case get rid of the 26 inch wheel. I've been on a 650b for 5 years, and a 29er for 3 years before that. I still ride my vintage 26ers but would not consider buying a new 26er.


of course not.. since the format is facing disappearance from LBS but is it that much worse than 650B? Otoh.. you can build a bike for any adult of almost any height using 26in and 700c wheels. That's why those formats stuck around so long and not because everybody in the industry wanted ill riding bicycles.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

Worst fad ever? Hands down.....29er's!!!!!!

:ciappa:


----------



## laffeaux (Jan 4, 2004)

Why is the assumption that every bike maker has to make every size? If manufacturing costs are an issue, why can't "company x" specialize is 26", "company y" in 650b and "company z" in 29er? Niner Bikes thinks that 29er are the best so that's all they make. If a manufacture thinks all wheel sizes are the best and can't afford to make all three, isn't the company at fault for not selecting the market it has the means to support? No one is demanding that every builder build every bike imaginable.

What about tire widths? Isn't it good enough to have a 2.1" and a 2.3" tire? Isn't the 2.25" completely bogus? Guys riding that tire would be better off on a 2.3" tire. And those old 1.95" tires are complete dumb as they are are between a 1.8" and a 2.1" - buying "in between tire widths" is dumb. There should only be three sizes (2.1 for xc, 2.3 for trail, and 3.0 downhill) so that every tire maker knows what is acceptable to make and consumers aren't confused with all those darn tire widths. Any tires except beyond those three don't offer enough difference to matter.

I really don't get it. Why do consumers want less choice?

I can understand a LBS in a small town (where there is no competition) becoming frustrated as they may need to carry more/different inventory. But in large towns, not every shop needs to support every bike. Shop owners can tell the 26er guys that show up to go to their competition if they need a 26" tire today, or else one can ordered. And in the era of the internet, anyone that can't find what they need at the LBS can order what they need themselves.

I'm personally glad that people are experimenting and seeing what works better (or worse). Right now there are so many options available that it's a great time to buy a bike. If we didn't experiment cyclocross tires bigger than 32mm would not exist. We'd not have the option to buy fat bikes or the new 29+ bikes. We'd all still be riding "vintage bikes" that were brand new because no one was willing to do something different.


----------



## syklystt (Mar 31, 2010)

laffeaux said:


> Why is the assumption that every bike maker has to make every size? If manufacturing costs are an issue, why can't "company x" specialize is 26", "company y" in 650b and "company z" in 29er? Niner Bikes thinks that 29er are the best so that's all they make. If a manufacture thinks all wheel sizes are the best and can't afford to make all three, isn't the company at fault for not selecting the market it has the means to support? No one is demanding that every builder build every bike imaginable.
> 
> What about tire widths? Isn't it good enough to have a 2.1" and a 2.3" tire? Isn't the 2.25" completely bogus? Guys riding that tire would be better off on a 2.3" tire. And those old 1.95" tires are complete dumb as they are are between a 1.8" and a 2.1" - buying "in between tire widths" is dumb. There should only be three sizes (2.1 for xc, 2.3 for trail, and 3.0 downhill) so that every tire maker knows what is acceptable to make and consumers aren't confused with all those darn tire widths. Any tires except beyond those three don't offer enough difference to matter.
> 
> ...


haaa...I see you like options.

I will eventually, by default, join in the tire size challenge, but it bums me out that I have to now order tires from the internet, I like to patronize the LBS, but if i'm ordering tires, im ordering more stuff too, and that eventually hurts them (yes, small town shops).

oh...tire sizes....dont get me starteed.....
enjoy!


----------



## syklystt (Mar 31, 2010)

whats funny about all of this is that we all ride different terrain, and even if we ride the same terrain, we all ride it differently. We all can enjoy it on a mutitude of contraptions with an unlimited number of options, both good and bad....and in the end, we all feel the same (or sort of)...and for each one of these worst fads, theres someone out there sportin' it with a grin from ear to ear.

long live 26" suspension bikes!


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

jazzanova said:


> I agree. And that's why the 26" is dying.


Correction - the industry is LYING to its customers about 26", in an attempt to boost sales.

26" isn't going anywhere - it is the dominant wheel size and will continue to be the dominant wheel size as long as mountain bikes have wheels!


----------



## CannondaleF9 (Nov 17, 2012)

turbodog said:


> Correction - the industry is LYING to its customers about 26", in an attempt to boost sales.
> 
> 26" isn't going anywhere - it is the dominant wheel size and will continue to be the dominant wheel size as long as mountain bikes have wheels!


In your dreams.

29" is now the dominant wheelsize, as most bikes sold this past year were 29ers. The 27" wheelsize isn't selling that well, but are still encroaching on 29er sales.
As for the 26ers that are not cheap crap sold at Kmart (or sub $1000), there are only a few, and most are Downhill or Freeride specific. 
The bikes that are not beginners bikes or DH specific are the Felt Compulsion 26, some Trek Fuel EX models (but they will be discontinued next year), a few Specialized- Stumpy FSR and Enduro. SB-66, and that's pretty much it. Most boutique brands are going over to 27" instead of 26". 
And in all seriousness, the 27" is only a tiny bit bigger than a 26", you won't be able to tell the difference between the two sizes. But you wouldn't know that because you've never ridden a 27".


----------



## mbco1975 (Feb 28, 2012)

Electronic gears? 
Sent from my HTC6990LVW using Board Express


----------



## syklystt (Mar 31, 2010)

CannondaleF9 said:


> In your dreams.
> 
> 29" is now the dominant wheelsize, as most bikes sold this past year were 29ers. The 27" wheelsize isn't selling that well, but are still encroaching on 29er sales.
> As for the 26ers that are not cheap crap sold at Kmart (or sub $1000), there are only a few, and most are Downhill or Freeride specific.
> ...


I agree with the wheel size being close, MY issue personally is that I just want to keep the bikes I have running for awhile (which, im sure will be possible). I have over 10 grand invested in 26" bikes that I currently ride so I really dont want to get out of 26" anytime soon...especially sonce smaller wheels are easier to play on, and thats what I do when I ride...go fast and get air at every opportunity...the larger bikes done throw around as easy...with that said, I did ride a nice 650B the other day...dayum it was nice, but it iddnt have anything to do with wheel size as much as it just being a very nice new bike with special rims on it. I was able to throw it around soemwhat but the trails didnt lend themselves to much fun so it was more of a flowy test. It was much beeter than my current 26" on the trail I was on and yes, i would love to try it on some real techhy trails and hopefully will get to someday. I checked on the bike....9,000 without the prototype carbon wheels....this is a problem...were paying roadie prices nowdays...I can deal with having to goto a 650B ( although wider would be much better...no, not fat bikes either) but 29ers...aint no way...at least not while I still have good trails to ride, when they are all dumbed down, then a 29er will be ok...that and I lose the ability to ride like I do....to each his own....but I still say 650b Is not needed and solves nothing but lining the pockets of the bike industry on false claims of it being better?.....bettter at what and for what cost? WHy is the question.


----------



## CannondaleF9 (Nov 17, 2012)

syklystt said:


> I agree with the wheel size being close, MY issue personally is that I just want to keep the bikes I have running for awhile (which, im sure will be possible). I have over 10 grand invested in 26" bikes that I currently ride so I really dont want to get out of 26" anytime soon...especially sonce smaller wheels are easier to play on, and thats what I do when I ride...go fast and get air at every opportunity...the larger bikes done throw around as easy...with that said, I did ride a nice 650B the other day...dayum it was nice, but it iddnt have anything to do with wheel size as much as it just being a very nice new bike with special rims on it. I was able to throw it around soemwhat but the trails didnt lend themselves to much fun so it was more of a flowy test. It was much beeter than my current 26" on the trail I was on and yes, i would love to try it on some real techhy trails and hopefully will get to someday. I checked on the bike....9,000 without the prototype carbon wheels....this is a problem...were paying roadie prices nowdays...I can deal with having to goto a 650B ( although wider would be much better...no, not fat bikes either) but 29ers...aint no way...at least not while I still have good trails to ride, when they are all dumbed down, then a 29er will be ok...that and I lose the ability to ride like I do....to each his own....but I still say 650b Is not needed and solves nothing but lining the pockets of the bike industry on false claims of it being better?.....bettter at what and for what cost? WHy is the question.


I am in no way a supporter of 27" wheels. I feel they are the WORST of both worlds, especially because I like diversity in a market and the ability to choose what I want, not being told by some rich company what I need. 
However, I know that 26" wheeled bikes are dying out and I too am sad (I love the 26ers I own and have ridden). 
If you are worried about quality parts being discontinued for 26" wheeled bikes, I would say stock up on some parts now before they go away. New wheels, fork, tyres are really all you need if you think you will blow them out. Just keep those parts for when you need them so you can ride your 26er for as long as possible.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

CannondaleF9 said:


> In your dreams.
> 
> 29" is now the dominant wheelsize, as most bikes sold this past year were 29ers. The 27" wheelsize isn't selling that well, but are still encroaching on 29er sales.
> As for the 26ers that are not cheap crap sold at Kmart (or sub $1000), there are only a few, and most are Downhill or Freeride specific.
> ...


You forget Europe, Asia, South America. America is not the bigger market...


----------



## laffeaux (Jan 4, 2004)

syklystt said:


> I agree with the wheel size being close, MY issue personally is that I just want to keep the bikes I have running for awhile (which, im sure will be possible). I have over 10 grand invested in 26" bikes that I currently ride so I really dont want to get out of 26" anytime soon...


26ers and 26er parts are not going to disappear anytime soon. Specific items might be hard to find, but that's true today (i.e. my favorite 26er tire was discontinued more than 10 years ago, but I can find them on eBay from time to time and as a result still ride the same time for now - I just wish that it were available as a 650b)

This is no different than the number of gears on a bike. I still ride a 9-speed road bike even though the industry moved on many years ago. Keeping the bike going is not a big deal. I also have 6, 7, 8, and 9 speed mountain bikes that I can still find parts for, even though the industry has moved on. I still use triple front chain rings on most of my bikes - even though the industry has moved on (double or single rings are the norm these days). Bicycle marketers do not dictate what I ride - my 650b has 9-speeds in the rear and 3 in the front - take that big bad marketing dude! You've not forced me into your crazy 1x11 scheme.

What you ride is what you want to ride. Just because the industry offers "new" options, it does not have to impact what you chose to ride. You can spend the rest of your life on a 26er if that makes you happy. There's no one asking you to change.


----------



## syklystt (Mar 31, 2010)

worst fad....26" wheels...why...because 24" can thrash sooo much better...I really want to go smaller, not larger.

How many of the folks that ride 29" jump on them alot? manuals?
Bomb large rock piles? huck 3-5 footers?

I would ask the same about 650B, but they are very close and probably not too much different, although they will have to be somewhat slower just because of physics.
The wide rims I rode the other day were super interesting, unbelievably low pressure, something I'd need some time on to trust (almost killed by a tubless tire burp on a big landing)...but the darned thing hooked up like crazy with not much tire flex (cause of the burp and funny steering).


----------



## syklystt (Mar 31, 2010)

laffeaux said:


> 26ers and 26er parts are not going to disappear anytime soon. Specific items might be hard to find, but that's true today (i.e. my favorite 26er tire was discontinued more than 10 years ago, but I can find them on eBay from time to time and as a result still ride the same time for now - I just wish that it were available as a 650b)
> 
> This is no different than the number of gears on a bike. I still ride a 9-speed road bike even though the industry moved on many years ago. Keeping the bike going is not a big deal. I also have 6, 7, 8, and 9 speed mountain bikes that I can still find parts for, even though the industry has moved on. I still use triple front chain rings on most of my bikes - even though the industry has moved on (double or single rings are the norm these days). Bicycle marketers do not dictate what I ride - my 650b has 9-speeds in the rear and 3 in the front - take that big bad marketing dude! You've not forced me into your crazy 1x11 scheme.
> 
> What you ride is what you want to ride. Just because the industry offers "new" options, it does not have to impact what you chose to ride. You can spend the rest of your life on a 26er if that makes you happy. There's no one asking you to change.


I agree 100%...I just like the debate from a "WHY" standpoint. I have more than my fair share of spare bikes/parts. Tires would be the only thing I really would worry about, and probably not for a long time, even if they quit today, I'm sure there's alot of stock out there.
I too run 3x9 on all my bikes, although i'd like to try a shadow der with the ratchett, I really like the idea.
This actuallly quite an ironic debate on a VRC forum, since they really shouldnt be invented yet...at least not 29".....I can't remember when the 650B was around before?
back to wishing I was out riding.....


----------



## DoubleCentury (Nov 12, 2005)

Vintage bike suck, ride modern!

Thanks to the fine folks at The Pro's Closet I'm on a 2014 (for a little while at least).


----------



## laffeaux (Jan 4, 2004)

syklystt said:


> I just like the debate from a "WHY" standpoint.


Try one and see. I prefer it. That's "why" enough for me.



syklystt said:


> This actuallly quite an ironic debate on a VRC forum, since they really shouldnt be invented yet...at least not 29".....I can't remember when the 650B was around before?


The first 700c mountain bikes were in the early 90's - Diamond Back and Bianchi made them. The tires options were minimal and narrow so it didn't catch on.

There were a hand-full of 650b mountain bikes made in the late '70s / early '80s. The tire selection was poor (one tire?) and the ability to use aluminum 26" wheels from BMX cruisers made the choice to go with 26" wheels easy.

GT sold 700d bikes (which for all purposes is a 650b as it's 3mm different) from '91 to '93 on a few models. I don't think that sales were great, likely do to lack of tire and rim options.

24" wheels were common on smaller "adult" mountain bikes throughout the '80s and into the '90s. The choice of quality tires likely played a roll in it's demise.

The thing that has changed today is the internet. If I want to buy an odd sized tire, as long as someone sells it somewhere, I can buy it. It used to be that if my local bike shop didn't sell it or if it wasn't available in a mail order catalog, it didn't exist. The idea of alternative sizes is not new, but the distribution technology finally exists to support it's survival.

Also QBP takes ideas and makes them available to everyone. You can blame them for popularizing the 29er, fat bike, and 29+. They may not invent the stuff but they make sure that anyone that wants it can buy it.


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

CannondaleF9 said:


> In your dreams.
> 
> 29" is now the dominant wheelsize, as most bikes sold this past year were 29ers. The 27" wheelsize isn't selling that well, but are still encroaching on 29er sales.
> As for the 26ers that are not cheap crap sold at Kmart (or sub $1000), there are only a few, and most are Downhill or Freeride specific.
> ...


AWWWWW!!!!

Your naivete and complete lack of analytic and critical thinking skills is so cute!!!!

Look kiddo, I've posted these figures before, you've read them. In APRIL 2014, 29er's were 56% market share, 26" was 33%, by $$$, from IBD's (bike shops). The average selling price for 29ers is a bit higher than 26", so I'm quite sure the number of units sold is a good bit closer. 29 and 26 were split 50/50 in 2012, and 2:1 in 2013.

So, the 29er has out sold 26" for about 18 months or so. Woop-tee-doo. A bike does not go stale like a load of bread. A VERY large majority of decent bikes built in the past decade are still in service today. And most of those are 26". They aren't going anywhere.

*26" is currently the dominant wheel size*, and there's no way 650b or 29er is going to sustain their sales enough to change that in the long term.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

syklystt said:


> How many of the folks that ride 29" jump on them alot? manuals?
> Bomb large rock piles? huck 3-5 footers?


[raises hand]

But I know I shouldn't, because the Internetz tell me I'm not having any fun.


----------



## syklystt (Mar 31, 2010)

evasive said:


> [raises hand]
> 
> But I know I shouldn't, because the Internetz tell me I'm not having any fun.


Ha...now your just being evasive to my question....
I didnt say thats what needs to be done just to have fun, sometimes I wish it were that way so the trail builders wouldnt cater to childerens abilities or lack thereof, it was meant to be a test of how the 29ers are being used out there, I believe that the geometry and wheel sizes make doing what makes "MY" ride fun a much more difficult affair. That being said, I have not had the opportunity to ride a real good 29er on difficult terrain (all the demos I've been to are on average bikes on flow trails).
I believe that there will always be folks that beat on their bikes no matter if they fit right or are not made for the occasion....I'm just wondering if the folks here ride 29ers hard, one person has actually spoken up on another thread of the same subject, but thats only one which would prove my thoery on the goemetry/wheel size thing.
Just sayin'

but i do believe the internet wants us to do fifty foot gaps and at least 3 tricks in the air before the fun begins. I'm a bit shy on my 26" though.


----------



## jeff (Jan 13, 2004)

Not I. Not even when I rode 26". The only time I'm comfortable with real air is on skis. Even though I was once considered a very quick descender my wheels were always on the ground. Plus I wheelie like sh!t.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

syklystt said:


> Ha...now your just being evasive to my question....


I don't think so (although I see what you did there). Your question was essentially unanswerable. I didn't make any claims for what other people do, but volunteered my own experience. Just like when a speaker asks an audience "How many of you...?" and people in the audience answer by raising hands or clapping.

This site has plenty of photos of people riding 29ers a heck of a lot harder than I will. mikesee, FM, or jhazard, for example. But I don't think there's anything particularly gnarly about rock gardens, smallish drops, and jumps. Geometry and intent has SO much more to do with how a bike rides than wheelsize. My current bike (a Banshee Prime) is incredibly fun in Moab. I don't hold a manual very well, drops over 4 feet still make me pretty nervous, and I suck at popping lips and jumping, but that's got nothing to do with the bike.


----------



## CannondaleF9 (Nov 17, 2012)

turbodog said:


> AWWWWW!!!!
> 
> Your naivete and complete lack of analytic and critical thinking skills is so cute!!!!
> 
> ...


There are plenty of 26ers out there, yes I agree with that (In my garage there are 4 26ers and only 2 29ers.) But the 29er is now outselling the 26er. If you looked through threads such as Post your Trek and Post your Hardtail, while there are still many 26ers, the number of them are outnumbered by 29ers. 
I just used Trek as an example of backing 29ers (Many new bikes bought by beginners are in fact Trek X-Calibers). 
Now days 26" is not being sold as much. This is what I mean when I say that 26" is a dying market and is being replaced by larger wheel sizes.
But fatbikes are 26" so you should be satisfied with that.


----------



## turbodog (Feb 28, 2004)

CannondaleF9 said:


> There are plenty of 26ers out there, yes I agree with that (In my garage there are 4 26ers and only 2 29ers.) But the 29er is now outselling the 26er. *If you looked through threads such as Post your Trek and Post your Hardtail, while there are still many 26ers, the number of them are outnumbered by 29ers.*
> I just used Trek as an example of backing 29ers (Many new bikes bought by beginners are in fact Trek X-Calibers).
> Now days 26" is not being sold as much. This is what I mean when I say that 26" is a dying market and is being replaced by larger wheel sizes.
> But fatbikes are 26" so you should be satisfied with that.


As with many internet forum denizens, you have convinced yourself that this place's habits and preferences reflect society at large. Let me assure you that your belief is WRONG.


----------



## CannondaleF9 (Nov 17, 2012)

turbodog said:


> As with many internet forum denizens, you have convinced yourself that this place's habits and preferences reflect society at large. Let me assure you that your belief is WRONG.


And your belief is wrong as well. Right back at you.


----------



## iamkeith (Feb 5, 2010)

I know I'm going to regret ever jumping into this, but I find the recent direction of this discussion to be pretty ironic. I don't think it's fair or worthwhile to even discuss a particular "trend," or to compare it's validity or value, or to talk about it in terms of it's permanence or longevity, until it's first played itself out as a "fad." And right now, 29ers are at the height of the fad arc.

Need proof? Just look at the MTBR index! We not only have a subforum dedicated to 29er bikes, but we have a _second_ one dedicated to 29er-specific... brake levers and saddles? If 29ers were the new norm, wouldn't they just be discussed as "mountain bikes," and their components simply according to what they are???!!!"

For the record, I don't disagree that 29ers are here to stay and that, for some people and conditions, they are indisputably superior. At 6'-2", I'm another one of those guys who right now would not buy another 26er.... but that's largely because I already have a dozen good ones. And I'd bet that this is the case for MOST of those higher-end 29ers being sold - that the buyers already have bikes in other formats!

If I was to ever again a one-bike guy, who knows. But, since I'm not, there's no way I'd ever be without a 26er or two in my quiver. The bike industry knows there are guys like me, they know there's money to be made by keeping both formats viable, and that's all that really matters.

To the bike companies, it's not about "what is best." It's about fashion, a huge industry to feed, and the need to keep selling people the "latest-and-greatest." 9 speeds, 10 speeds, 11 speeds, 12 speeds, 80mm travel, 100 mm travel, 120mm travel..... And every new "advance" is an excuse to tell you that your old bike is obsolete - that your top tube is WAY to short, or that your bottom bracket is WAY to flexy.

In the end, you just KNOW what's coming: When our current 26ers are worn out and there's a whole new generation of riders out there who only know 29ers (or 650b) because that's what they were told to buy, that 26ers will be the next "big thing".... in the exact same way that people now talk about discovering the whole "rigid thing," and how precise it is and how much more in touch with the trail they are.


----------



## datmony (Jul 12, 2012)

Amen. Well said Iamkeith. "These new 26ers are so much more nimble and flickable..... I just love how agile it makes me feel and they jump so well" I can see the ads already......


----------



## tductape (Mar 31, 2008)

Nylon saddle covers. Skinny tires to save weight. Turning your handlebar backwards so the 3 degrees went out. Neon shorts.


----------



## Repack Rider (Oct 22, 2005)




----------



## CCMDoc (Jan 21, 2010)

tductape said:


> Nylon saddle covers. Skinny tires to save weight. Turning your handlebar backwards so the 3 degrees went out. Neon shorts.


Hey I liked skinny tires (1.9 Smoke Comp Lites) and neon patches on my Lycra shorts


----------



## Sizzler (Sep 24, 2009)

tductape said:


> Turning your handlebar backwards so the 3 degrees went out.


I've never heard of that, what was the point, get a few more mm of reach? 

I have seen people reverse riser bars, seems similarly goofy.


----------



## shiggy (Dec 19, 1998)

Sizzler said:


> I've never heard of that, what was the point, get a few more mm of reach?
> 
> I have seen people reverse riser bars, seems similarly goofy.


When bars were 20-22" wide the forward sweep was supposed to be more ergonomic.


----------



## Uncle Grumpy (Oct 20, 2005)

Sizzler said:


> I've never heard of that, what was the point, get a few more mm of reach?
> 
> I have seen people reverse riser bars, seems similarly goofy.


Guilty...

I tried risers with a 150mm stem, with the risers flipped forward so the rise gave more reach. I think I was trying to get more aerodynamic or something. Not sure what I was thinking but the first endo to face plant set me straight.

Anyone remember those inflators for hydration bladders from about 2001? The idea was that you didn't need to suck on the bike valve, the pressure squirted the water into your mouth. Also good for washing mud off cassettes.

A quick google tells me they are still available, in Australia, and apparently won awards for innovation.

Pressurized Hydration Packs; Backpack, Inline Filters, Bladders by Geigerrig

To me, it borders between "can do without it" and "what's the point".

Is there a thread for products that went the way of the dodo but weren't bad at all? For me, it's those rubber lever grips that Tioga made. I have a set somewhere. Probably a solution to a problem nobody had, but cool enough. YMMV. 

Grumps


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

Not a fad or product, but I think the worst trend in mtb is bike brands having a marketing staff that's at least 5x larger than the size of their R&D/engineering staff in order to sell bikes, parts, and services.

Can't really put down any fads really, as they're mainly personal preference, as I see the stuff I dislike work well for others. If I had to mention one, I'd say the worst one for me is my preference against the aesthetics of swoopy tubing and gaudy logos (ex. see the downtube and top tube on Pivot's new Mach4), probably since it looks too similar to women's bikes to me. On that note, I don't really like Intense's plain solid block lettering on their downtube either (ex. see new Tracer T275c).


----------



## screamingbunny (Mar 24, 2004)

Dibbs on your collection DC, you'll need the $$$ for the new 2015's rolling on the new wheel size, 28.25....best of both worlds


----------



## ShiverDC (Mar 6, 2008)

Late 90's to early 2000's downhill dual 24" wheels / 50+ lb DH bikes .... There were a couple years in whistler where this was big (I know not oldschool to the fullest, but certainly oldish school for downhill)


----------



## tductape (Mar 31, 2008)

CCMDoc said:


> Hey I liked skinny tires (1.9 Smoke Comp Lites) and neon patches on my Lycra shorts


1.9's were skinny?

I was talking about the 1.75's.


----------



## girlonbike (Apr 24, 2008)

Knock it off with the 26 vs. 29er wheel size nonsense in this thread. There are a gazillion of other forums where it is discussed to beyond rationality and it's just trolling at this point in this forum.

Have a problem with it? Take it offline or post them here: http://forums.mtbr.com/general-discussion/no-love-26-a-906469.html because that's where it's all likely getting moved to.


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

Fat bikes.


----------



## pinguwin (Aug 20, 2004)

Ah yes, Rumpfy is either trolling or from a warm climate (or both). I'll give you a 4/10 as you did get one bite


----------



## ameybrook (Sep 9, 2006)

I want to hear all about Pinguwin's Fat Bike.


----------



## tductape (Mar 31, 2008)

Pinguin lives at the S. Pole. They need Fat Bikes


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

Elevated chainstays were somewhat dumb (but looked cool at the time). I remember MBA explaining how they were designed only for "hard core" riders. LOL.

Reverse sloping top tubes, on the other hand, were extremely dumb! and ugly! Heck, even a horizontal top tube is kinda dumb.


----------



## laffeaux (Jan 4, 2004)

Rumpfy said:


> Fat bikes.


Fat bikes rule!!!! (And I lied about not buying a 26er again, this is a nice 26er.)


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

laffeaux said:


> Fat bikes rule!!!! (And I lied about not buying a 26er again, this is a nice 26er.)


A trend just like Single Speeds and 29ers. They'll be gone soon enough.


----------



## iscariot (Oct 24, 2006)

Moderators.


----------



## bitflogger (Jan 12, 2004)

Rumpfy said:


> A trend just like Single Speeds and 29ers. They'll be gone soon enough.


I'm still riding my Typhoon, but by daughter will tell you I'm oblivious when it comes to fads and fashion. For decades I thought it was a fat bike - same for my Fat Chance.


----------



## pinguwin (Aug 20, 2004)

ameybrook said:


> I want to hear all about Pinguwin's Fat Bike.


Well, really pretty plain, it's a Salsa Mukluk II. I've replaced the fork shown with a carbon fork, got rid of the POS E13 cranks with Raceface, and the levers are Avid Ultimates (started using them in the 90's) and but other than, it's looks like this.









Timmy, as far as living at the South Pole, not quite, but I have been to Antarctica.


----------



## Uncle Grumpy (Oct 20, 2005)

Are you sitting on an egg? 

A riding buddy of mine is a geophysics Professor and he goes to Antarctica once a year, as well as all sorts of exotic locations like Mongolia. Ah the life of an academic!

Grumps


----------



## Sizzler (Sep 24, 2009)

Speaking of . . .



Rumpfy said:


> Fat bikes.


Matt's RetroFat SS with Whisky's 70w Fat Tubeless Rims is Insane! | The Radavist


----------



## MarkMac (Nov 28, 2012)

I find the fatbike everywhere thing distasteful, though I do live in the Arizona desert. It's distasteful, like when all the chunky skanks started wearing those furry Ugg boots year 'round. Fatbikes strike me the same way. They have their place, and I don't mind seeing them there. I.E. if I want a chubby fuzzy-booted gal to keep me warm, then I'll travel North.

So when I refer to fatbikes as Ugg bikes, now ya know.

But the true fad I hate is the "pick up after your pet" fad. Animals have been crapping in the woods and along the trails for several milennia. The poop is biodegradeable. But now people are expected to collect the poop in a chemically manufactured plastic bag to dispose of it. Hello?? Nature already had a solution. Kick the poop under a bush. Sooner or later a coyote will eat it, or the rain will wash it away. Now there are plastic bags fulla poop discarded along the trail. Dumb!

1,000,000 point thread resurrection score, FTW.


----------



## iamkeith (Feb 5, 2010)

MarkMac said:


> I find the fatbike everywhere thing distasteful, though I do live in the Arizona desert. It's distasteful, like when all the chunky skanks started wearing those furry Ugg boots year 'round. Fatbikes strike me the same way. They have their place, and I don't mind seeing them there. I.E. if I want a chubby fuzzy-booted gal to keep me warm, then I'll travel North.
> 
> So when I refer to fatbikes as Ugg bikes, now ya know.
> 
> ...


I used to get pretty cranky this time of year, myself. 

Now that I can get out riding (on my fat bike) during the other 7 months of the year, I'm happier. 

I thought seasons were reversed for you Arizona guys, though. Isn't this supposed to be the time of year where you're putting in the miles and smiling?!


----------



## pinguwin (Aug 20, 2004)

I'm from the snow-bound areas and fat bikes are pretty much all we ride this time of year. So it might be the worst product but it's certainly not a fad. The real advantage to fat bikes is where you need flotation. So certainly snow is one thing but also sand...like, oh, say, in a desert. Not much of that in the southwest I guess.

So, during this weekend's fat bike race, I'll stop and (moose)poop, stomp it with my Ugg boots and wait until it washes away in the spring floods ;-)


----------



## laffeaux (Jan 4, 2004)

MarkMac said:


> But the true fad I hate is the "pick up after your pet" fad. Animals have been crapping in the woods and along the trails for several milennia. The poop is biodegradeable. But now people are expected to collect the poop in a chemically manufactured plastic bag to dispose of it. Hello?? Nature already had a solution. Kick the poop under a bush. Sooner or later a coyote will eat it, or the rain will wash it away. Now there are plastic bags fulla poop discarded along the trail. Dumb!


Around here you'll get lectured if you don't pick up after your dog. While animals have been pooing for millions of years, it's only recently that we've been shuttling them to trailheads where they all poo immediately after they start their walks. The first 100 yards of most trails are lined with dog poo even when owners are supposed to be picking it up.

And responsible owners use bio-degradable poo bags.


----------



## Uncle Grumpy (Oct 20, 2005)

In Sydney, we have an inner suburb called Newtown. Kind of a hipster mecca where you walk your hipster dog to the hipster coffee shop.

Locals keep limber by avoiding the dog turds littering the back streets.

Grumps


----------



## Bokchoicowboy (Aug 7, 2007)

MarkMac said:


> Now there are plastic bags fulla poop discarded along the trail. Dumb!


This is something I don't understand...why some people think that leaving their poo-bags alongside the trail is okay, like someone is going to come along later and pick them up. Freaking lazy!

I did have the pleasure of witnessing the interaction between a rider and a poo-bag dropping miscreant out on the trail one day. I was riding a ways behind this guy (he was on some sort of cheap early nineties full rigid...so I guess this fits into VRC...) and on the trail in front of him a walker had just bagged his doggie's doo and left the poo-bag on the side of the trail. When the rider reached the poo-bag, sitting there in it's bright purple plastic glory, he reached down and grabbed it. I saw him pick up speed...when he reached the walker he swung the thing at the back of the guy's head while screaming loudly "Pick up your s*it-bag!" I stopped at this point to watch...the rider took off laughing maniacally, the walker started yelling, the dog (dragging his leash at this point) ran a little after the rider but then circled back. The walker looked down the trail, saw me...I shrugged my shoulders and rode on, saying "He's right, you aren't supposed to leave the bags" as I passed. For that I got a hearty "F*ck you!" from the guy.


----------



## laffeaux (Jan 4, 2004)

Bokchoicowboy said:


> This is something I don't understand...why some people think that leaving their poo-bags alongside the trail is okay, like someone is going to come along later and pick them up. Freaking lazy!


The majority of the time (at least where I live), dog walkers are doing an out and back route. Poo bags are left trailside and picked up on the return trip. The alternative is to carry a bag of poo for the entire walk. I regularly leave poo bags along the trail, but I also pick them up 30-60 minutes later.

My biggest annoyance is stepping off the trail to pick up after my dog and finding myself surrounded in other people's dog's poo. The bags that I leave trailside are often filled with poos from multiple dogs, as I find myself cleaning up after others.


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

Sizzler said:


> Speaking of . . .
> 
> Matt's RetroFat SS with Whisky's 70w Fat Tubeless Rims is Insane! | The Radavist


Ok that bike is especially cool. I love CI's work.


----------



## JChasse (Jul 21, 2008)

Rumpfy said:


> Ok that bike is especially cool. I love CI's work.


Yep, that is exceptionally cool.

Worst? I'm not sure, but elastomer clipless really sucked.

Re: all of the griping about how dumb bar ends are, I don't think i could ride my single speed without bar ends. But I've never thought about putting them on my FS trail bike. Hmmm....Maybe there's a poll to be had there...


----------



## rismtb (Dec 11, 2012)

Crap after running shoes and friction shifting for 5 yrs That locked in to the pedal feeling and one click shifting was actually quite the advancement. We were getting serious about shifting quick and never coming out of your pedals feeling. Ouch


ibike4fun said:


> Pedal clips with toe straps.
> Index shifting.
> Non-sealed bottom brackets and hubs. (Everything should be sealed!)


----------



## dietz31684 (Mar 30, 2010)

laffeaux said:


> My biggest annoyance is stepping off the trail to pick up after my dog and finding myself surrounded in other people's dog's poo. The bags that I leave trailside are often filled with poos from multiple dogs, as I find myself cleaning up after others.


You're a saint. I have never picked up after someone else's dog, even in my own neighborhood. In fact, the idea never even crossed my mind. Maybe I'll start, but most likely I'll just get pissed off every time I see the poop and do nothing about it.


----------



## Shayne (Jan 14, 2004)

dietz31684 said:


> Maybe I'll start, but most likely I'll just get pissed off .... and do nothing about it.


That's the Imerican way right there.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

Bokchoicowboy said:


> This is something I don't understand...why some people think that leaving their poo-bags alongside the trail is okay, like someone is going to come along later and pick them up. Freaking lazy!
> 
> I did have the pleasure of witnessing the interaction between a rider and a poo-bag dropping miscreant out on the trail one day. I was riding a ways behind this guy (he was on some sort of cheap early nineties full rigid...so I guess this fits into VRC...) and on the trail in front of him a walker had just bagged his doggie's doo and left the poo-bag on the side of the trail. When the rider reached the poo-bag, sitting there in it's bright purple plastic glory, he reached down and grabbed it. I saw him pick up speed...when he reached the walker he swung the thing at the back of the guy's head while screaming loudly "Pick up your s*it-bag!" I stopped at this point to watch...the rider took off laughing maniacally, the walker started yelling, the dog (dragging his leash at this point) ran a little after the rider but then circled back. The walker looked down the trail, saw me...I shrugged my shoulders and rode on, saying "He's right, you aren't supposed to leave the bags" as I passed. For that I got a hearty "F*ck you!" from the guy.


It would be right if the dog attacked the rider.


----------



## pinguwin (Aug 20, 2004)

colker1 said:


> It would be right if the dog attacked the rider.


Maybe the dog felt shame about pooping in public and realized that it was the one who created the problem in the first place?

Wow, has this thread gone off the rails! Mendon..Girl on Bike...time for action.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

pinguwin said:


> Maybe the dog felt shame about pooping in public and realized that it was the one who created the problem in the first place?
> 
> Wow, has this thread gone off the rails! Mendon..Girl on Bike...time for action.


No.. and the owner could even walk off: he let off the leash because he was attacked. The dog reacted to an attack. I doubt the rider would do the same to a German Shepperd owner. The rider is a coward.


----------



## sbsbiker (Dec 1, 2007)

I had a crazy friend once stop in front of a group of horses and take a crap on the trail. He then said " I've been riding through your crap for miles, here's some of mine" and rode off. It was a true statement, we had been dodging horse crap for miles up this climb. The Cowboys just laughed.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

sbsbiker said:


> I had a crazy friend once stop in front of a group of horses and take a crap on the trail. He then said " I've been riding through your crap for miles, here's some of mine" and rode off. It was a true statement, we had been dodging horse crap for miles up this climb. The Cowboys just laughed.


and then he sold an almost new pair of cycling shorts on ebay. all procceeds go to Sierra Club.


----------



## challybert (Sep 5, 2014)

The biggest long running fad were those >67 degree, steep HTA bikes. No sure how folks descend on those things.


----------



## mainlyfats (Oct 1, 2005)

colker1 said:


> and then he sold an almost new pair of cycling shorts on ebay. all procceeds go to Sierra Club.


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to colker1 again.


----------



## jimmydee (Feb 1, 2015)

I know Shimano Biopace was the first thing mentioned... but it was the first thing to come to mind, when I read the thread title.

Heck, I still have an old Cannondale (circa 1987) in my basement, that has a Biopace crankset on it. I thought it was cool, at the time... in hindsight, it did nothing. Marketing fad.


----------



## dsnow23 (Mar 22, 2008)

1) Biopace for the loss! Terrible.
2) I also really dislike gripshift. I could never use it effectively for the rear derailleur. 
However, I liked it okay for the front. 
3) Helmets without a visor. Seriously. Maybe if you only ride at night. 
4) skinny, light weight tires. I tried some 1.8s one time. Awful.
5) eggbeater pedals. They might as well have made them out of glass. Loved them when they worked, but I broke a bunch of them. 
6) Aluminum hard tails. Ouch.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

27.5in wheels.
Brings nothing remarkable to the table while killing 26in wheels.

Best trend> return of the go anywhere road bike. what is called now gravel bike. Fausto Coppi rode these in the 40s. yeah yeah, i know it dodn't have disc brakes blablbla but the gravel roads are the same.


----------



## Uncle Grumpy (Oct 20, 2005)

Ceramic bearings.

Sure they work, and do their job, and they give a 0.000001% increase in efficiency at the revolutions found in a bicycle BB or hub for a 200% price increase.

Grumps


----------



## ish (Jun 17, 2009)

colker1 said:


> 27.5in wheels.
> Brings nothing remarkable to the table while killing 26in wheels.
> 
> Best trend> return of the go anywhere road bike. what is called now gravel bike. Fausto Coppi rode these in the 40s. yeah yeah, i know it dodn't have disc brakes blablbla but the gravel roads are the same.


So do you love or hate 650B cyclocross bikes?

Worst product I've encountered is the seatpost bike pump. Too greasy to actually use.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

Worst trend - so much more media attention on 7k+ bikes, top-of-the-line components, accessories, electronic gadgetry, apparel, etc. and not enough on the more affordable stuff. The only thing that excites me about the cutting edge stuff is the possibility of it trickling down to a more affordable price points.


----------



## Uncle Grumpy (Oct 20, 2005)

^ This.

As much as I appreciate that nobody drools over a Shimano SLX level derailleur, it's what a lot of riders can afford and will run. XTR and other exotica looks pretty and sells magazines, and we might aspire to upgrade the SLX to XTR when it finally goes belly up, but the cycling media irritates me to a large degree.

Articles like "what you should be riding this year..." irk me. What I should be riding this year is the same bike I was riding last year because I looked after it and it was durable enough to last more than a season and it still has a few years left in it.

Opinion pieces like "death of the hardtail" became "29" wheels might save the hardtail" which became "why 27.5" wheels are right" which then become "the hardtail is back to dead again probably because we aren't pushing the virtues of 29ers and 27.5 isn't big enough to save the hardtail from extinction". Argh!

People ask me why I ride rigid single speed. It's because I can keep up with single speed, I can't keep up with this weeks preferred drivetrain. As for the rigid, because it's 37.8% more efficient than your trail tuned dirt to rock coefficient adjusted suspension system de jour. Damn right I got the sh*ts!

Uncle Grumpy


----------



## lowntegra (Dec 23, 2013)

^^^^ THIS x 10!

totally with ya man! my preferred taste, is some good ol 8 speed xt. 739, 740 variety. (or XTR if the budget currently allows). stuff shifted great, and 8 speeds were enough......


----------



## Uncle Grumpy (Oct 20, 2005)

After the last 24 hours, I'm adding tubeless tyres.

"You can simply convert ANY tyre and rim to tubeless and run lower pressures, dramatically reduce the risk of pinch flats and broker peace in the Middle East".

So you spend a ridiculous amount of money on a rim strip which is a strip of rubber with a valve attached. After a year of use the valve pulls away from the rim strip, which I cannot say I'v e ever had with a tube.

Thats if your tyre will air up in the first place. If it doesn't then it's the hit and miss effort of building up the rim with layers of tape which becomes a mystical equation of getting it right between "it won't air up" and "damn tyre won't go on at all".

So then you try ghetto tubeless which is even more hit and miss depending on the rim and tyre combo. Let's not forget sealants which some genius figured should contain ammonia because that's sooo good for aluminium rims isn't it?!

My father has borrowed my air compressor so every failure I have is costing me a co2 cartridge, my hands are frigging sore, I've broken 2 tyre levers, and at the end of it, the #$%^ing tyre still won't stay inflated.

I could have saved the whole morning, my poor soft girlie hands and about $40 by buying a $5 tube and shoving tubeless where the sun won't shine.

Grumps


----------



## CannondaleF9 (Nov 17, 2012)

Uncle Grumpy said:


> After the last 24 hours, I'm adding tubeless tyres.
> 
> "You can simply convert ANY tyre and rim to tubeless and run lower pressures, dramatically reduce the risk of pinch flats and broker peace in the Middle East".
> 
> ...


I am so glad I never tried tubeless. You may save a few grams but you will gain a lot of frustration and I don't want that.


----------



## bigyin (Jan 25, 2015)

I'm adding inner tubes to the list. I used to average three thorn punctures a week before I flung those dam stinking things out and replaced them with rim strips and sealant.

I've not had a thorn puncture in three years since converting to ghetto tubeless. I would even go as far as saying its that easy to go tubeless a monkey could manage to convert most rims.


----------



## laffeaux (Jan 4, 2004)

bigyin said:


> I'm adding inner tubes to the list. I used to average three thorn punctures a week before I flung those dam stinking things out and replaced them with rim strips and sealant.
> 
> I've not had a thorn puncture in three years since converting to ghetto tubeless. I would even go as far as saying its that easy to go tubeless a monkey could manage to convert most rims.


LOL My experience too.

I still ride tube in vintage bikes, but no way would I bother with a tube in a modern bike.


----------



## pinguwin (Aug 20, 2004)

dsnow23 said:


> 1) Biopace for the loss! Terrible.
> 2) I also really dislike gripshift. I could never use it effectively for the rear derailleur.
> However, I liked it okay for the front.
> 3) Helmets without a visor. Seriously. Maybe if you only ride at night.
> 6) Aluminum hard tails. Ouch.


#2, I like gripshift for my fat bike. The push-push SRAM shifters, don't like them in the summer and specifically dislike them in the winter when wearing thick gloves. Shimano shifters are better but think for my next fat bike, I'll stay with grip shift.

#3, visor comes off for night riding and #6...Them is fighting words to a Klein rider.

As for the focus on the high end, my recently bought bike is full XTR and I'm very happy with it but how many people go out there and spring for it? Not as many as the magazines lead you to believe.

(Uncle Grumpy) > As much as I appreciate that nobody drools over a Shimano SLX level derailleur

Looks like someone doesn't spend much time on Retrobike


----------



## old an still faster (Dec 31, 2014)

someone please explain the advantage of tubeless to me. you work it all out and they are basically Glued to your rims right? so you cant change out your tires to suit the ride you have for that day... you have what you choose. ???? In my experience with all types of offroad vehicles tire options are a key component to performance. so glue them on be stuck with them or pull the wheels and swap them out when you need to seems an easy choice to me


----------



## bigyin (Jan 25, 2015)

Nice try but no cigar


----------



## Flyin_W (Jun 17, 2007)

It's not for everybody.
(edit) Tires are not glued to rims - like sew ups. 
Do some research before condemning a great innovation.
If I do flat, and the sealant cannot plug the hole, then I boot the tire, remove all the thorns from the inner tire casing, and install a tube to get out.

Ride in the land of thorns. With tubes, I was flatting constantly, and doing far too much HAB. Now with good tubeless set ups I rarely HAB.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

I spent some mo riding in the semi desert w/ lots of cactus. I would have flats every 2 days. Sometimes everyday. I dind't have tubeless wheels but i wish i did.
In the wet woods i don't mind tubes although extra traction on slippery tree roots wouldn'y be a bad idea..


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

I don't run pressures any lower, but pinch flats disappeared when I went tubeless. Maxxis TR tires on Stan's rims aired up dry, and then I added deal want. Couldn't have been easier. 

I stalled on it for years because of horror stories like the above. Wasted time, IMO.


----------



## Uncle Grumpy (Oct 20, 2005)

bigyin said:


> I'm adding inner tubes to the list. I used to average three thorn punctures a week before I flung those dam stinking things out and replaced them with rim strips and sealant.
> 
> I've not had a thorn puncture in three years since converting to ghetto tubeless. I would even go as far as saying its that easy to go tubeless a *monkey could manage to convert most rims*.


If you hadn't said "most rims" I would be making lame-ass internet threats right now. The worst I can do is send you my tyres and wheels, I expect them back inflated. 

Obviously I need a monkey, I must be too evolved.

I have 7 bikes running tubeless. The very first I set up 5 years ago with the ghetto split tube method has been foolproof (yep, still running the same tyres 5 years later - that bike doesn't get a lot of use). The problem may be that I'm heavy handed with the levers getting the tyre onto the rim, but I've learnt to be careful.

Talking to the guys at the LBS today and most of them have gone back to tubes. A few of them confirmed the particular rim and tyre combination was a right b*tch so I guess that hasn't helped.

I have had some set up just plain work and some just chew balls. I stand by my statement that tubeless is a hit and miss affair. The misses cost a lot of time and money when you simply want to put a tyre on a rim and add air.

Grumps


----------



## bigyin (Jan 25, 2015)

You use levers on tubeless tyres?

Say no more


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

What's with the trend lately that glamorizes beer drinking as if it went with mountain biking as well as cheese on pizza?


----------



## laffeaux (Jan 4, 2004)

old an still faster said:


> someone please explain the advantage of tubeless to me. you work it all out and they are basically Glued to your rims right? so you cant change out your tires to suit the ride you have for that day... you have what you choose. ???? In my experience with all types of offroad vehicles tire options are a key component to performance. so glue them on be stuck with them or pull the wheels and swap them out when you need to seems an easy choice to me


If you change your tires every ride, then tubeless is not the best option. The tires are not glued to the rim, but there is sealant inside that would need to be replaced with every tire change (unless you managed to transfer it from tire to tire without spilling most of it).

The biggest advantage is that if you live in a place where puncture flats are common, the number of flats with tubeless drops to nearly zero. In my area goat head thorns are very common in the fall. I've been on a few rides where I've had 20-30 thorns per tire. Forget about patching that tube, and when you put in a new tube be really sure that you pulled out every thorn or you have yet another flat. With tubeless I may need to top of the air in the tire, but then I keep riding - and chances are I'll need to do nothing.

Tubeless also means no pinch flats. If you need/want lower tire pressures, tubeless makes that work better too.

If you're running tubes tires and you never flat, you don't need tubeless. If you spend a lot of time trail-side fixing flats, tubeless is a terrific.


----------



## Uncle Grumpy (Oct 20, 2005)

bigyin said:


> You use levers on tubeless tyres?
> 
> Say no more


Well, yeah. The particular set up in question is a NoTubes ZTR Olympic with a tubeless Conti Race King 2.0. If you can get that on by hand then wow! I'm awesome to the power of 3 but you're running at power of 10. I reiterate, the Olympic/Conti is a combo that the LBS guys said is a right PITA. I also take into account the fact that one day, I might need to get the tyre off on the trail.

I avoid levers where possible but sometimes they're a necessity. If you never ever ever ever resort to levers, then you are either a freak of nature, or the monkey you previously referred to is actually a gorilla.

I'm pleased for you that your tubeless experience has been all peaches and cream. And I'm not being sarcastic there.

My point is that some tyre/rim combos work fine, others just suck and therefore it's a hit and miss process. YMMV, gees let's not start a barney.

"Say no more."

Grumps


----------



## bigyin (Jan 25, 2015)

yeah im awesome + 11


if I hadn’t said MOST RIMS in my original post I would probably be spending more time than I want to thinking up a reply or worse still resorting to childish insults

have a good night :thumbsup:


----------



## Uncle Grumpy (Oct 20, 2005)

bigyin said:


> have a good night :thumbsup:


That's hours away. It's currently Monday morning here in Australia, so those well wishes mean even more.

Cheers mate, take care!

Grumps


----------



## peter.thedrake (Aug 6, 2009)

Varaxis said:


> What's with the trend lately that glamorizes beer drinking as if it went with mountain biking as well as cheese on pizza?


Seriously. Lifestyle included with purchase of each mountain bike.


----------



## Uncle Grumpy (Oct 20, 2005)

peter.thedrake said:


> Seriously. Lifestyle included with purchase of each mountain bike.


I didn't get it when some brands, Santa Cruz was one, integrated a bottle opener into the rear dropout. I'm a Santa Cruz fan and I'm a beer fan*, but that was lost on me.

Maybe I was overthinking it, but when I finish a ride, I don't feel like a beer, I feel like a gallon of cold water and maybe some sports drink. If I'm at a bakery I might get a chocolate milk or a [brand name] cola.

And knocking down a beer after a ride and then driving home with that beer going to my head is not what I call responsible. I can generally wait until I get home when I'll fire up the BBQ and knock down a couple of select brews. And I have a few bottle openers and don't need to drag my bike onto the patio to crack open a beer.

Grumps

*really, I love beer. I'll be having one with dinner in about an hour, in fact


----------



## rockhopper2 (Jul 27, 2013)

I'm enjoying reading this thread quite a bit, and agree with many of the opinions.

I wanted to throw in the aerodynamic bike fad of the 80's. I realize it was restricted to road bikes (I think it was, anyway), but still wanted to mention it. What a dumb idea and obvious invention of the bike industry to sell you something you didnt need. 
I think the rider is about 90% of wind resistance on a bike, and the aero bikes managed to shave off about 10% of the _bike's_ actual wind resistance. I'll let you do the math on what that equates to in wind drag savings, lol.

On the 29ers, those werent around when I worked in shops in the 80's, so I have no experience with them, but my neighbor who is almost 6'4" has one and I have to admit, for him it's a better set-up than 26'' wheels would be. But for people of more average height it seems like a bad idea if that's who the industry was promoting them to.

Oh and I totally agree with the comments about how annoying it is that mountain biking - or trail riding as I like to think of it - is often portrayed only as a sport for people who do everything 'to the extreme'.

Not everyone is trying to crash their bike at every possible opportunity and catch air as often as possible. And I do think it's attitudes like that that have given mtbers a bad rep and caused trails to be closed to riders.

That aside though I think of the bicycle industry as the most fad and trend bloated consumer industry out there - even more than cars and consumer electronics, imo. I guess that's just it takes to sell large numbers of bikes these days..


----------



## RonSonic (Jan 8, 2005)

> Oh and I totally agree with the comments about how annoying it is that mountain biking - or trail riding as I like to think of it - is often portrayed only as a sport for people who do everything 'to the extreme'.


Yeah, the whole *Xtreme* thing is a little bit annoying (a lot). And yes, it is usually more "trail riding" than mountain biking for a lot of us. And that's an intensity level that can range from lung bleeding to watching wildlife.

It would be a shame if anybody might get put off from the sport because of the stupid extreme marketing.


----------



## iamkeith (Feb 5, 2010)

RonSonic said:


> It would be a shame if anybody might get put off from the sport because of the stupid extreme marketing.


^ Very true, of course. As I read this, I couldn't help notice the contrast to the current ad, running in the right hand margin of the page >

A dude catching extreme air. Rad!









Then I thought about how completely ironic the ad is on some other levels, too - which only the VRC crowd is likely to pick up on, but which are interesting in light of a "trend" discussion:

For what it's worth, I COMPLETLELY agree with the sentiment. No other development or advancement has ever made me choose modern over vintage the way that big volume tires, wider rims and adequate frame clearances have.

But it was Bontrager himself who pioneered the "narrow" wheel movement, with his rolled-down Mavic road rims - single-handedly driving the industry toward a trend that, for better or worse, would last for decades. I understand why [They] wanted to buy Bontrager's name and reputation and expertise, but it seems kind of flighty and opportunistic and disingenuous and dismissive of the true heritage and real contributions that Bontrager made to the sport, to now simply blurt out "wider is better." ...As if [They] were the ones to think of the idea.

And while I'm ranting: I'm predicting that "Boost" will not be a step forward in the march toward the more legitimate "wider" wheel trend, either. I'm thinking it's just a pointless new standard, conceived by a bunch of roadies in a board room, as a way to achieve better tire and drivetrain clearances without compromising their precious, ultra-narrow, roadie Q-factors. Just widen the damn hub and lengthen the bottom bracket spindle, for god's sake. Didn't you get the memo from the fatbike experience?: Nobody cares about a few mm, and it's actually easier on the knees anyway.

In other words, *Wider is better!!!*


----------



## eshew (Jan 30, 2004)

Narrow bars, 150mm stems & press-fit bottom brackets.


----------



## chefmiguel (Dec 22, 2007)

That's the stuff that most of here come to check out. Except those 150's, they hurt.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

eshew said:


> Narrow bars, 150mm stems & press-fit bottom brackets.


Hmmm.. what rise on the 150mm stem? I can ride w/ any stem as long as teh bike fits the way i like. I can ride a 22in bar as well and ride anything.. as long as the bike fits the way i like it.


----------



## eshew (Jan 30, 2004)

Sorry, I've got an ibis with a 150mm stem and narrow ti bar. Does not fit me well in its current form, venting.


----------



## Shayne (Jan 14, 2004)

eshew said:


> Narrow bars


Its all relative. After a lot of road riding recently, a quick spin on a Stumpjumper with 23" bars felt uncomfortable because the bars were too wide.


----------



## tidelag (Oct 6, 2005)

laffeaux said:


> What about tire widths? Isn't it good enough to have a 2.1" and a 2.3" tire? Isn't the 2.25" completely bogus? Guys riding that tire would be better off on a 2.3" tire. widths.
> 
> I really don't get it. Why do consumers want less choice?
> 
> I'm personally glad that people are experimenting and seeing what works better (or worse). Right now there are so many options available that it's a great time to buy a bike. If we didn't experiment cyclocross tires bigger than 32mm would not exist.


Interesting rant. And I STRONGLY disagree that some tire dimensions are wrong!

I bought 2.25" Racing Ralph for many years ago, which measures 54.41mm / 2.142" on my xc717. weirdly enought. I already have Kenda 2.35", so I wanted something in "middle", wanted something light and fast, but resilient enought to be aggressive on the tracks.
Which didn't help, I punctured once, on that 29mm Sun Rhyno Light rim!

It works wonderfully at gravel/singletrack/asphalt, even with 60mm full fenders. (It was very useful these few days I rided in heavy rain, especially at the roads)

I think that you're really ranting at how imprecise the imperial units can be compared to the metric units, than the "wrong choice of" tire width... 

I dislikes tubeless tires, the weight has increased slightly these later years (+30-50 grams) to compensate for the loss of tube. Why should I bother with slime/semen, weird/comlicated tire-changing rituals, develop special hand muscles and "weird/special rims" just to ride?!



laffeaux said:


> We'd all still be riding "vintage bikes" that were brand new because no one was willing to do something different.


There are still limits on the bicycle, the derailleurs are a fragile beast, and the term "low maintenance" is still a non-existant feature on the bicycles, the companies doesn't think beyond of the point of sales.

Peoples confuses the 180mm disc with "good modulation" compared to 590mm disc, I feel numb when I use a disc brake, the "good modulation" must come from somewhere else.


----------

