# An open letter to the bike industry



## rev106 (Jul 9, 2009)

An open letter to the bike industry

Dear Bike Industry,

I’m beginning to feel that you don’t have myself and my fellow rider’s best interest at heart, all you seem to be interested in is creating new “standards” and try to force people to buy them under the auspice that the new “standard” is better than before. I would like to think that most cyclists are a savvy bunch, but we do glom onto new tech with eagerness, a fault that you (the bicycle industry) seems more than happy to exploit. 
Every year there’s a new bottom bracket “standard”. Something becomes a standard once it is in wide, common, and accepted use like a square taper bb. I have never felt the need to put any of these new, false standards on my bike instead of using a tried and true standard. I think you need to think about how you label all of these pointless bottom bracket options out there. The advantages are nominal to the rider, and only serve to create more niche markets and confuse new riders that get overwhelmed by all the “standards” that have been made. Shame on you. The people that can really gain any benefit if at all from any of these alleged improvements are pro racers, and pro races get their bikes and parts for free, we, the majority of the bike buying public have to pay for our stuff. Did my square tape bb suddenly stop working after years of loyal service and 1000’s of miles? No, it did not. My mountain bike is old for sure and my friends that have newer bikes are still behind me just like they are before they had a new bike with all of the new “improvements” in technology, I expected them to leave me in the dust being that I have only 21 speeds and they 30, but alas it did not happen. I also find it funny that I having 21 speeds never once thought I could make this traverse or climb that section of trail if I only had some more gears, and now you try and sell me less gears in the form of a 2 x10 drive train for more money than my 21 gears, do you take me for a fool? Shame on you bike industry. I can go on, how lame and pointless 31.8 bars are and how ugly they look, or how a 200 dollar seat post that drops can’t beat a 10 buck quick release seat post clamp and to take the 10 seconds to take in the view before you drop in is worth way more than another lever do-hickey on your bike, are you really that lazy? And the 29 wheels, really? Every time I see some poor 5.5” guy on a 29er, I just feel like the bike industry is made up of carneys and we are it’s willing dupes. And these massive head tube bearings they look like the wheel bearings in my van, there’s no way you can convince me I “need” that junk. At some point I just feel like you think I’m an idiot they will buy anything that you put before me, I think you think so little of us as a group that one can keep changing things endlessly chasing one’s tail in the pointless quest of improving something that needs no improvement, even the bike magazines are getting weary of your cavalcade of falsehoods, they are usually your ever loyal heralds but that is even changing.
I turned away from mountain biking magazines for few years and when I came back, mountain bikes no longer existed. There are xc, all mountain, free ride, downhill, etc. but there are no “mountain bikes” anymore. I still own and use a mountain bike, I understand that by creating labels and slicing the pie in ever-smaller slices you can perhaps sucker someone into buying a bunch of bikes that only get used for one type of trail. I guess that’s clever marketing and sales go up, but I think in doing so you alienate the beginner that will certainly be confused and intimidated by all the jargon and techo-babble when they go to their local shop and want a “mountain bike” Shame on you bike industry, I think you need a time-out to think about what you’ve done.


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

Have fun on your rigid bike with cantilevers brakes.

Personally, I like progress.


----------



## 53119 (Nov 7, 2008)

29ers and carneys are stuck in my head right now from your letter. creating need isn't nearly as fun and profitable as creating want. you need to follow up with a legit review of something that caused your frustration...just sayin. i love saint and my enduro and I'm not goin back!


----------



## dgw2jr (Aug 17, 2011)

Paragraphs are awesome

But seriously, I like my 29er wheels. I also like my square taper BB and it hasn't given me any crap. Ya know, you don't have to buy all this new stuff they keep coming out with. If you like your square taper BB, they can still be had. You can still get 26er wheels too, as well as 1 1/8" headsets.


----------



## mtbscott (May 11, 2005)

OP, while you make some good points about some stuff, you also define the word "retro-grouch." I joined the mtb tribe some years into its adolesence, circa '96, but no way I'd rather ride the bike I had back then over the one I have now.


(BTW, I use the term retro-grouch with affection, not meant at all as a personal attack.)


----------



## JFryauff (Oct 28, 2005)

53119 said:


> 29ers and carneys are stuck in my head right now from your letter.


Seriously, I'm going to have "Entrance of the Gladiators" playing in my head everytime I hoist my 5' 8" body onto my 29'er.


53119 said:


> creating need isn't nearly as fun and profitable as creating want.


Truth


----------



## 53119 (Nov 7, 2008)

@JFyauff - you just gave me a great idea for a 29er branded product


----------



## net wurker (Sep 13, 2007)

I'm not sure the bike industry will see your letter, here in passion. I think the bike industry hangs out in the all-mountain forum, and the dowhhill/freeride forum, the 29'r forum and sometimes the xc forum.


----------



## Vlad (Feb 7, 2004)

rev106, your letter is boring and predictable in every respect.


----------



## Flyin_W (Jun 17, 2007)

rev106,
Agree with many of your points, so guess I too am a retro-grouch. 
Having new bikes have been amazed by "new standards" one must meet to build up a frame. 

Do not believe for a minute that one can tell if wheel flex originates from a Q/R axle, or that a 56mm H/S bearing will actually make a bike stiffer. :skep: Perhaps, true in theory, yet in reality PSI and big tires influence flex, and rigidity far greater, as they are the weakest link. 

I too absolutely detest being made to buy new tech for no clear advantage. Anyone know how to overhaul pf BB92 bearings? Appear to be disposable, require a bearing press, and a trip to the LBS for a limited selection of available parts. This is not progress, this is segmentation, which didn't work too well for car dealers when their parts supplier's went bankrupt. 

Short term profits that incur long term damage to customer retention, and brand image are costly, just ask Dell.


----------



## chugachjed (May 20, 2010)

rev106 said:


> an open letter to the bike industry
> 
> dear bike industry,
> 
> ...


u r dum


----------



## moonraker (Jan 22, 2004)

Vlad said:


> rev106, your letter is boring and predictable in every respect.


True....

However, would we be better off if Mr. Bike Industry just stopped technological progress at some designated point? I don't think so. 
It's the marketing and advertising that annoys the crap outta me. I got a subscription to BIKE magazine the beginning of this year, and I thought it was neat...at first. Now I can barely stand to look thru it. All the shiny ads, the coddled bike testers, the constant pics of beautiful B.C.'s north shore. It all makes me feel unworthy on my 5 year old bike, riding thru the same old scenery.


----------



## chugachjed (May 20, 2010)

Flyin_W said:


> I too absolutely detest being made to buy new tech for no clear advantage. Anyone know how to overhaul pf BB92 bearings? Appear to be disposable, require a bearing press, and a trip to the LBS for a limited selection of available parts.


http://www.enduroforkseals.com/id176.html


----------



## 53119 (Nov 7, 2008)

i confess. i do share some of the op's thoughts but it's towards road bikes. I've learned to live with terms like NOS and NIB and it's been fine as far as purchases go. I don't ride like a total beast anymore so "going" thru parts is not a bit frustrating to me at all. It'll never frustrate me to the point where i'd ever let it kill the enjoyment of a ride, that's for sure.

seriously, square taper bbs suck. that's the second thing i would destroy after wheels if you grew up on bmx. there's a reason profiles had splines.


----------



## apbyte (Jul 15, 2012)

I can't really agree to this letter. Progress is good, it gives choice for those who want it.
Bike industry is actually very good, in others you actually can't buy previous standard, while here you have choice to buy all of them from last decade.
- Yes they advertise everything as better (same as any other industry)
- Yes it is anojing that with new technology they also bring new tools (sometimes they could leave existing size screws etc.)
- No they dont say you need to change your parts if they are still working (why the hell do you even look at new standards if you don't need to change anything?)
- No they dont say you can't change to same standard as you had (it is quite easy and cheap to still buy square tapper cranks and bb)
- No they dont say you need to know what xc,am, dh, fr etc means. they expect you to go to bikeshop, tell them what type of riding you want, and they will say which one will be best for you
- If you were able to learn what mtb means, there is no big problem to learn 4 more terms
- It is still easy - if you want to do light mountain biking and road riding you go with XC, if you want to do harder mountain biking you go with AM. There is no rocket science, it is so simple. All other types are for those who know what they mean and not for regular people
- super regular people dont even go to bike shop but simply take one in supermarket which looks like mountain bike

The point is - the fact that they create many types of standards and parts does not mean that you need to buy and try them all. They are simply trying to give choice for everyone. some like 21 speed, some 24, some like 2x10 some 1x10, some 1x1. they all want their parts, so manufacturers try to make everyone happy by creating parts for them all.

but that is only my opinion. I just saw ad about new cool plane to buy for just 2 million bucks... it does not mean that they say I need to buy it, it does not mean I care or will buy it. But some people will, and they probably care


----------



## Doedrums (Mar 7, 2010)

Why is it that everyone who writes something like the OP, has to brag about how they "left the people on new bikes behind" with their old bike? Enjoy your old bike. I like progress. Here is a pro tip...if you don't like something, DON"T BUY IT.


----------



## Millfox (Jun 22, 2012)

Some things in the letter have a point.

I also dont understand the reason for 2x10 or (new) 1x11 shifting systems. Sure that front derailleurs can be a pain in the ass but they ad flexibility to the ride. With 1x11 they plan to sell about 5 versions of crank wheels depending on the teeth count. With a classic 3x10 they sell 44-33-22 or 42-32-22... Thats much more of an all rounder IMHO.

And those bottom brackets... I'm having quite a problem finding an octalink 1 for my bike these days. Cranks are OK but I guess I'll have to swap... THANKS a lot shimano!

EDIT: I dont really see problem in new standards. Thing that bugs me more is the fact that sooner or later we'll be forced to buy a 2x10 or 1x11 because there will be nothing else that will be decent on the market.


----------



## digthemlows (Feb 5, 2012)

While I agree that marketing is always directed towards making you think you need something vs. wanting it.......I disagree that progress is not got........Progress rules..........I don't care if some guy with a rigid bike kicks my ass up or down the hill, I'm having fun on my Full Suspension bike and going at a pace that I feel suits me...........Expensive, hell yeah, but so is any hobby that isn't mass produced and available at Walmart.........supply and demand creates the prices not the industry....


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

Millfox said:


> And those bottom brackets... I'm having quite a problem finding an octalink 1 for my bike these days. Cranks are OK but I guess I'll have to swap... THANKS a lot shimano!


You must not have looked very hard:
Universal Cycles -- Bottom Brackets > Shimano Bottom Brackets


----------



## dm1333 (Jun 27, 2010)

I'll buy some of what the OP is selling! I like full suspension and disc brakes but........... I've also spent a lot of money on brakes over the last year only to end up with BB7's because they work (and only when I want them to, not all the time!) and they don't squeal all of the time, unlike my fancy hydraulic brakes.


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

I like shiny things.


----------



## B-Mac (Oct 2, 2008)

Open letter to the bike industry:

Dear Bike industry:

Thank you for not listening to guys like the OP. I love hauling the mail downhill on my fully suspended mountain bikes, complete with $300 dropper post and 31.8mm handlebars. Your dropper post has prevented me from getting launched over the bars numerous times when I wouldn't have wanted to pull over to drop my seat manually. The bars - super stiff & personally, I think the extra diameter makes the bars and the bike look burly! The new tires you've come up with are simply fantastic - superbly grippy. Taken as a package, your research and experimentation, and the millions of dollars associated therewith, allow me, a complete hack, to ride & jump WAAY faster, further and higher than I ever could have without your effort. 

By the way - lock on grips - fantastic. Love not having to spend an entire afternoon changing a worn out handgrip.

While some of your stuff just is not for me (feel free to keep your 29r's), you guys have engineered a concept to an extent not contemplated at the time of its birth - solely in the name of promoting FUN. Your bikes today go faster, smoother, and fly higher then anyone would have thought possible in 1984, the year I bought my first MTB (a schwinn sierra BTW). 

Keep it up! There are those of us who WILL pony up when you improve a product we're interested in and will not simply sneer that you've created a "new standard." And bear in mind that while you must endure the online protestations (and occasional phone calls of those luddites who have not evolved beyond brazed-together cromoly, we, your customers, are the ones who suffer the fate of being stuck behind said luddites as they skitter haphazardly down hills and ride around obstacles too steep or fearsome for their underdeveloped steeds. 

Pity us.


----------



## wookie (Jan 24, 2007)

dgw2jr said:


> Paragraphs are awesome


Was thinking the same thing (and justify your margin)!


----------



## wintersolstice (Feb 26, 2012)

B-Mac said:


> Open letter to the bike industry:
> 
> Dear Bike industry:
> 
> ...


Totally agree
I rode the heck out of my old Trek 8000 - but now that I've spent some quality time on my new bike, there is no going back.
The advances that have been made over the last 20 years are just incredible. Everything from geometry to materials technology has undergone a huge change. If standards changed a little requiring some new parts? 
No big deal.


----------



## Bjdraw (Jun 3, 2012)

Choices? Didn't realize everyone doesn't appreciate them.


----------



## Pisgah (Feb 24, 2006)

I believe there is a difference between progress/innovation and planned obsolescence. I suspect the OP is against planned obsolescence. I was one of the first people in my area with disc brakes, I like good suspension, beefy tires, tubeless, clipless pedals, etc. But I detest products like ten speed (and maybe 11 speed already) which don't really improve anything for me (although I am quite sure it improves the bottom line of manufacturers and bike dealers). 

I am beginning to see the same thing happen with headsets. Bike manufacturers are now changing those designs, and I have never had a freaking problem with my Chris Kings (and I ride aggressively in wet conditions). Currently, I am putting off buying a new bike simply because I have no want for 10 speed, I have many Chris King headsets and "old style" threaded bottom brackets (most of which will not work with new bikes these days because I am told they are obsolete).

But I must disagree with the OP about 29ers. I do not put them in the planned obsolescence category (even though I don't own one yet).


----------



## Cormac (Aug 6, 2011)

rev106 said:


> I turned away from mountain biking magazines for few years and when I came back, mountain bikes no longer existed. There are xc, all mountain, free ride, downhill, etc. but there are no "mountain bikes" anymore. I still own and use a mountain bike, I understand that by creating labels and slicing the pie in ever-smaller slices you can perhaps sucker someone into buying a bunch of bikes that only get used for one type of trail.


This part stuck out to me. They are still "mountain bikes" just sub genres if you will. Kinda like punk rock is still rock-n-roll, classic rock is rock-n-roll, metal and all it's sub genres are also still rock-n-roll, etc...you get the idea.

Bikes are designed for a specific purpose these days. And they do that purpose well. Try riding a long travel DH bike on an XC course or some single track. They climb like an elephant. Not designed for it. Likewise, take a XC or trail bike to a DH course. Good luck getting to the bottom still on the bike for one and with you and the bike both intact.

Don't sweat it though full rigid bikes have their place too. Mostly as SS. But it could be preference. If you like that type of bike, then ride it and enjoy! You can even laugh at all the higher end new tech machines you leave in your wake. Because at the end of the day tech only gets you so far. Your body still has to do 99% of the work.


----------



## ParkOreo (Jul 17, 2012)

:yikes:


----------



## joeinchi (Jun 19, 2010)

I don't believe the OP is against improvement, as much as, the *planned obsolescence* which seem a bit too common in the MTB world.

If you're not familiar, it's the strategy many companies use to sell more product next year. Back in Detroit's heyday, the big 3 would change the car's body styling every year simply to move more product, e.g. '55, '56' and '57 Chevy. In the electronics world, Sony came out with a portable tape player called The Walkman. And then followed up with the CD version. And then tried a mini CD until Apple made them irrelevant.

When you get something better for your money, there's little reason to complain. But when I don't see a benefit ... yeah, I'll pass.

_(Edit: Ah Pisgah, you beat me to it!  )_


----------



## wintersolstice (Feb 26, 2012)

Pisgah said:


> I believe there is a difference between progress/innovation and planned obsolescence. I suspect the OP is against planned obsolescence. I was one of the first people in my area with disc brakes, I like good suspension, beefy tires, tubeless, clipless pedals, etc. But I detest products like ten speed (and maybe 11 speed already) which don't really improve anything for me (although I am quite sure it improves the bottom line of manufacturers and bike dealers).
> 
> I am beginning to see the same thing happen with headsets. Bike manufacturers are now changing those designs, and I have never had a freaking problem with my Chris Kings (and I ride aggressively in wet conditions). Currently, I am putting off buying a new bike simply because I have no want for 10 speed, I have many Chris King headsets and "old style" threaded bottom brackets (most of which will not work with new bikes these days because I am told they are obsolete).
> 
> But I must disagree with the OP about 29ers. I do not put them in the planned obsolescence category (even though I don't own one yet).


9 speed is still available (and pretty cheap). 
I just bought 2 new frames, both of which use threaded bottom brackets - no need to upgrade there any time soon.

A lot of the modifications are manufacturers trying to solve engineering issues while still keeping bikes affordable. Some changes are fashionable, but if you go do the research on things like bottom brackets there are some pretty solid reasons for many of the changes.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

manufacturers are still trying to sort out the bottom bracket stuff. headsets to a smaller degree. but compatibility with older stuff is still available in new gear. For some things, I'm going to stick with the older tech until the newer stuff gets sorted out. Like the drivetrain stuff. I don't think we've seen the end of rapid change there, either.

but other things, the OP gets a great bit "meh" from me. I am sold on disc brakes. not going back. I enjoy my FS. I enjoy my rigid, too. I like variety for handlebar shapes. I like tubeless tires. I like tubes. I like clipless pedals. I like platform pedals. Dropper posts have a place. So do plain 'ol rigid posts (but cheap posts of any sort suck). I love lock on grips, too. I like choices.


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

I like the change. I can also think back to how much I liked my XT thumbies, 7 speed, and my first Manitou (1 thank you!) fork. My current ride has PF30, a tapered headtube, 1x10, hydro brakes, tubeless, wide handlebar, and lock-on grips. Love it. Like someone said above, you can still have a bike with a ST BB, 7 speed, etc. if you want. Oh, and BTW, I like rolling my 5'6" ass on my 29er by Two Tall Jones riding a 26er..talk about looking like a carnie....


----------



## EMrider (Sep 9, 2007)

"Open letters" of any sort are predictably unoriginal and self-absorbed. This one largely fits the bill. 

I like choice, am fine making my own decisions and don't assume that I know enough to tell the industry what to do. The market does that just fine. 

R


----------



## MendonCycleSmith (Feb 10, 2005)

I'm in two camps here.

I could not agree more on BB headset and rear end standards. 

Tell me someone can really feel the improvement from BB30 to PF30? Um, no. Just another standard I need to be aware of, and keep track of. Of course, 3 years from now, it will be PF30.1, and of course, non compatible with PF30. 

Yes, square taper is a tad flexier, so okay, we have at least 3 generations of stiffer options already (Isis, Octalink, HollowTech II etc), do we really need 14 new ones every year now?

Headset standards, Tapered, really? That much better than 1 point five? Hmm, where'd that one go anyway????

So you want a headset, "can I have a tapered headset please?" Which one? Inset, zero stack, etc etc etc. Again, feel any difference from Inset to Zero Stack? Doubt it.

How about one tapered "standard" even? Pretty effin' please????

Rear ends. 135 makes sense, has for years. There's already tandem in 145 and 160 which is wider for those who'd need it. Then we came out with 150, okay, fine, wider is better, DH guys like it for a beefier rear wheel etc. So, with all those existing ones, yep, absolutely, we need 142 as well, cause gosh, that just solves everything. 

I'm pretty retro grouchy, yes, but that said, I do like a lot of what's come out of the growth the industry has seen. I like my 6" 29er, disc brakes etc. I like my fat bike too, a whole bunch.

I guess what I don't like is incessant change marketed as improvement, when really, it doesn't change anything that much besides the makers bottom line, as it forces you to buy their option. 

Perhaps slow it down. Give us stuff every few years. Let us wear crap out a bit first. Gosh, you might even learn something groundbreaking by taking to the time to smell the roses, instead of headlong rushing to make it .000034526% newer, stiffer, lighter, every goddamn year.....


----------



## Vlad (Feb 7, 2004)

My daily rider is a '98 Curtlo (steel hardtail w/ 80mm fork, for those of you who don't know) with square taper and v-brakes. I love this bike and know how to ride it fast. That said, I can't deny that a modern bike is better in many respects. I just happen to enjoy riding steel hardtails, especially mine.


----------



## Vlad (Feb 7, 2004)

The OP's point was fairly clear. It's just that he brought absolutely nothing new to the table.


----------



## jmmUT (Sep 15, 2008)

One interesting thing to consider is that the BMX industry did the exact opposite. 

Parts needed to be easily replaced and most companies were rider owned (to varying extent) by rider punks . 

So they all settled on what worked. A big part of it was the riders couldn't afford to stick to proprietary sizing every time something got bashed.

It takes a real long time and a lot of real abuse as testing for a new standard to gain any acceptance and prove itself in the BMX world.


----------



## Pisgah (Feb 24, 2006)

Vlad said:


> The OP's point was fairly clear. It's just that he brought absolutely nothing new to the table.


Your response seems purposely ironic (if I am remembering my english rhetoric correctly).


----------



## Mr.Magura (Aug 11, 2010)

OP sure has a point, it's just pretty much yesterdays news.

I share the frustration that all those "standards" brings, as very few of them offers any real improvement. 

This is part of the reason I more or less make whatever I can find the time to male myself now. 

Among the bikes I own, I can count as much as 7 different bottom bracket types, none being compatible. I guess 2 or 3 of them offered an improvement at the time of production, the rest was just made to line somebody's pockets.

Magura


----------



## Pisgah (Feb 24, 2006)

jmmorath said:


> One interesting thing to consider is that the BMX industry did the exact opposite.
> 
> Parts needed to be easily replaced and most companies were rider owned (to varying extent) by rider punks .
> 
> ...


I remember mountain bike standards in the early 90s (when I started) being similar to your BMX description. Who knows, maybe BMX has remained more grass roots than mountain biking.


----------



## sumgai (Apr 3, 2009)

Buy a 5" travel trail bike for a do anything bike or a hard tail 29er race bike and call it a day. Disc brakes, light weight supple suspension, carbon fiber frames, through axles, and drop seat posts are all great progressions where it counts - for the rider. Yes, it can be a lot to take in and digest for a beginner, but that's what your local bike shop is for. Get to know them. Demo some bikes. A good LBS will help you narrow down your choices based on your needs. Buy from them once in awhile even through you can get stuff cheaper online. You'll need them around one day to help nurse your ride back into shape.


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

My letter to the computer industry: 

Shame on you for changing the punch cards I used in the 1960's. I'm now confused, and it YOUR FAULT!!!


----------



## 1soulrider (Jan 21, 2004)

rev106 said:


> An open letter to the bike industry
> 
> Dear Bike Industry,
> 
> My mountain bike is old for sure and my friends that have newer bikes are still behind me just like they are before they had a new bike with all of the new "improvements" in technology, I expected them to leave me in the dust being that I have only 21 speeds and they 30, but alas it did not happen.


When was the last time you could buy a 7 speed cassette, chainrings or chain? 15 - 20 years ago? Doesn't sound like you put a lot of miles in......that stuff wears out regularly if you ride much. 
Although that might be the industry trying to keep you down as well.



rev106 said:


> At some point I just feel like you think I'm an idiot .


At this point right now actually.


----------



## Vlad (Feb 7, 2004)

Pisgah said:


> Your response seems purposely ironic (if I am remembering my english rhetoric correctly).


Haha... I wasn't going for irony. I simply posted what I felt.


----------



## Sandrenseren (Dec 29, 2011)

MendonCycleSmith said:


> Perhaps slow it down. Give us stuff every few years. Let us wear crap out a bit first. Gosh, you might even learn something groundbreaking by taking to the time to smell the roses, instead of headlong rushing to make it .000034526% newer, stiffer, lighter, every goddamn year.....


Thing is, people read reviews and crave those .000034526% because they think it'll make a world of difference. The manufacturers make those .000034526% because people are willing to throw good money after it.

As long as people are willing to buy pointless "improvements" just because it's something new and might make things microscopically better, manufacturers will keep inventing pointless "improvements" to fuel the hype and let the fools part with their money.


----------



## FX4 (Jun 12, 2012)

kapusta said:


> My letter to the computer industry:
> 
> Shame on you for changing the punch cards I used in the 1960's. I'm now confused, and it YOUR FAULT!!!


Punch cards? Man way too modern, I loaded ferrite core memory with dip switches...


----------



## FX4 (Jun 12, 2012)

Sandrenseren said:


> Thing is, people read reviews and crave those .000034526% because they think it'll make a world of difference. The manufacturers make those .000034526% because people are willing to throw good money after it.
> 
> As long as people are willing to buy pointless "improvements" just because it's something new and might make things microscopically better, manufacturers will keep inventing pointless "improvements" to fuel the hype and let the fools part with their money.


Or maybe just buy what fits your budget and needs today then wear it out and buy what is current at that point in time. I don't worry about the incremental upgrades between purchases. However, every time I buy new I think, man what an upgrade.


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

rev106: Your passion for vintage bikes is cool and all, but really, you need to learn more about this new stuff before you trash it.

Also, I don't know where people get the idea that "multiple standards" (an oxymoron, I know) is anything new. 

Headsets: Back in the 90's you had a whole mess of headset and steertube types. Threaded, unthreaded, and several diameters. 

Cranks / BB. Honestly I don't see what the issue is, here, you buy the bb with the crank, and when the bb wears out, you replace it. Just like it was with square taper. Besides, ST is not one universal size, anyway, you need a different lengths for different cranks.

If you think some new standard that is being forced on everyone is actually worse, that's one thing (and there are a couple of those examples), but you seem to have a problem with things simply changing at all, or the fact that everyone is not forced to buy the same thing.

Adjusting for inflation, you get WAY more bike for your money now than you did back in the "good old days".


----------



## jmmUT (Sep 15, 2008)

*With some exceptions,*

In modern BMX:
Every handlebar fits every stem
Every fork fits every frame
Within race or street/jump disciplines every rear axle fits every frame
Within race or street disciplines every front axle fits every fork
There are a couple different BB widths, but the systems are all the same and BBs are cheap
Every race crank fits the same BCD chainring while every street/jump crank fits the same chainrings
Every seatpost for a street/jump BMX fits every frame.
Pivotal seats have come into fashion more so than railed, so you have to think about that buying a post or seat.
Etc...

There's something pretty eloquent about that. 
Do you:
A. Race or street/jump?
B. Which of 3 sizes is your BB shell width?
C. What kind of seatpost do you have?
D. OK go ride now

In MTBing, people have to consider more questions than that just picking a fork. Of course MTBs are more complicated, but we could learn something from this.

*Disclaimer: I ride rigid SS, not just on my BMX


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

I like my 29er with disc brakes( BB7) and tubeless tires. Go pedal and get some perspective.


----------



## 92gli (Sep 28, 2006)

Dear Redline and Profile,

Thanks for pushing splined cranksets in the early 80's. Square taper blew then and it still does.

-The guy who stopped reading the rant and rolled his eyes when he got to "square taper".


----------



## tartosuc (May 18, 2006)

My bike is now way more reliable than the ones i used to have in the 80s 90s and 2ks...
So i'm all for evolution and progressions of bike parts.

Thers are still a few things that are a bit stupid with new standards...bb30 for example...the need for bigger bearings made the bb30 happen, why not use the bmx bb size instead of starting another size!?


----------



## NEPMTBA (Apr 7, 2007)

Just don't give into technology, buy the stuff you want, ride the stuff you wanna ride. It's tested for years and if you work on it youself you should have aquired the tools and knowledge so it should be second nature by now!

Tech is good...problem is my riding rigid, v brake mt bikes is a great thing, but can I get a technological update on the "dirt" I ride on? LMAO

WTB...Saab 2 stroke car


----------



## VBrakesAndBarEnds (Jun 24, 2012)

The bike industry needs to make money .... So, yes they will make changes so they can sell $hit.... Make you lead to believe that your bike is crap.... All industries do this... 

I personally think any cassette with more than 7 gears is completely unnecessary... same goes for hydraulic disc brakes... I mean really... hyrdaulic disc brakes on a bicycle ??? maybe if the rider is over 300 lbs... I've never once had issues or complaints with V brakes... 

I started mountain biking in 1992 so maybe I am becoming one of those geezers who is always complaining and not embracing change ... But this is how I honestly feel...

I am learning to like the 29 inch wheel... It definitely has it's beneficial uses...

Also, suspension fork technology has improved a lot and become more affordable...


----------



## VBrakesAndBarEnds (Jun 24, 2012)

Oh and one more thing....

Doesn't it seem too coincidental that the push/fad for 29 inch wheels happened right around the time the economy tanked (2008)....

????


----------



## dirtdan (Jun 27, 2011)

moonraker said:


> It's the marketing and advertising that annoys the crap outta me. I got a subscription to BIKE magazine the beginning of this year, and I thought it was neat...at first. Now I can barely stand to look thru it. All the shiny ads, the coddled bike testers, the constant pics of beautiful B.C.'s north shore. It all makes me feel unworthy on my 5 year old bike, riding thru the same old scenery.


I definitely am not a fan of marketing and advertising, but by letting those ads affect your emotions, you're giving pictures on pieces of paper way too much power. Ads in the magazines help keep the price of the magazine down. Your rant would not be much different from me starting to complain about all the ads posted on this site. It's just how it is. Pedal along and have fun!


----------



## bigbadwulff (Jan 18, 2012)

I think(may be wrong) the idea was "standards" and not progress. Standard means it's universal. I think that was the point....................... but maybe not


----------



## charmon2 (Jun 6, 2005)

Say what you want but progress will happen with or without our blessing. While it obviously has something to do with marketing or corporate greed or whatever else you want to call it, it also has to do with human nature. We always want to improve on what we already have. So what if they come up with 99 bad ideas if the 100th really does work and makes life better (biking or any other application you want to insert here). Ask all the soldiers coming home with missing limbs if they would prefer new, modern prosthetics or stick with the technology of decades past. 

Also, not all companies are jumping on the new technology to screw the consumers. I wish I knew how to post links to videos but there is one on YouTube where a Santa Cruz rep talks specifically about not going with a press in BB on the Highball because the benefit was marginal at best and it limited user serviceability.


----------



## gridtalker (Dec 7, 2006)

jfryauff said:


> seriously, i'm going to have "entrance of the gladiators" playing in my head everytime i hoist my 5' 8" body onto my 29'er.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


lol


----------



## SoCalAl (Aug 29, 2004)

92gli said:


> Dear Redline and Profile,
> 
> Thanks for pushing splined cranksets in the early 80's. Square taper blew then and it still does.
> 
> -The guy who stopped reading the rant and rolled his eyes when he got to "square taper".


Yup, he lost me at square taper as well. Splined were a huge improvement.


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

brianmayeux said:


> I personally think any cassette with more than 7 gears is completely unnecessary... same goes for hydraulic disc brakes... I mean really... hyrdaulic disc brakes on a bicycle ??? maybe if the rider is over 300 lbs...


Try a long or really fast downhill on v-brakes, or some really wet riding. V-brakes just don't get it done in those conditions, though they're still fine for XC.



brianmayeux said:


> Doesn't it seem too coincidental that the push/fad for 29 inch wheels happened right around the time the economy tanked (2008)....


29" wheels on mountain bikes were around a lot longer than then.


----------



## citiznkain (Jun 11, 2012)

_"My mountain bike is old for sure and my friends that have newer bikes are still behind me just like they are before they had a new bike with all of the new "improvements" in technology, I expected them to leave me in the dust being that I have only 21 speeds and they 30, but alas it did not happen. "_

Have you ever stopped to think that maybe you are in better physical shape than your friends? I've ridden with dudes that have single speeds that have mopped the floor with me and I struggle to keep up. My new bike must be crap. because i can't keep up with people that are in way better shape the me....


----------



## bigbadwulff (Jan 18, 2012)

Oh the "evil" corporate "greed". Let's not make money. Heaven forbid. That would be awful to sell things, create jobs, and create wealth. I shudder at the thought.


----------



## Millfox (Jun 22, 2012)

I totally dont agree on the hydraulic brakes part. Its something great and although the maintenance is a bit timely it ads a great deal of modulation to the braking power.


----------



## Wanny (Jul 30, 2011)

Dude I totally love my dropper post lol


----------



## car bone (Apr 15, 2011)

I also took a break from riding a few years, and when I returned I found out I liked lock on grips, hydros, good platform pedals, riser bars. Well there is a lot of more stuff to choose from now, there are hundreds of bars, steel, ti, alu 10 differenrt grades, sweeps and swoops and god knows what.

But some things I see as definite downtrades or at least quite annoying, and because there are so many standards to keep track of you seriously need to spend some SERIOUS damn time to find out what you need and whats actually good (good=durable). Can't really say I care for Carbon or alu frames, Carbon components, 9sp, 10sp or lol 11sp. Suspension. 29ers, 650b (but I like the look of that size wheels, and I buy lots of stuff becuse i like the look of it), outboard bb bearings, pedals that need special shoes and so on. But I'm not racing so I could care less about most things really.

I like a solid feel and unbreakableness. And I feel the bikes made in 1990-1992 or thereabout wins in the looks department over almost all new bikes. someone needs to put bikes that looks like that into production again, but using new components and tech of course (and ditch the foot long stems plz).

Am I a retro grouch? I'm only allowed to post in the VRC forum now? Maybe a little. Different horses for different courses! Some like carbon I like clean and classy looks.


----------



## dru (Sep 4, 2006)

I get the OP's point to a point.....but I like technological progress! I have a new fork (as well as an old one), a 29er, discs on both bikes, etc, and the new cranks out there have to be stiffer than my old square taper ones, and 36/12 cassettes are most definitely a nice wide range that I'd like to try ( I still run 8 speed on one bike and IGH on the other). 

New can be good but what bothers me is so many of the 'improvements' the manufacturers push really aren't. I started with standard MTB cranks with 110/74 BCD and soon faced with 94/58? BCD compact which isn't compatible. This was marketed as good for ground clearance but the smaller cassettes that came with compact wore out quicker than standard. Then the new stuff came out and I'm actually unsure of the 4 arm sizes since I'm using the former two on the 29er and 26er. How exactly is 4 arm an improvement over 5? I don't recall people bending rings with 5 arm cranks....

The PM vs IS mount garbage is another example. One of the big fork players didn't like IS and used its marketing power to change the standard. Why? Brakes? They are really not that hard to set up. IS stands for ISO which is the whole damn point of having a standard! The only upside for me is the 180MM rotor and post mount adaptor providing better XTR power on my 29er. 

Not much else to say since I generally like progress....

Drew


----------



## Cabin Fever (Jan 23, 2004)

This thread is the most amazing string of drivel I've ever read. Geez, this stuff isn't that hard to sort through - you'd think most of you didn't graduate from 5th grade. Let us not forget all the other BB standards and headset standards of yore - italian/english/french/swiss/chater lea/raleigh/"evolution"/klein-press-fit bottom brackets, and don't forget all the various 1" headset variations.

Isn't anyone going to give thanks that our industry finally settled on 2 main wheel sizes - 26 and 700c? Do any of you even realize how many different wheel/tire sizes there have been over the years? Tire Sizing Systems

I also love how many of you think that all these new BB and headset standards are making bike shops and dealers rich. Because shops love having to having to stock 30 different BB standards, even the useless ones, just because someone may need it some day.

Besides, we're feeding the OP troll.


----------



## 440fish (Apr 10, 2011)

Dear Mt Bike rider

Please understand as a mfg we need to constantly change our offerings in order to sell new bikes. If we did not give you the ability to show off bling to your buddies at the trail head you would never buy a new bike. We also understand that the vast majority of you suck and buy a bike that well exceeds your abilities. It is common knowledge that the avg rider is a cheap **** and will buy our products from an Internet site then whine when it fails and the LBS won't warranty it. Our engineers strive to build a sub 30# bike that will take 12' drops with a 230# rider or else we fear being lambasted on an Internet forum. It is also important to note that we have about 6 months to reengineer /manufacture new products since you winey ****s need the next model year earlier and earlier so we have limited r&d time. I especially appreciate comments on personal setup like bar withs and seat posts. What works for you MUST work for everyone else. Lastly, we apologize for offering an extremely hi tech product made from specialized materials that ends up being tortured in dirty, wet and dusty environments yet never receives ANY maintenance until it breaks and it's "our" fault. 

Sorry
Mr bike mfg




Just havin fun.... I do agree theres some things that the mfg's should standardize for everyone's sake. Might help with keeping cost down too.


----------



## 92gli (Sep 28, 2006)




----------



## 92gli (Sep 28, 2006)




----------



## FX4 (Jun 12, 2012)

:thumbsup:That was good.


440fish said:


> Dear Mt Bike rider
> 
> Please understand as a mfg we need to constantly change our offerings in order to sell new bikes. If we did not give you the ability to show off bling to your buddies at the trail head you would never buy a new bike. We also understand that the vast majority of you suck and buy a bike that well exceeds your abilities. It is common knowledge that the avg rider is a cheap **** and will buy our products from an Internet site then whine when it fails and the LBS won't warranty it. Our engineers strive to build a sub 30# bike that will take 12' drops with a 230# rider or else we fear being lambasted on an Internet forum. It is also important to note that we have about 6 months to reengineer /manufacture new products since you winey ****s need the next model year earlier and earlier so we have limited r&d time. I especially appreciate comments on personal setup like bar withs and seat posts. What works for you MUST work for everyone else. Lastly, we apologize for offering an extremely hi tech product made from specialized materials that ends up being tortured in dirty, wet and dusty environments yet never receives ANY maintenance until it breaks and it's "our" fault.
> 
> ...


----------



## Salty_Sea (Jul 19, 2012)

I like free market and innovation. I don't see a problem here. The free market will sort out itself


----------



## james-42 (Jan 19, 2012)

Recently replaced my 1995 Stumpjumper with a 2012 Stumpjumper 29er. It's faster, more comfortable, and the stiff front end with its plush suspension fork total saved my bacon last week while I was ripping down a long, steep, and very bumpy downhill. Had I been on my 1995 Stump, I would have been head over heals. I was amazed at (and very grateful for) how the 2012 Stump's front end tracked like I was on pavement and let me regain control.

Also enjoy the realization every time I pull the brake lever I'm *not* wearing away my rim. And brake fade is thankfully becoming a fading memory.


----------



## woahey (Sep 1, 2010)

If it weren't for changing standards, we'd all be on one of these. I wanna watch somebody take a 3' drop on this, or rail a corner at 20 mph, or ride it for more than 5 minutes before loosing feeling in their nether regions...


----------



## rebel1916 (Sep 16, 2006)

I hate these kids today. With their dancing and their loud rock n roll. Also, get off my lawn.


----------



## Doug M (Mar 7, 2011)

Your points are more or less true..BUT...Bikes are toys.and i like playing with and buying toys.
Doug


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

You might as well tell the bicycle industry to stop trying to make money. It's shorter and easier to read.


----------



## Ailuropoda (Dec 15, 2010)

I started riding in 1992 on a Bridgestone MB4. Today, my primary bike is a 2011 Specialized Enduro. They weigh the same and in inflation adjusted dollars they cost the same but the Enduro is 10 times the bike because of all of that new-fangled, marketing driven technology that the OP can do without.

I have a rigid single-speed for when I want to go retro (but it weighs 19 pounds) but I really like my hydraulic brakes, six inches of suspension, Hammerschmidt, dropper post, and the whole package that makes up today's super-bikes.

Seems silly to complain about advances in what are essentially big, useless toys. Last time I checked there were thousands of different bikes and millions of combinations of components to choose from. Specialized, my favorite company, by themselves make bikes for every budget and with every level of technology.

Seriously, they're just bikes. Buying one is not a huge decision like enlisting in the Marines or getting married. Heck, buying a new bike is fun. I like looking at different bikes and components. There are a lot of choices but isn't that part of the fun?

Mountain biking is fun, right?


----------



## ehigh (Apr 19, 2011)

I feel that there's more color needed on this black and white picture you're trying to paint. Personally, I subscribed to a lot of their BS. and some of it certainly is just that. However, I wanted a comfortable bike. I find a lot of just that in my new bike versus the 90s Hardrock I started on, and then "my" first bike, a 2006 Hardrock, and even the 2008 norco fluid v4 I rode around for a test year. if what you ride is comfortable, but I feel that your message is very strident and stark in comparison to how it is. It's the same with any consumer market, you end up with a bunch of people buying the high end gear they cannot entirely utilize. But that is a lot of people to bash on, and bashing on all of them would ultimately make you a hypocrite in the eyes of many alike because I am certain that in some way you subscribe to a form of elitism, even if its just counter elite-cyclist culture ideals.

By the way, is this Mark?


----------



## esw116 (May 10, 2012)

net wurker said:


> I'm not sure the bike industry will see your letter, here in passion. I think the bike industry hangs out in the all-mountain forum, and the dowhhill/freeride forum, the 29'r forum and sometimes the xc forum.


Even if they do see it, they won't spend even 5 seconds reading it because of how ugly the formatting is and because of his poor grammar.

Want to get somebody's attention in written form? Do a better job at writing it.

That said, I get annoyed hearing about people satisfied with their old bikes. You're fast on your 20 year old rig and don't see any point in upgrading. That is really good for you. Clearly you are a special snowflake.

But guess what, it's not your money being spent on this shiny new tech, so don't worry about it. For many, the technological and engineering aspect of mountain biking is part of what makes it so fun. It's a hobby, and we're supposed to splurge on our hobbies every now and then.


----------



## SpecializedWindsor (Jul 19, 2012)

bigbadwulff said:


> Oh the "evil" corporate "greed". Let's not make money. Heaven forbid. That would be awful to sell things, create jobs, and create wealth. I shudder at the thought.


Hey, look on the bright side - he'll never get employed with that attitude. 
He sounds like the kind of person who wants everything given to him.


----------



## ghettocop (Jul 26, 2011)

Ailuropoda said:


> I started riding in 1992 on a Bridgestone MB4. Today, my primary bike is a 2011 Specialized Enduro. They weigh the same and in inflation adjusted dollars they cost the same but the Enduro is 10 times the bike because of all of that new-fangled, marketing driven technology that the OP can do without.
> 
> I have a rigid single-speed for when I want to go retro (but it weighs 19 pounds) but I really like my hydraulic brakes, six inches of suspension, Hammerschmidt, dropper post, and the whole package that makes up today's super-bikes.
> 
> ...


Great post man.........(except for the liking Specialized part)!!!


----------



## MendonCycleSmith (Feb 10, 2005)

I think what's getting missed in everyones need to dogpile on the OP is this. 

None of you have answered., near as I can tell, why it is that we as cyclists, desiring better stuff, need multiple, completely non intercompatible standards for things that can be bought from many different manufacturers. 

It's a given, that you can buy a headset from many makers. Ditto for cranks, and hubs. 

These components are all pretty basic, and at this point, pretty sussed out. Also, pretty well made, and durable, hence, they don't wear out too often. Gee, how do I get people to buy my stuff as they buy it once, and it lasts for years, because I'm good at what I do. I know, change standards! Why wait till they actually wear something out?

Do you, as a rider, really notice a huge difference, going from say, an aluminum hardtail with external bearing BB (nice, old school threaded BB shell), 1 1/8 " head tube, and a 135 rear end, to a hardtail with PF30, tapered head tube (I know, I know, which tapered standard you ask. I don't care, choose the one that gives you wood) and a 142 rear end?

Both bikes will have 80 mm forks. 

I challenge anyone here to really truly quantify how their experience is SOOOOOO much better on the "modern" bike. 

You can't.

That, is what I think the issue is. Nothing wrong with actual improvement. Plenty wrong with totally incompatible standards that force consumers hands to purchase more components from an ever shrinking number of suppliers, who charge ever more for their goods because of their now captive market. 

Simple case in point. My fatbike. I have a Pugsley, with a 135 rear end. It works fine, but the chain is really close to the tire in granny and in certain situations it can catch and make the chain suck downward. The new rear 170mm standard was created to solve that issue, which it does well. Yes, new stuff, and standard, but it actually solves a problem. You have 135, 145 and 150 (and more too). Tell me how 142 is so much better.....


----------



## 1soulrider (Jan 21, 2004)

MendonCycleSmith said:


> Tell me how 142 is so much better.....


Clean easy to use (tooless in most cases) 12mm through axle with no need for a different hub width, most quality hubs offer conversion kits as well. 
If you don't understand how this is better than the flexy pos q/r system I really don't know what to say to you.

I also would not consider an aluminum hardtail a modern bike, try a full suspension trailbike from ten years ago and compare it to what we have now. Without question there is a night and day difference.


----------



## NoahColorado (Aug 3, 2004)

MendonCycleSmith said:


> Do you, as a rider, really notice a huge difference, going from say, an aluminum hardtail with external bearing BB (nice, old school threaded BB shell), 1 1/8 " head tube, and a 135 rear end, to a hardtail with PF30, tapered head tube (I know, I know, which tapered standard you ask. I don't care, choose the one that gives you wood) and a 142 rear end?
> 
> Both bikes will have 80 mm forks.
> 
> ...


The large tapered headtube and oversized bottom bracket of the theoretical frame provides more area to join the various frame members resulting in a firmer ride. The 142mm rear end is slotted like a traditional open drop-out for ease of use but uses a large 12mm axle - again, for added stiffness.

These things are unequivocally PERFORMANCE enhancements, whether or not the provide a better experience is irrelevant.

And this example on a aluminum hard-tail with an 80mm fork is a bit silly. It's like asking someone to justify a new Mac Book Pro when all they do is e-mail and surf the web. For the types of bikes I ride, many of the new standards and technological breakthroughs have been a godsend.


----------



## Ailuropoda (Dec 15, 2010)

MendonCycleSmith said:


> None of you have answered., near as I can tell, why it is that we as cyclists, desiring better stuff, need multiple, completely non intercompatible standards for things that can be bought from maut?


The answer is that it doesn't matter. Buy the bike you want with the components you want an ignore everything else. I mean, realistically I don't really care about my bottom bracket. If it needs service I let my LBS handle it. I have six mountain bikes and I have no idea what kind of bottom bracket any of them have except I suspect my Stumpjumper Carbon Hardtail has press in bearings.

If you do your own service all it means is that you have to own a couple more tools.


----------



## shredjunkie (May 16, 2012)

rev106 said:


> Every time I see some poor 5.5" guy on a 29er, I just feel like the bike industry is made up of carneys and we are it's willing dupes.


Every time I see a 6'4"+ guy towering over 26er like a circus bear on toy bike I can't help but think how ridiculous it was that 26" wheels were the ONLY standard for mountain bikes for so many years. We all have different body types and riding styles and the one-size-fits-all mentality of the early days of mountain biking is, thank Odin, long gone. I love my 29er, it makes me feel like a kid again because it just feels right. My 15 year old Ti Kona King Kahuna sure looks pretty propped up on a stand in my man cave, but I will never choose to ride it over my new Tallboy LTc. Bike industry, if you actually are listening, bring on the changing standards and innovations, I think most of us here are grateful they have finally arrived.


----------



## DavyRay (Apr 13, 2012)

On behalf of the entire bicycle manufacturing industry, I will respond to your open letter.
Thanks.

We did not want to innovate so much, despite what some have said about us.
We would rather keep selling the same designs for years, and simply search for lower cost labor to manufacture and assemble the product.

Thanks again,

The Bicycle Industry


----------



## NicoleB (Jul 21, 2011)

well, my friend who owns a bike shop can probably relate somewhat, since 29er became popular, they've had trouble selling some of their great 26ers. In our area, 26er is good, but thing is, there are people who've NEVER ridden a 29er, come in and claim they need one. He trys to say "here, we have some great 26er trail bikes as well....." 
"NO it has to be a 29er".
"have you tried one yet? do you know what style you prefer? do you want to test ride both?"
"NO i have never ridden a 29er, but thats what i need".

okay.....

by all means, ride what you like, but popularity sometimes has people grabbing on before they know what they even want in a bike.


----------



## MendonCycleSmith (Feb 10, 2005)

The points made are relevant, yes. 

However, you're still missing the point. Multiple standards help no one. 

142, sure, it's cute. So is 150, and it already exists, and you're already buying a new bike anyway, which is why this is even relevant. Nobody is retrofitting a 135 frame to a 142 hub. Hence, new bike, just buy a 150, cause hey, it's 8 mm wider, so thus, by your own admission, stiffer. Why limit your stiffness? I love the 150 mm spacing on my Lenz Lunchbox, no issues, stiff, never find myself going, "man, wish this was 8 mm narrower". 

I'm sure smart folks could come up with adapters for the extra 4 mm per side, just like the 3.5 for the 142. It's just a pointless extra size in a field awash with sizes already.

No issues with TA QR's, like 'em. Did we really need 15 AND 20 in front? No, but at least no one has come out with a 17.5 just to be different, yet...

I'm sure Specialized and Trek are very happy selling everyone on another new standard though.

Taper HT's, we had 1 Point Five already, so there's your wider weld point/stiffener, which I do agree adds chassis stiffness. 

Adding tapered simply muddies the water and allows the rider to keep their stem (phew, I was stressed about that!)

Tapered, offers multiple standards. Just ordered a taper headset for an inbound frame, only to discover, what was ordered for the lower cup, wasn't correct, awesome. :madman: 

My fault for not doing in depth homework, yes. Necessary? No. Tapered should be just that, tapered.

Order a 1 1/8" threadless headset, no surprises. No multiple standards within the "standard"....

BB's, same thing, yes, bigger for stiffer, got it. So we've had BB30 for years via Cannondale. Now toss in PF30, BBRight, BB90, and you have a soup full of standards that would make a builder cry.

I'm all for innovation. I'm all for improvement. All for stiffer frames on FS bikes. I'm happily a Luddite about some stuff, but embrace new too. 

How does having multiple contact angles and two diameters of direct fit headset bearings help anyone, other than make it impossible easily to buy replacement bearings for a customers headset? OEM stuff is a mix mash, and getting to the bottom of what you have is just more hassle for no valid improvement. 36x36, 36x45, 45x45 yada yada yada... 


Not standing on a soap box saying steel and square taper is all we need, not at all. But having so many standards apply to the same parts, from the same year does nothing to improve anything, just makes mechanics lives more annoying, and doesn't allow you to buy a bike and plug in whatever you like.

Isis BB's sucked, but were a great example of the kind of thinking I'd like to see. One standard that all crank and BB makers who chose to, could use, free. 

I could go on, but you guys would obviously rather have a million different standards, just because you can....

Flame away.


----------



## shredjunkie (May 16, 2012)

MendonCycleSmith said:


> Multiple standards help no one.


That's a pretty broad statement. There are cases where multiple standards certainly makes sense, wheel size for instance, and other cases where a good argument could be made against them, headset or bottom brackets perhaps being good examples. Arbitrary and numerous standards are certainly not a good idea, and are perhaps what some here are reacting to, but to go to the other extreme and say we should have only one standard in all cases seems silly to me.

Take a more mature industry that relies on standards, residential construction. The unit of stick frame construction, the wall stud and floor joist, comes in various sizes: 2x4, 2x6, 2x8, 2x10, 2x12, each with their own accompanying hardware standards. Without these multiple standards, you would not able to build walls and floors with different structural, aesthetic, insulation, and sound proofing requirements.

The mountain bike industry is still young and in flux, perhaps one day it will mature like the construction industry and we can settle on groups of standards that make sense, until then just be thankful you have some choice.


----------



## Cayenne_Pepa (Dec 18, 2007)

OP, you're never forced to buy _*anything*_. Be glad MTB is a progressive sport....and not one mired in abject obsolescence. Mind you, I don't even ride with the latest and greatest...even though I can well afford it. But, since I'll never see myself racing - I'm perfectly happy with my two-year-old FS 26er with eight year-old parts. Why? Because the parts I do have are durable. I will replace them as they break....not with the same, but with 2012+ equivalents.

Your letter will only fall upon deaf ears and eyes. Having the upper edge simply does not mean you *need* to have the latest 29er with 2x10 componentry....but with what you are safely having enough fun on.:thumbsup:


----------



## MendonCycleSmith (Feb 10, 2005)

shredjunkie said:


> That's a pretty broad statement.


Taken out of context, you are correct.

Multiple BB or HS standards for bicycles that essentially do the same thing (IE: DH, XC, AM etc) is pointless.

XC bikes, so many standards, so little improvement over one another "in class".

Ditto for the other groups/styles.

Why do I feel like I'm paddling upstream here?

If you think it's great that you can't buy an XTR crank and mount it on any XC chassis you wish, cool, be stuck with whatever carbon crap said maker made an exclusive deal with the crank manufacturer on.

Soon, we'll have multiple derailleur mount options for RD's, sweet!

Worth noting, in case it wasn't apparent, I'm coming at this from a bike shop perspective too.

It was bad enough when FD's came in three clamp diameters, two pulls, and two "swings". I was very happy when they figured out a multi pull system, and included shims for the other sizes. Thank you! I can stock two or three MTB FD's and be covered.

Sadly, now we have two versions of Direct mount to contend with, one simply wasn't sufficient.....

Hey, I even understand direct mount, I do!

That said, welcome to the hell that is trying to stock everything for everyone, and everything.

Or, be accused of being some lame shop that "doesn't stock anything I need"......

:skep:


----------



## shredjunkie (May 16, 2012)

Well, sure... and as a software engineer who works in the Internet industry, my life would sure be easier if everything was written in one language and if all browsers conformed to the exact same standard. Unfortunately that would stifle innovation and we'd all still be browsing with Netscape Navigator and Yahoo lists would still be the best way to track down information. Instead I'm required to know more than a half dozen languages and achieving compatibility across multiple browsers is a major time suck... but that's just the all part of the job description.


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

MendonCycleSmith said:


> I think what's getting missed in everyones need to dogpile on the OP is this.
> 
> None of you have answered., near as I can tell, why it is that we as cyclists, desiring better stuff, need multiple, completely non intercompatible standards for things that can be bought from many different manufacturers.
> 
> ...


Having multiple standards is the only way that things improve. If not for multiple standards, nothing would have changed since the first appearance of mtb's:

-If there were never multiple headset standards, we would still be using 1" threaded.
-If there were never multiple brake standards, we would all be using cantilevers (or maybe u-brakes)
-If there were never multiple shifter / RD / Cassette standards, we would all be running 5 speed.
-If there were never multiple bb standards, we would all be running Square taper.

And for all your talk about this all being a way to squeeze more money out of consumers, the bottom line is that in the end you get a lot more for your money now than you did 20 years ago.

Regarding 142mm:

142 is better because it is a through axle that threads into the frame. It is simply a better way to attach the wheel to the frame than is possible with 135. I have converted 135 frames in the past from QR to through bolt axles, and on a flexy frame it made a HUGE difference. Unfortunately it is a bit awkward to use a through bolt on a vertical dropout. A system like 142 gives the advantage of a through axle but makes it a lot easier to remove and replace the wheel. So there you go.

And many rear hubs are convertible from 135 to 142.

I don't get what your problem with it is. It has the exact same chain-line and everything as 135, it is not a big compatibility issue. If you think this was just some money making scheme, keep in mind that the frame makers are not the ones selling the new hubs. If anything, a manufacturer is taking a risk with a new standard.


----------



## dru (Sep 4, 2006)

I'll side with Mendon, since he's essentially making the same point I was earlier. Some things are BS and have nothing to do with innovation and everything to do with making stuff incompatible and in the end more profitable for the industry.

I'm pretty sure no one here will be able to argue how changing chainring BCD and # of arms offers any sort of improvement at all, simply because there is no benefit.

Standard 110/74 5 bolt rings last longer than 94/58 BCD 5 bolt, and both are far stronger than 104 BCD 4 bolt cranks. I've never heard of people bending 5 bolt rings, unlike 4 bolt models.

Can someone tell me how this is an improvement please?

Here's several years of 4 arm XTR, with 4 different BCD sizes; how are any improved over the others? Do tell.....

146 BCD Shimano XTR M960 Hollowtech 4-arm outer
112 BCD Shimano XTR M950, M952 4-arm middle/outer
104 BCD Shimano XTR M960, 4-arm outer
102 BCD Shimano 2003 XTR 4-arm middle

(courtesy of Sheldon Brown, RIP)


----------



## Barheet (Jul 13, 2012)

Wow, I'm surprised how many people insulted the OP. Surely everyone is entitled to his/her opinion without fear of ridicule? But it's easy to go after someone on the internet, isn't it? 

I'm just getting back into mtb (as in, actually buying stuff) for the first time since 1995. I have to say, bikes have come a long way. The technology on them is fantastic. I love my new 29er with hydro brakes and RockShox. That said, there are a TON of choices out there and I see the OP's point. I shopped for a new bike for 2 weeks and was no closer to deciding at the end than I was at the beginning. It's way too easy to spend a ton of money on a bike that might not necessarily be THAT much better.

At my local LBS, I rode a $650 bike, a $750 bike, a $960 bike, and a $1400 bike. You know what, I really couldn't tell much difference just riding around the parking lot and hopping the curb over and over. It can all be pretty overwhelming, which is, I think, the OP's point. That said, I think having too many options is a great problem to have. Just get out there and have fun with your bike!


----------



## komekomegaijin (Nov 9, 2008)

A few people mentioned that "bikes are toys and are meant to splurge out on from time to time" or something to that effect. That comment speaks volumes about some cyclists disposable income. I'm sure many of us struggle to replace an inner tube when it's needed, let alone bigger purchases or even whole bikes. 
My point is that I get a feeling that it's those with cash to burn who have little problem with new standards as they can easily afford, if not enjoy and want, to change parts/frame/complete bikes.
In my case I have the previous generation Niner S.I.R.9 and I'm really glad I have that model and not the new one as I'm not sure I'd be able to use an IGH with the new rear end. Nor would I be able to pull my BOB trailer with the new one. 

Personally, I'm all for innovation (another 29er fanboy here). On the other hand I'm all for maximum compatibility between parts/frames. I guess the difficulty is achieving a reasonable balance.


----------



## Jon Richard (Dec 20, 2011)

I am sympathetic to MendonCycleSmith's plight from the perspective of a shop owner trying to keep stock of parts and tooling to deal with such a wide spectrum of standards. I believe that as much of a source of frustration this can be for the end user it is much more burdensome for a shop to try and keep that much money on the shelf.

But I do agree that innovation comes at the cost of multiple standards and that some, not all, but many of these innovations are worthy pursuits. I would hope this is a transitionary period and that at some point many of these innovations would go by the way side, but from what I've witnessed over the years I believe the market will become proliferated with proprietary features to accommodate things such as gear boxes or MTB transmissions for example.

I think this is good for the consumer, but a hardship for the local shops. I honestly cannot think of anything man has devised that conforms to a universal standard, we can't even agree on a standard unit of measure. The reality is that the world of bicycles is no different than anything else in regard to a wide array of standards.


----------



## shredjunkie (May 16, 2012)

Barheet said:


> Wow, I'm surprised how many people insulted the OP.


You mean the guy who posted an open letter on the internet in which he accused an entire industry of malicious intent, calling them "carneys" and blaming them for his own ignorance and confusion, all based on his personal paranoid conjecture without providing any hard evidence? Really, you're surprised?


----------



## scrublover (Dec 30, 2003)

I'd assume most (if not all) the posters in here have the discretionary income and leisure time to afford and ride a bike _purely for pleasure. _

Why the whine-fest?


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

The idea that "the industry" makes ANY decisions is ludicrous. _Individual companies_ make decisions. On occasion a few companies will make one together, and in these cases it is usually in order to _agree _on some standard. No company makes a decision because it will benefit "the industry" they make decisions to benefit themselves.

In very few cases can it be demonstrated that a company introducing a new standard just for the sake of it being new would be profitable. If it does not provide some perceived benefit for the consumer, they will not make money on it. If you think that people are being duped as to actual; benefit, blame the mtb consumers for rewarding companies by buying their products.

The CONSUMERS are the ones completely responsible for what "the industry" sells. They sell what we buy. Otherwise they are out of business.


----------



## MendonCycleSmith (Feb 10, 2005)

kapusta said:


> Having multiple standards is the only way that things improve.


The irony is rich. 

"15mm is a second-best solution to a problem that was already solved."

Again, not opposed to new standards.

Imagine if when we went from 1" threaded, the industry threw out 4 different diameters, press fit styles, thread pitches and each bike maker had their own combination version of it.

How would any suspension fork maker choose which was the one to go with?

Like dru brought up with XTR BCD's, how did your life improve, at all?

I'm opposed to pointlessly different, simultaneous standards in the same component. Let one ride for a while, learn from it, and grow with intent.

ISIS was tried, and eventually for the most part, discarded. But it's not like we had 4 different ISIS standards all at the same time.....

I'm on the side of innovation, I don't know why so many can't get that. I'm just not into everyone playing in their corner of the sandbox, making their own salad to bring to the picnic. With a bit of planning and standardization, you end up with a nice meal, not a bunch of crap on the table that no one knows what to do with, and you can't make a decent sandwich out of.


----------



## skylinedrive (Apr 25, 2012)

B-Mac said:


> Open letter to the bike industry:
> 
> ....
> 
> ...


Oooooohhh! my first mtn. bike was a schwinn sierra too in '85! red with white hubs. 
still have the 1983 mtn goat and took it out for a ride last month on some serious trails.

missed the disc brakes and suspension, and index shifting.


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

MendonCycleSmith said:


> The irony is rich.
> 
> "15mm is a second-best solution to a problem that was already solved."


Yes, I'm not a fan of 15mm, but if not for multiple standards, there would be no 20mm either. We would all be stuck with 9mm QR. The problem with 15mm is NOT that it is an extra standard, it is that it is (IMO) inferior to 20mm for nearly all uses.



> Again, not opposed to new standards.


But don't you see that you can't have a "new" standard without at some point having multiple standards? Are you suggesting everyone in the industry all agree to change at once? What if one company thinks it has a better way to do it?



> Imagine if when we went from 1" threaded, the industry threw out 4 different diameters, press fit styles, thread pitches and each bike maker had their own combination version of it.
> 
> How would any suspension fork maker choose which was the one to go with?


But they did NOT do that. What is your point? What they DID do is introduce three different threadless steer tube sizes. One of them caught on the best. What is going on now is actually not as bad. I had no trouble sticking my 2004 1-1/8" fork into a 2011 frame designed to accept straight or tapered forks.



> Like dru brought up with XTR BCD's, how did your life improve, at all?


Who cares about one single product? The point is you have other options, you don't have to keep using XTR. Would you have rather that EVERYONE in the industry had switched together with XTR? It is _because of _multiple standards that you had other choices, one of which was to keep using the same rings. I've got cranks ranging in age from mid/late-90's to 2010 that all use the same ring size. And SO WHAT if it uses something else?



> I'm opposed to pointlessly different, simultaneous standards in the same component. Let one ride for a while, learn from it, and grow with intent.


Who decides what is "pointlessly different"? I for one completely disagree with you about 142mm rear spacing. The market decides, that's who. Yes, I do not always agree with the market (15mm ta and the push for so many gears in the back are examples), but NO WAY would I throw out all the GOOD innovations that came from the same fundamental process as those duds.



> ISIS was tried, and eventually for the most part, discarded. But it's not like we had 4 different ISIS standards all at the same time.....


Yes, ISIS did not work out so well. THANK GOODNESS I had other options at the time.



> I'm on the side of innovation, I don't know why so many can't get that. I'm just not into everyone playing in their corner of the sandbox, making their own salad to bring to the picnic. With a bit of planning and standardization, you end up with a nice meal, not a bunch of crap on the table that no one knows what to do with, and you can't make a decent sandwich out of.


The problem is that you say you are on the side of innovation, but you are opposed to one of the key requirement that makes innovation possible: the opportunity to prove your product on the market.

To use your sandbox/meal analogy, menu by consensus does a good job of making bland food that is basically acceptable to all. Ever see what happens when 4 people need to agree on pizza toppings? you order a plain cheese pie. The salad in your case will be lettuce with no dressing. Want to find really good, creative food? Go somewhere where everyone is doing something different and try them all. Yes, you will not like some, but some you will love. Some of that food inspires others to improve on it. It is a dynamic process. Such is the case with technology as well.

The alternative to multiple, competing standards is the industry deciding FOR everyone what is the best and giving us no other options.


----------



## Flyin_W (Jun 17, 2007)

kapusta said:


> The idea that "the industry" makes ANY decisions is ludicrous. _Individual companies_ make decisions. On occasion a few companies will make one together, and in these cases it is usually in order to _agree _on some standard. No company makes a decision because it will benefit "the industry" they make decisions to benefit themselves.
> 
> In very few cases can it be demonstrated that a company introducing a new standard just for the sake of it being new would be profitable. If it does not provide some perceived benefit for the consumer, they will not make money on it. If you think that people are being duped as to actual; benefit, blame the mtb consumers for rewarding companies by buying their products.
> 
> The CONSUMERS are the ones completely responsible for what "the industry" sells. They sell what we buy. Otherwise they are out of business.


Respectfully disagree.
Case in point pf-BB. IMO this is a solution to simplify production for carbon frames, and is soley to lessen production costs. 
In 30 years I've never x-threaded a BB shell, and seen very few where the user did so by installing the cups incorrectly. 
All bearings require parallel surfaces to operate correctly, yet few frames come faced / chased, and believe this remains true for pf-BB's.

Threaded BB cups are reliable and easy to service. 
Now, one needs a BB press to remove bearing cups, and there's a chance to misalign while installing, and a risk to oval-izing the BB shell. 
[LBS mech managed to slip installing the pf-BB on my new frame, removed a big chunk of paint, did not acknowledge his mistake until caught, 
then charged full $$ for the job - azzmunching idiot.]

Perhaps, I'm biased, yet do not see pf BB's as an improvement, only as a cost savings to mfg's, and believe strongly this to be 
a new source of major headaches for the consumer. What size, ID, which model, replaceable bearings, $$, and very limited selections. 
Will quit now before ranting about the limitations of direct-mount FD's -arrrggh!


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

Flyin_W said:


> Respectfully disagree.
> Case in point pf-BB. IMO this is a solution to simplify production for carbon frames, and is soley to lessen production costs.
> In 30 years I've never x-threaded a BB shell, and seen very few where the user did so by installing the cups incorrectly.
> All bearings require parallel surfaces to operate correctly, yet few frames come faced / chased, and believe this remains true for pf-BB's.
> ...


I have to respectfully disagree that your case in point is a case in point.

In regards to it being an "industry" decision, it is not. It is some individual companies making the decision to go that way. Some do, some don't. They do it for their OWN bottom line, NOT for the sake of "the industry".

And consumers ARE ultimately deciding if it is worth it. If it turns out that customers feel that press fit is just a PITA with no benefit (and if you are correct about costs, then lower cost IS a benefit to the customer) then it will go away.

I think you are mistaking:

A) The assertion that multiple standards (and new ones constantly popping up) is an inevitable by-product of technological progress and innovation in bikes which on the whole benefits cyclists in the products available to them.

to mean the same thing as...

B) An endorsement of every new standard that comes out.

I believe A, but not B.


----------



## 993rs (Dec 31, 2005)

I ride the old crap and my boys get the new stuff. It's all good. Plus I always have an excuse when they are faster...


----------



## Jon Richard (Dec 20, 2011)

I just bought a frame having a PF-30 BB shell and while not crazy about it as a straight forward BB shell vs. threaded, I can run a Beer Components eccentric to fool with geometry and the bearing cups do not require being pressed or drifted in.

Similar story on the drive train where I run 6 cogs on a single speed hub.

Point being that I find all these new standards give me room to really build something individual where this was somewhat more of a challenge in the days of 1" threaded steer tubes and tapered crank spindles.

Some things like multiple seat tube diameters I think are certainly superfluous, but in the end I think these are the most exciting days to live for bicycle enthusiasts because of all these new, creative efforts.

I'll take the bad with the good.


----------



## mwcet8k (Jun 17, 2004)

Just came across a recent blog post by Joe Graney, lead engineer at Santa Cruz, where he discusses new standards in detail. In short, while some new standards make sense and are legitimate advancements, most are nothing more than marketing bull. This is one of the biggest reasons why I'm a Santa Cruz fan - they've always been very selective in which new standards they adopt. Wish every manufacturer took this approach. Copied and pasted below for your viewing pleasure.

*****

_Each time we work on a bike design - and we're always working on new bikes- the engineering group and our product manager sit down to haggle about what the frame is going to be like, and what type of parts it will accept. This used to be a fairly simple process - it basically consisted of deciding 68 or 73 mm width on bottom bracket width. We try to make a lot of components interchangeable between our various models. If there's not a damn good reason to have different diameter seat-posts or front derailleur clamps, then those numbers remain the same. Recently, however, we've seen a proliferation of new "standards" representing conceptual minefields that must be crossed when designing a bike frame. An incomplete list would include (stick with me through the list, there's a point somewhere near the end):

Headsets: 1 1/8, 1.5, 1 1/8 to 1.5 tapered. And then you have integrated and semi-integrated options for each of those. Stems and forks are both subject to these dimensions, and each one can affect clearance between the fork crown to down-tube as well as influence bar height and frame geometry. To figure out what makes sense for what, we have to balance stiffness versus weight of the entire system, including the frame, headset, adaptors, stem AND fork. I've been told that the purpose of the tapered steerer "standard" (Sram and Fox have different taper lengths...) is to make it easier to find stems. WTF? So they're basically saying there is a new standard (1.5) that hasn't yet been adopted fully, so we're introducing another standard to address it, even though finding a headset or a fork will be more of a pain than finding a 1.5 stem ever was.

Bottom Brackets: 73mm BB shells are fairly standard now for 135mm rear axle spacing, but now we've also got 83mm BB shells, and 100! (my knees ache typing that), and Shimano's new press fit version that still gets you the same chain-line with no weight difference or discernable advantage, and now the "BB 30". Kill me please. In reality, there are only two chain-lines being widely used at the moment; 50mm and 57-ish mm (there's some squabble about a few mm around that one), so why does everyone want to change this? The BB is the part that frames are built around. It's "Manhattan real-estate" for a frame design.

Hubs and Spacing: 135mm QR rear, 135x12mm rear, 150x12mm rear, 100mm QR front, 110x20mm front, and now 100x15mm front. Let us not forget the special dropouts needed to accommodate the old Saint, or the current Maxle, on a frame. And of course there are Maverick's special hubs, and some other company w/ even bigger front axles.

Brakes: 120, 140, 160, 180 and 200mm rotors, you got your six-bolt and your center-lock action. Plus different adaptors for post mount, Boxxer mount, ISO mount, post mount for 200mm, not to mention the Dorado mount, Hayes 22, etc.... Now and again people who make brakes try to tell me that we should put post mount type attachments on our frames, cuz' everyone knows post mount is rad, right? So, uh, how do you face those tabs in a shop anyway? A die-cast fork leg is different than a welded swing-arm assembly. I've been told - multiple times, actually - that it's better for the bolts. Yeah, those M6 bolts used for an IS mount are just crying out, can you hear 'em? Can you?

Wheels: This is a subject that is not only related to axle diameter and spacing and rotor attachment, but also spokes and rims. These are fairly abused items on a bike, rims and wheels being the things that actually hit those rocks we ride over. There are very few "cool" wheels on the market today that can be repaired without a long wait, special tools and lots of patience. Oh, and they cost more. Cuz its freakin' *****in' to have white spokes when I'm x-in' up, yo. I'd be remiss if I didn't mention the 29" and 650B wheel sizes. Yup. At least the hubs remain the same for those things, thanks to the freaks for leaving that much alone. [Late update: I just read about 135mm spacing front hubs for 29ers, what a relief!] I can see the message boards lighting up now, a boycott might start any minute now.

ISCG "standards" include about 13 different ways to configure three stupid holes around the bottom bracket. And even then half the chain-guides on the market don't fit right without spacers, and putting your cranks on, then taking them off, and on, and off to get it right. And then there's ISCG05, same 3 holes 'cept we moved 'em! These holes initially held a back-plate to orient rollers that weren't abused much, but now people are hanging "taco" style bash guards on there which puts a lot more force on that little frame tab. And how do you weld that tab on anyway? It's only in the way of the freaking DOWN-TUBE on a lot of bikes. Beauty standard you got there. Well thought out.

Seat-posts: I don't have to list every diameter post there is, but to add to that mess, road and XC bikes are now getting super neat by not saving weight and adding a new way to screw up your bike by integrating the seat-post into the frame. Anyone ever cut a steerer tube too short by accident? I wonder if anyone out there has had to buy a "tall" saddle to make up for a mistake... Wanna sell your bike ever? Here's a great way not to.

Saddle/Post: There are different rail diameters of course, along with the unfortunate execution of the I-beam concept. I predict this relatively constant area to blow up in the next few years. It's just too predictable and easy not to have new "standards". Roadies are already getting into one piece molded post/saddle combos.

Bars and Stems: Forget about the varying stem length and bar widths, that's something justifiable. But if, speaking as a bike company, you figure on two steerer diameters, 5 stem lengths, and two bar diameters (25.4 and 31.8), then we've got 20 different combos right there. No wonder you can't find the combination you want for a particular type of riding (from a product manager point of view) that doesn't suck or cost a ton. Nobody can commit to tool up that much crap.

Derailleur mounting and cable routing is another thing, but probably more arcane than is worth getting into - top and bottom pull, top and bottom mount, 31.8, 34.9, E type, etc. Shimano should be applauded for doing a great job in recent years of making their FDs work in multiple situations though with adaptors and clever design. Just wait though; new "standards" are coming your way.

I won't even get into shock mounting or annual height increases of fork top caps, as I think my point is made. There are lots of different "standards". Fans of evolutionary theory might argue that this sort of proliferation is good for mountain bikes, and I tend to agree with that sentiment - in theory. However, the concerns I have are when a trend conflicts with two core values I hold when designing a new bicycle: choice and long-term support. There's a crew of mountain bike freaks that work at Santa Cruz Bicycles engineering department. We're not old-school curmudgeons and don't sit around lamenting the day that clunkers weren't used anymore. We get paid to push the envelope and be creative and come up with new stuff. But evaluating "performance gains" versus our core values is something we take very seriously - we put a lot of time into figuring out if the new way will be better than the old way. And I mean things that are fairly basic, albeit time consuming, like calculating the system weight by switching a frame to integrated headset from a plain old boring press in style. Call us crazy, but that seems like something that should be considered in the decision making process. Turns out, it doesn't save more than a few grams, it decreases your choice in headsets, and it looks kinda dumb with some forks.

Choice, as we define our customizable mountain bike builds, depends on compatibility. Long term support, to a great degree, does as well. It's hard to be confident that the newest steerer tube diameter or BB attachment scheme is going to be supported for a long time by the company introducing it, and for that reason it's difficult for us to spec a frame with a new "standard", since we want our customers to use our bikes for a long time. And if only one or two companies adopt the new specifications, one's choices and chances for long-term support are even more restricted.

On the surface, this multiplication of options seems a boon for cyclists that appreciate performance gains. Look a little closer, however, and sometimes new options are introduced merely because the manufacture has nothing new to offer, so they create "buzz" by making something different even though it doesn't provide much in terms of increased performance. Companies introducing new standards have a vested interest in their success, and we should all be wary of accepting the marketing claims. The performance data (if there even is any) should be independently vetted. Often, it takes years of evolution with any new design to optimize it, since engineers are typically (and hopefully) initially conservative with the design to ensure rider safety.

Some critical questions that get in the way of the rad factor with any new product can go a long way in determining if that product has been well thought through. Beyond the system weight comparison mentioned previously, there are some even more basic ones: How do you get those bearings out? Does your local shop have a tool? How much does the tool cost and when will it ship? How exactly does pressing bearings in make a difference? Did you make up a problem to solve after you made this thing? What other problems does it create? Let's take this marketing BS down to brass tacks here, because I don't want to screw with my bike all the time. I want to ride it, put it away and go drink beer, okay? Tomorrow, I want to pick it up and do that again. Maybe some people have the time and patience to screw with their bikes all the time, but I bet many of these people (a) don't ride enough, or (b) don't have a life, or (c) consider working on their bike a hobby. (If you are (c), I have some stuff to sell you, gimme a ring.)

There's plenty of opportunity for improvement on bikes. Hey, it's what I do for a paycheck, so there better be. There's a flip side to the coin though. I have the first frame I ever designed (a fixed gear made in Waterloo) that I can't get the bottom bracket out of, because the new "standard" tool that the manufacturer dreamed up in 1996 is extinct, and it worked so poorly anyway that it destroyed the interface the last time I tried to remove it six years ago. I'm lucky that the spindle still turns, which is more than I can say for some of these brand new "oversized" bearings that don't last six months without seizing up (and those were created by the people that want us to change). Does anyone understand how much work that is? There's moving front derailleur mounting, pivot locations, tire clearance, down-tube welding, alignment, QC tooling, machining tooling, etc., etc... It better be for something, but the track record is not looking good.

Let's face it, we've all been burned before with glittering promises of radness, stiffness, and the newest bestest thing ever. But when you open the box, does it really deliver as advertised? When do we wake up and not believe the same old song and dance? Show me something that lasts ten years and I'll change to it tomorrow. Boring, huh? I just want my bike to work well and last a long time without spending more money on it.

Done well, product improvements can make our bikes lighter, stronger, faster and more fun to ride. Done poorly (no perceptible improvement but a 100% increase in incompatibility), they can disenfranchise riders who find themselves unable to get parts and have their vacations or after-work rides ruined by simple mechanical failures that can't be easily repaired, and create a whole scrap heap of prematurely obsolete bicycles that could otherwise have had longer functional life-spans. The "market" (that's you by the way) has the last word in this. If you can control your addiction to shiny new stuff for a few minutes, and ask the right critical questions when faced with "new standards", manufacturers and suppliers might think twice - or even once - about those questions before they dribble out their next batch._


----------



## womble (Sep 8, 2006)

dgw2jr said:


> Paragraphs are awesome


What he said. They make the "bike industry" more likely to read the letter.

At least the (for me) inscrutably dense block of text spurred some interesting commentary.


----------



## FireLikeIYA (Mar 15, 2009)

Flyin_W said:


> Short term profits that incur long term damage to customer retention, and brand image are costly, just ask Dell.


This is the best response here. I feel that the industry is starting to become less standardized which causes a lot of confusion and does nothing for repeat business or brand loyalty. Like most of you, I spend a great deal of money every year just to ride and it seems like the industry just keeps finding ways to make it more expensive without providing an appreciable benefit. Remember when mid level cranks cost around $100 (like, 4 years ago)? Now they run $300 MSRP and the technology hasn't really changed; just the "standard". MTB'ing is much like a meth habit... its all or nothing. Eventually it is going to cost so much that I am not going to be able to convince myself that I am having a good time.


----------



## moofish (May 3, 2011)

I like Beta


----------



## wintersolstice (Feb 26, 2012)

FireLikeIYA said:


> This is the best response here. I feel that the industry is starting to become less standardized which causes a lot of confusion and does nothing for repeat business or brand loyalty. Like most of you, I spend a great deal of money every year just to ride and it seems like the industry just keeps finding ways to make it more expensive without providing an appreciable benefit. Remember when mid level cranks cost around $100 (like, 4 years ago)? Now they run $300 MSRP and the technology hasn't really changed; just the "standard". MTB'ing is much like a meth habit... its all or nothing. Eventually it is going to cost so much that I am not going to be able to convince myself that I am having a good time.


I hear what you're saying - but if it's too costly... don't upgrade.
They make the upgrades at that price because people will buy them.

I didn't upgrade for over 20 years because it simply wasn't worth it. When it was finally a big enough gap that I felt it was important to upgrade, I did. Went with a new frame and all X9 components, still got everything built for around 1400. Not a lot more than I paid for my *old* bike, and that was 20 years ago when that was quite a bit more money.


----------



## GiantMountainTroll (Mar 27, 2012)

I think new stuff is way expensive and the prices for everything just keep going up. And now alot of manufacturers are leaning toward 29"(nothing against them so dont bully me). I personally prefer the mountain bikes from 07-11. Some sh** is getting ridiculous.


----------



## tjkm (Jun 9, 2007)

Unless riding a bike is paying your bills, just ride what you want and be selective in what you buy. I picked up a 29er 3 years ago and am very happy with that purchase. I can't swing buying a new bike each year, so now I ride a 2010. Big f'ing deal!

When I AM READY I will get a new rig. I recently inquired about going 2x10 on my current bike (feeding off the hype). Rough #'s from the shop was $500 +/-. The new model of my current bike now comes with 2 x 10 off the floor, so I will wait for 2 x 10 until I get a new bike (or what ever then next advancement is).

Don't get me wrong. I am all for advancement of the technology and companies need to make a profit, I just contribute to the cash flow when I choose to, not when the next shiny thing hits the sales floor.


----------



## Canamerican (Jul 30, 2012)

I like my 3 year old FS 26'er. Lots of improvement over my 12 year old HT Marin that rattles my spine in rock gardens. Better to have choices...


----------



## chas_martel (May 14, 2006)

B-Mac said:


> Open letter to the bike industry:
> 
> Dear Bike industry:
> 
> ...


Amen!


----------



## rev106 (Jul 9, 2009)

I did not just say what I said just to stir up a hornets nest, I've come to these conclusions after years of riding and professionally wrenching, watching all the twisted up angry confused faces of people that don't care about all the new standards or whatever you want to call them. I have a friend who is a very fit, very strong rider and he has a 300 dollar 29 from performance bike (a whole different kind of evil), he bought a niner and said for the huge difference in cost the difference in ride quality was none or nominal as best. Now if you just plopped down $$$ for some new bit for your bike would you be honest enough with yourself to say it was a waste of money or you noticed no appreciable difference? New is not better all the time, new is simply new. I feel the bike industry is out of control with forcing new on to us, and it is up to us to do or at least say something about it. 

And to those that hurled insults from the safety of their computer, I'm so hurt! Grade school antics lead me to believe that you need to let off some steam and ride more.

Thanks!


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

rev106 said:


> Now if you just plopped down $$$ for some new bit for your bike would you be honest enough with yourself to say it was a waste of money or you noticed no appreciable difference? !


Sure, I've stated many times when I spent a bunch of money on something and was unimpressed or disappointed.

But my Gravity Dropper that I bought 6 years ago is definitely not one of those cases.


----------



## Jon Richard (Dec 20, 2011)

rev106 said:


> if you just plopped down $$$ for some new bit for your bike would you be honest enough with yourself to say it was a waste of money or you noticed no appreciable difference? New is not better all the time, new is simply new. I feel the bike industry is out of control with forcing new on to us, and it is up to us to do or at least say something about it.


I plop down much more on classic American auto's and in both cases it rarely improves my performance, but customization is part of the fun.

I did most my riding in the early nineties and returned to riding in January of this year. I had a handle on most if not all these different standards pretty quick.

My current ride sports a PF30 BB shell, a 12mmX142mm rear axle, a Maverick fork with it's own proprietory 24mm axle hub, etc...

I understand it can be frustrating, but it was much more so back when options were so very limited. I find it exciting to see so much thought and innovation being invested in bicycle technology, can't wait to see what else the future holds for this sport which I have such passion for.

At least all the hardware is metric (shrug), I would agree the trend toward Torx instead of Allen heads is unnecessary.


----------



## aedubber (Apr 17, 2011)

Hey nobody said this was a cheap hobby , i buy what i want when i want ... You can feed me all the new stuff and old stuff bla bla bla , but at the end of the day WE make our own choices and spend OUR own money..

So if you dont like the new stuff , dont buy it lol plain and simple . I sure as hell can tell the difference between a $500 bike and a $3-4k bike big time ..You just gotta pay to play thats all .


----------



## shredjunkie (May 16, 2012)

*the irony is killing me*



rev106 said:


> And to those that hurled insults from the safety of their computer, I'm so hurt!


You mean like the guy who called the folks that work in the bike industry a bunch of "carneys"? Oh, wait, that was you in the OP! :madman: Where's the irony emoticon when you need it?


----------



## car bone (Apr 15, 2011)

wtf is a carney??


----------



## Cornfield (Apr 15, 2012)

car bone said:


> wtf is a carney??


----------



## shredjunkie (May 16, 2012)

car bone said:


> wtf is a carney??


Here in the US, you find them running carnival ripoff games, trolling renaissance fairs, and lurking on the outskirts of dead shows. Here's what the urban dictionary says... not my words, not sure I even understand all the variations and references. Point is they are universally unliked people.

Urban Dictionary: carny

1. freak

2. Someone who works at a carnival
I saw an extremely fat and tugley carny with unusually small eyes which got much bigger when it smelled my popcorn.

3. A carnival worker, often running the mechanical rides, who likes to hit on teenage, or younger, females. They are generally not clean people, and will buy alcohol in exchange for companionship.

4. Carnival Folk, one with small hands and freakish appearance to be laughed at by normal people

5. In Europe a carny is a scary person who is on the darker, wilder side of the crusty world.

6. Typically wearing dreadlocks, goatie beards, stripey pants, various small bells, and pointy shoes, they are often skilled in juggling or fire breathing.

7. Commonly found all over Europe but particulary in Czeck Republic, Germany and Norway, not neccessarily having been born there.

8. They live in a world of red mushrooms with white spots, jesters, gnomes, trolls, dwarfs, chainmail, pointless medievil references and bad music.

9. They play freaky variants of guitars and mandolins and often speak in rhymes or riddles.

10. They are rarely seen on TV, One appeared on Ali G, singing a song about "the pixie people"

11. They dont listen to CDs, opting to play their own freaky rubbish. The closest thing to carny music you might find is a band called "folque" -

12. Middle class guy on holiday in Prague:
"Oh no, here comes another f&*kin carny"


----------



## shredjunkie (May 16, 2012)

Cornfield... excellent reference. Wish I'd thought of that. :thumbsup:


----------



## car bone (Apr 15, 2011)

OK i think I understand now hahahaha.

"They live in a world of red mushrooms with white spots" these are the best, yummy yummy










Amanita muscaria - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## MendonCycleSmith (Feb 10, 2005)

car bone said:


> wtf is a carney??


Carnivale HBO trailer promo - YouTube

^These folks^


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

rev106 said:


> I feel the bike industry is out of control with forcing new on to us, and it is up to us to do or at least say something about it.


The industry is giving us what they think we want. The only way to effectively tell them we don't want it is to not buy it.


----------



## ehigh (Apr 19, 2011)

car bone said:


> OK i think I understand now hahahaha.
> 
> "They live in a world of red mushrooms with white spots" these are the best, yummy yummy
> 
> ...


I remember finding some Amanita muscaria out hiking not too long ago. I was happy to see them, really! It had been some time. Though I hope you know that those aren't for consuming. The muscimol in them is pretty terrible for you. Finding real magic mushrooms is easier than these guys, in my experience, because these you have to actually find growing.


----------



## car bone (Apr 15, 2011)

Yeah I know these are dangerous, this is the first mushroom you are taught never to touch when you are a kid. The vikings supposedly ate them, and if one viking survived the experience it was then considered safe to drink his urine  to get the same effect.


----------



## p.doering (Aug 1, 2008)

OP, I have a sizable collection of classic rarities and exotic vintage MTB's, and love them for what they are as well (though, a lot of what we rode then could be considered off-road capable road bikes). ...but I've also wound up in scary sections well beyond my ability where the performance capabilities of a modern DH bike were not just apparent, but neck-saving.

I work as a design consultant between a few co's. Every time we sit down to hash out a new suspension concept, we go through standards gridlock. Nobody likes it. What's a bit depressing is that there ARE great solutions already in existence to the modern design issues brought about by suspension and big wheels which these "standards" were created to solve. Just, not yet all in one place, readily available, compatible with each other, or well-understood/marketable. So instead of building the ultimate bike, every manufacturer in the biz has to waste thousands of hours obsessing over which pile of compromises they're going to endorse. However, if every MFG were to unite behind a set of standards, making things a lot more convenient & less $ for new bikes, it instantly relegates millions of bikes built around these myriad interim standards to obsolescence when component MFG's stop producing compatible product. Whatever happens, it's going to be ugly. But keep in mind, there are very few companies "making millions" on this stuff. Most of us barely eke out a living. It's not a colossal conspiracy to screw you, most of design is trying to make bikes lighter, more durable, less expensive, and lastly, still somehow compatible with old bb shells from road bikes 30 years ago. Bikes just aren't perfect enough that anyone can ride one and not find some way of improving it.

Check back in in another 5 years when things are a bit more ironed out, and go for a test ride. If your classic ride is sufficient, enjoy it, and take comfort in the knowledge that your bikes don't have issues that need complicated solutions, and even as you wear out gearing, you'll never exhaust the production capacity of Phil Wood, Chris King, & Paul Component, whose "obsolete" component lines are still the finest made in the entire biz, and still sell like hotcakes.


----------



## tomboyjr (Jul 16, 2009)

I dont read this forum much at all, but I had to respond to the OP

I DO agree with you to a point. Especially after selling a fork with a 20mm thru axle and buying another with a 15mm thru axle. New front wheel here we come-lol.

I kind of agree 21 speeds were enough, as long as the high and low gears could be what we have now.

I have been riding since before suspension. I remember the first Rockshox. Everyone wanted a fork that didnt dare move when pedaling. 

Now its years later, I still ride at all the same places. And l wouldnt give up my full suspension 29er with disc brakes for anything-lol. Its not the fact that I can ride faster. Its just more damn fun. If anything we ride slower now, playing on the technical parts of the trail. 

I am not one of those guys that always has to have to latest and greatest stuff, if anything I'm usually the holdout. But like many of the posters mentioned, no one is forcing you to buy anything.

Thinking about it, I'm not sure I'd still be riding now if it wasnt for the changes in the industry. My body couldnt handle it-lol

Tom


----------



## danmtchl (Sep 18, 2004)

I agree with the bottom bracket "standards". There are so many bottom bracket sizes these days it's hard to keep up. There are really three standards that I can think of 1) square taper 2) IsIs and outboard bearing. They are widely accepted and can be found in almost any shop. 

Trek have at least 4 standard BB according to them. Cannondale has the BB30 which I almost consider a standard since it has been around so long.


----------



## BoiseBoy (Mar 1, 2006)

rev106 said:


> An open letter to the bike industry
> 
> Dear Bike Industry,
> 
> ...


I hope that your "van" is from the 1960's, does not have an automatic transmission nor air conditioning. Furthermore, I hope that you have nothing but an AM radio as well.

As you proclaim things, anything above the basics is just useless marketing to create profits for the companies!


----------



## bikecop (May 20, 2004)

Zachariah said:


> OP, you're never forced to buy _*anything*_. Be glad MTB is a progressive sport....and not one mired in abject obsolescence. Mind you, I don't even ride with the latest and greatest...even though I can well afford it. But, since I'll never see myself racing - I'm perfectly happy with my two-year-old FS 26er with eight year-old parts. Why? Because the parts I do have are durable. I will replace them as they break....not with the same, but with 2012+ equivalents.
> 
> Your letter will only fall upon deaf ears and eyes. Having the upper edge simply does not mean you *need* to have the latest 29er with 2x10 componentry....but with what you are safely having enough fun on.:thumbsup:


Exactly, speak with your checkbook. example:.i will never buy carbon because i don't race and don't want to replace parts after minor crashes. i am apparently in the minority.

i like progress. i like disc brakes, 29ers, etc, but i also like square taper, steel, 8-9 speed. buy what works for you. i don't worry about emulating some racer or looking "pro". that's marketing ******** of the highest order.


----------



## bikecop (May 20, 2004)

bikecop said:


> Exactly, speak with your checkbook. example:.i will never buy carbon because i don't race and don't want to replace parts after minor crashes. i am apparently in the minority.
> 
> i like progress. i like disc brakes, 29ers, etc, but i also like square taper, steel, 8-9 speed. buy what works for you. i don't worry about emulating some racer or looking "pro". that's marketing ******** of the highest order.


i've been auto-bleeped. how lame.


----------



## IndecentExposure (Sep 25, 2006)

Why is my motorola startac so awesome?


----------



## troyer2112 (Mar 31, 2008)

I will agree with so many companies deciding what is better is BS. However we are ultimately benefiting from all of this technology.
The "used market" is where we are really benefitting from! You can find so many great deals on everything because someone is "chasing" technology. 
My advice is to become very familiar with the industry and follow the trends, dont bite until you are ready and its ironed itself out. Also work on your bikes!!! get tools!!! its so rewarding and you wont be at the mercy of someone else. Be a responsible person!!! 
I understand the pain of wanting to stay primitive and when something breaks you are forced to buy the new standard because either they dont make it anymore or it doesnt fit. 

Dont just say its an awesome upgrade unless you can really feel it!!! A lot of people just take the bait and are really fooled into thinking its the "monkeys nuts" just because they read an article from a bike mag stating it is so great. People dont think for themselves most of the time and follow blindly but act like its their idea...thats what they want you to think. 
This is like all of the damn reality shows and someone is just checking it out because its LIVE ACTION. All we are doing is making networks want to make horrible fake reality shows and we are left with junk.

That being said....OP lets race and ill show you how new technology has helped me become faster and safer as well as happy, you are pissed because everytime you want something that looks great you are reminded of what a curmudgeon you are and you cant afford it.


----------



## hardtailkid (Jan 25, 2010)

To the OP: I am just going to take a wild guess here... you are an engineer! 


Another guess... you must know more about the mechanics of a bike than I or any of the other mechanics at my shop!


----------



## ehigh (Apr 19, 2011)

Hey, Bike Industry here-we got your letter


YEAH
thanks


----------



## bigpedaler (Jan 29, 2007)

I'm a lot less concerned about what's newest, brightest, bestest, etc., than I am about the good stuff that fell by the wayside over the years.

I ride an ISIS crankset/BB; I'm getting a little concerned! I've been looking, and ISIS is getting pretty rare; AFAIC, it's better than Octalink, but external BB has taken over (and don't get me started about BB30/whatever). A lot of things I mourn are brand-specific (Santa Cruz dropped the VP-Free, and developed the Nomad -- I'd like to have BOTH! Manitou's Travis line has VANISHED....), but things like that damned 142 rearend standard just ruffle me.

I can see the advantage to a tapered steerer in some apps; but DAMN, standardize the headset! Standard cups top & bottom, or zero-stack top & bottom, let's just make it right!


----------



## Tillers_Rule (Sep 11, 2004)

troyer2112 said:


> I will agree with so many companies deciding what is better is BS. However we are ultimately benefiting from all of this technology.
> The "used market" is where we are really benefitting from! You can find so many great deals on everything because someone is "chasing" technology.
> My advice is to become very familiar with the industry and follow the trends, dont bite until you are ready and its ironed itself out. Also work on your bikes!!! get tools!!! its so rewarding and you wont be at the mercy of someone else. Be a responsible person!!!
> I understand the pain of wanting to stay primitive and when something breaks you are forced to buy the new standard because either they dont make it anymore or it doesnt fit.
> ...


:thumbsup:


----------



## BIGABIGD (Jul 24, 2012)

Maybe I'm old school, or maybe I just don't get it, but OPs letter sounds like one big whine without any point at all. I don't know the first thing about bb taper, 92 bearings or any of the other minutiae he's talking about. Nor do I understand the whining about all new parts out there that may or may not be better than the current parts. You don't like one of the new standards, then don't buy it.

what I DO know is that the improvements in bikes the last 20 years has been vast, and I have a vertitable plethora of choices in bikes, and all the parts I decide to put on them. I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

what I also like is that so many bike parts are interchangeable. You can often take parts from one bike and put it on another bike, or you can buy parts on-line and have a high degree of confidence that those parts will work. In the last six months, I've upgraded my SS 29ER with carbon fork and post, wheels, seat, bashguard, pedals, stem, and probably a few other parts I don't recall offhand. All of these parts were bought online and they all worked. This is really a good thing. 

So if I missed the point please let me know --- without anonymous neg rep please. And finally to OP, paragraph breaks are your friend, and the friend of everyone trying to get through your wall of text.


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

bigpedaler said:


> I ride an ISIS crankset/BB; I'm getting a little concerned! I've been looking, and ISIS is getting pretty rare; AFAIC, it's better than Octalink, but external BB has taken over (and don't get me started about BB30/whatever).


Why do you think ISIS is better than octalink?


----------



## AlexWheeler0 (Aug 17, 2012)

Here here!


----------



## aedubber (Apr 17, 2011)

kapusta said:


> why do you think isis is better than octalink?


+1 :d


----------



## 11 Bravo (Mar 12, 2004)

bigpedaler said:


> ................................................................................
> I ride an ISIS crankset/BB; I'm getting a little concerned! I've been looking, and ISIS is getting pretty rare; ..................................................................


I would disagree that ISIS is getting hard to find. It seems to me that the bottom brackets are available all over the place. That said, finding a GOOD one is another matter.

My brother and I both still run ISIS BB in our singlespeeds. We were both about to give up on ISIS because it was nearly impossible to get a bottom bracket that would last more than a summer. The Crank Brothers BB with the 5 year warranty seemed like the answer, but they were the worst. I had one that only made it about 2 months. After a couple cycles of that, I got tired of warrantying it and sold the thing.

I like the Middleburn cranks I have, but I was about ready to stick them on e-bay and go to square taper. Then I heard that SKF was making ISIS bottom brackets. I know SKF stuff from work and they make excellent stuff. The bottom bracket is no different. Excellent quality and serviceable.

They are a little hard to find sometimes, but get one. Compass Bicycles: Bottom Brackets

I see new ones on e-bay from a bike shop in Australia from time to time if you can't find anybody that has one in stock here.

We installed the SKF units in our bikes at the same time. That was 5 years ago and they are both still going strong.

We fell for the upgrade to the new standard stuff because it is better and found out it was BS. But, I will run the parts as long as I can.

If these SKF bottom brackets ever give out and I can't find another one, then I will upgrade my cranks. Probably with the latest, greatest best new "standard" thing that is out when that time comes


----------



## PAmtbiker (Feb 2, 2005)

Someone seems a bit butthurt...


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

I pretty much stayed away from this thread, but since I just shared this thought elsewhere, this is probably a more appropriate spot:

Every bike forum I've read has way too much complaining from people about 'the industry' using 'marketing' to try and take their money and make them buy something new (29ers, 650b, tapered steerers, the list goes on). But there are a lot of people looking to buy at any given point, and besides I would guess the majority of bike sales are people buying new complete bikes, rather than enthusiasts building up a frame. I don't remember people complaining about having to buy a new car when side curtain airbags or traction control became common, but any advance in the bike industry has people screaming about being gouged rather than thinking "yeah, that might be cool when I get my next bike in a few years."


----------



## Boyonabyke (Sep 5, 2007)

evasive said:


> I pretty much stayed away from this thread, but since I just shared this thought elsewhere, this is probably a more appropriate spot:
> 
> Every bike forum I've read has way too much complaining from people about 'the industry' using 'marketing' to try and take their money and make them buy something new (29ers, 650b, tapered steerers, the list goes on). But there are a lot of people looking to buy at any given point, and besides I would guess the majority of bike sales are people buying new complete bikes, rather than enthusiasts building up a frame. I don't remember people complaining about having to buy a new car when side curtain airbags or traction control became common, but any advance in the bike industry has people screaming about being gouged rather than thinking "yeah, that might be cool when I get my next bike in a few years."


I've never had to use the features of a seat belt, and I've never had to use the features of ABS, yet I get to pay for them, because of the masses being idiots that are irresponsible drivers in the driving conditions out there. You can't fix stupid, be it people, or operators, with engineering feats mandated into place making vehicles more and more expensive for the masses.

I say, let Darwins Law sort it out, and leave all the crap bells and whistles off of our cars, morons shouldn't be driving in the first place, driving is a privelege, not a right. Leave it as an option for those that want it, not mandated by a Nanny State government.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

Sure, but even the best drivers can and do have collisions beyond their control. Besides, that's irrelevant to the point I was making. Replace safety features with convenience or performance improvements in cars; my point is the same.


----------



## Zion Rasta (Jan 7, 2004)

Obviously the OP has a hard time understanding that the bike industry is a Business. Yes, to make money. Otherwise, no innovation, no new bikes, no specialties, nothing. Marketing? Yes, some of it BS, some of it actually works. You can also thank the pros that have pushed the sport to the limit.

I personally thank God for 29ers. I started road bike racing and in 5 years I fell behind in MTB technology. The only thing that saves me are fully rigid 29ers and that is now also tricky with oversized forks and BB30. That I do not like. CArbon wheels on a MTB? Humm Dont know. I still nurse the carbon wheels on my roadbike.

So Thank you bike industry for:
Tubless tires
29ers
Carbon Forks
Rear shock platform and brains
Super light hydro disk breaks
Carbon Fiber frames
Carbon Fiber Parts


----------



## woahey (Sep 1, 2010)

Zion Rasta said:


> So Thank you bike industry for:
> Tubless tires
> 29ers
> Carbon Forks
> ...


Sounds like a scary ride...a 29" carbon frame 5" travel bike with a rigid carbon fork, ultra light brakes, tubeless tires and carbon bits holding it all together. :thumbsup:


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

So OP, with this type of reasoning, you are basically saying that once the bicycle was invented, all evolution or change should have stopped. Or is it that all evolution of the bicycle should have stopped once you bought your, "mountain bike"? For me, I can't wait to see what the next 20 years has in store for the mountain bike, which ever type of mountain bike I decide to buy, or not to buy.


----------



## Zion Rasta (Jan 7, 2004)

woahey said:


> Sounds like a scary ride...a 29" carbon frame 5" travel bike with a rigid carbon fork, ultra light brakes, tubeless tires and carbon bits holding it all together. :thumbsup:


That is funny!:thumbsup:


----------



## kjlued (Jun 23, 2011)

evasive said:


> I don't remember people complaining about having to buy a new car when side curtain airbags or traction control became common


Actually, I wish you could find cars without airbags and all that fancy crap they force you buy on new cars. Not that I don't like that stuff, but it would be nice if you could get a decent new car for under $10k otd 
I don't mind that is is available to have if you want it, but in many cases we are forced to get it if we want a new car.

Difference with the bike industry is that you are not forced to buy any of that stuff. 
If you want a basic rigid bike with cantilever bikes and a steel frame you can still buy one and get it cheap. If you don't like the advances, then stick with what you have and let those who do want improvements buy them.


----------



## iCollector (Nov 14, 2012)

Like anything else, cycling is a big business. In order for companies to remain solvent, they need to sell their product. Providing 'new', yet maybe unnecessary products give them the opportunity to bring in their needed capital.

No one forces us to buy. We're all suckers to some degree!


----------



## Mr.Magura (Aug 11, 2010)

iCollector said:


> No one forces us to buy.


See this is where I disagree.

It would be nice if the new stuff, was just added to the list of options.
The problem is that standards are hardly standards anymore, so spares and wear items are pretty specific. 
This is all good and fine, till the standards change, so spares and wear items are becoming obsolete, forcing us to bin a bike that otherwise is still good.

A good example would be, that finding a high quality 8sp cassette, is close to impossible by now. So a perfectly good XTR 8sp drivetrain is pretty much for the bin.

Magura


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

Mr.Magura said:


> See this is where I disagree.
> 
> It would be nice if the new stuff, was just added to the list of options.
> The problem is that standards are hardly standards anymore, so spares and wear items are pretty specific.
> ...


See, this is where I disagree:

8 speed cassette in Mountain Bike Parts | eBay


----------



## shekky (Oct 21, 2011)

OP: more people will read your post(s) if you break them up into easy-to-read paragraphs...:nono:


----------



## Mr.Magura (Aug 11, 2010)

Mountain Cycle Shawn said:


> See, this is where I disagree:
> 
> 8 speed cassette in Mountain Bike Parts | eBay


Which in the cases i have seen so far, has turned out very expensive 

But yes, they naturally can be found, just not at a cost that has anything to do with the reality usually.

Used ones are plenty, but buying a used cassette, is at best like buying a lottery ticket.

Besides, having to hunt NOS on Efraud is not my idea of having things available.
It is a far cry from not getting issues for no good reason, from the industry changing "standards" in a rapid pace to keep peoples bikes becoming obsolete, just for the sake of making them obsolete.

It would have been easy for the industry to have kept the compatibility all the way from 7sp. They just saw an opportunity to create a latent need.

Magura


----------



## dwnhlldav (Feb 2, 2006)

92gli said:


> Dear Redline and Profile,
> 
> Thanks for pushing splined cranksets in the early 80's. Square taper blew then and it still does.
> 
> -The guy who stopped reading the rant and rolled his eyes when he got to "square taper".


I didn't even start reading, I opened the thread, saw the massive run on sentence and moved to the responses.

Mountain bikes, and all bikes for that matter have never been standard. To think otherwise is to be willfully ignorant of the past.

If you've been intimately involved with bikes for any length of time, you know this.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

RandyBoy said:


> I've never had to use the features of a seat belt


You've never stopped so suddenly that your seatbelt was keeping you in the seat? What about your passenger? I think you underestimate the restraining of a seatbelt. Never had to quickly stop or slow down for someone in front? You probably weren't concentrating on the seatbelt, because it was holding you in place and keeping you from being pushed towards the wheel. Sure, you haven't used it in a crash while spinning through the air, but I think your life and experience in a car would still be quite different if there weren't any. We'd be constantly trying to brace ourselves against something when we slow down. I know I sure like to test my brakes.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

Mr.Magura said:


> See this is where I disagree.
> 
> It would be nice if the new stuff, was just added to the list of options.
> The problem is that standards are hardly standards anymore, so spares and wear items are pretty specific.
> ...


I don't think that's really practical. Maybe you do have a "perfectly good 8spd drivetrain", but derailer springs wear, the pivots and their bushings wear, pulleys wear, the rings wear, the freewheel carrier gets scored, shifters wear, detents wear down, and so on. Some of these are replaceable, but this far down the line an 8spd cassette is the least of most people's 8spd worries, and if you happen to have all the other parts in pristine condition, well that's just an anomaly.

Where you should be thanking the manufacturers is that they use the same width hub and BB standards, for the most part.

You said you have to "bin your bike", what is wrong with it, besides the drivetrain? 1.125" steerer? 73 or 68mm BB? 135mm hub? And so on? That doesn't sound like it's obsolete. It sounds like you are complaining about wear-items, things that are never intended to be "lifetime" components in the first place. If one does sneak through, then it's an anomaly, not the standard.


----------



## sauprankul (Sep 6, 2012)

In response to OP. as a consumer, you have a right to feel that way, and the right to express it. However, as someone else here mentioned, the bike industry is out there not just for your enjoyment/convenience, but to make MOOLAH. They need to get paid. And if bikes were made so that they lasted forever without obsoletion, then people would hold onto their rigid steel bikes with center pull cantis. 

Progress is good, most of the time. I like my disk brakes and my thread less headset and dual compound tires. I like having 24 speeds. And this one I don't get: what's your beef with 31.8 bars? You may think they look ugly, but mine look sick! And I drool over technologies like black box motion control and brain. We live in an industrialized world, and you can try and hold onto the past, but someday the industry will leave you hanging. you may kick butt with your bike. But have you tried kicking butt on a more recent bike? It's easier.

You mentioned the square taper bb. It is widely accepted that sq tp is inferior to other standards. It flexes and is heavy. In response to that, Shimano created its proprietary Octalink. It sucked because the bearings were too small (or something). So they created Octalink V2. Other crank/bb manufacturers were mad that Shimano made a proprietary bb, and they wanted splines too. I.S.I.S. was born. RF, FSA and I believe SRAM all support ISIS. But people wanted to do better. They needed external bearings. And thus was born the 2 piece crank. Press fit was created by trek for even more rigidity and lightness.

Square taper, octa, octa v2, ISIS, external bearing, and Press fit.
Seems like a lot of places to screw up, but feel blessed. At least they all use 68mm bb shells with English thread (ISO) (except for pf, which is screwy IMHO). You can get any one of these at any time. The 68 x 30 English thread has survived a long time. You may still want a UN 55 or w/e but let us have our x types and hollow techs please. The bike industry doesn't force kool aid down everyone's throats. it asks the majority if they like it. If they do, then we have called obsoletion of old stuff ourselves.


----------



## Flyin_W (Jun 17, 2007)

sauprankul said:


> ...
> Press fit was created by trek for even more rigidity and lightness.
> The bike industry doesn't force kool aid down everyone's throats. it asks the majority if they like it..


No. They make changes to cut their production time & costs. Many changes have occurred recently, which I feel is a result of their attempt to mass-market carbon. IME, Press-fit is a PIA, and a deterrent to buying a new bike/frame.
Anyone who cross-threaded has bigger issues, should rely on their LBS, become a lemming, and increase industry profits.
No thanks, sheeple. 

Mmm... tapas


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

sauprankul said:


> You mentioned the square taper bb. It is widely accepted that sq tp is inferior to other standards. It flexes and is heavy. In response to that, Shimano created its proprietary Octalink. It sucked because the bearings were too small (or something). So they created Octalink V2. Other crank/bb manufacturers were mad that Shimano made a proprietary bb, and they wanted splines too. I.S.I.S. was born. RF, FSA and I believe SRAM all support ISIS. But people wanted to do better. They needed external bearings. And thus was born the 2 piece crank. Press fit was created by trek for even more rigidity and lightness.


That's close, but not quite right. Shimano with the octalink 1 system had a pretty good system, not as strong as the external BB system, but a good step up. They used two sets of bearings, one set of needle bearing inside, and then some fashion of ball/roller bearings on the outside. They patented it. To compete, the others got together and did ISIS, but there was a fatal flaw. Because shimano had that needle bearing tucked in there, they had a much stronger and more reliable system. The ISIS never lived up to the reliability of the equivalent shimano system because there simply wasn't enough space to cram a regular bearing in there and the needle-setup was patented, until they came out with some of the "gigapipe DH" type ones that had double-bearings stuffed in the ends, and those weighed a ton due to the design compromise. The eventual shimano external BB did two important things for this system (and some other side benefits), it made it even stronger and better able to cope with modern riding, and it got rid of the taper-interface. The taper inteface was still being used on the octalink V1, as well as ISIS. This is where Race Face and Truvativ had really never caught up, because even when they were using external BBs, they were still using a taper inteface that wore every time you took them on and off.

Other side benefits of the shimano external BBs include being able to pry up the dust seal and regrease the bearings, buying new bearings for extremely cheap ($15 at enduroforkseals.com), and of course working in most every "old" bike out there.


----------



## sauprankul (Sep 6, 2012)

Sorry if my info wasn't totally accurate, should have had a disclaimer. The point was to show there was a REASON why all those bottom bracket "standards" exist. They aren't just trying to get more money from you, they are actually making better bikes, believe it or not.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

sauprankul said:


> Sorry if my info wasn't totally accurate, should have had a disclaimer. The point was to show there was a REASON why all those bottom bracket "standards" exist. They aren't just trying to get more money from you, they are actually making better bikes, believe it or not.


Yep, I remember watching videos of people bending and snapping square taper cranksets. They were not up to the task when we started going freeride, downhill and all mountain. What many of us consider normal drops and not freeride or downhill stuff will bend and snap them. That and it's stupid easy and quick to take off the shimano cranks without excessive force or wearing down a taper-interface (which can cause creaking, wobble, play, etc).

I was just trying to point out that octalink V1 was pretty good. Most people had no problems with it, but it was an intermediary step. Huge difference between V2 and square, but still V1 was a step up for sure. ISIS on the other hand, that was a "me-too!" trainwreck.


----------



## bog (Jun 3, 2004)

53119 said:


> i confess. i do share some of the op's thoughts but it's towards road bikes. I've learned to live with terms like NOS and NIB and it's been fine as far as purchases go. I don't ride like a total beast anymore so "going" thru parts is not a bit frustrating to me at all. It'll never frustrate me to the point where i'd ever let it kill the enjoyment of a ride, that's for sure.
> 
> seriously, square taper bbs suck. that's the second thing i would destroy after wheels if you grew up on bmx. there's a reason profiles had splines.


You know that NIB means new in box right? It has nothing to do with old stock. My 2012 XTR brake came NIB.


----------



## DudeNudem (Jun 11, 2012)

Pretentious much?


----------



## Berkley (May 21, 2007)

Jayem said:


> I don't think that's really practical. Maybe you do have a "perfectly good 8spd drivetrain", but derailer springs wear, the pivots and their bushings wear, pulleys wear, the rings wear, the freewheel carrier gets scored, shifters wear, detents wear down, and so on. Some of these are replaceable, but this far down the line an 8spd cassette is the least of most people's 8spd worries, and if you happen to have all the other parts in pristine condition, well that's just an anomaly.


Yeah, it seems like a lot of folks talk about having "perfectly good" older generation high end derailleurs, and I wonder if they've had any experience on a new one for comparison. I usually end up replacing derailleurs because the pivots and springs develop play, not because I smash them into things. I do ride quite a bit, but I only get ~2 years out of a derailleur before it gets sloppy and loses precision.

Some folks talk about still using derailleurs that are 8+ years old and I can't help but think that they must be worn out by this point. I'd rather have a brand new Deore derailleur than an 8 year old used XTR model.


----------



## sauprankul (Sep 6, 2012)

Berkley said:


> I'd rather have a brand new Deore derailleur than an 8 year old used XTR model.


How about an 8 year old NOS XTR derailer?

You're missing the point. Its not used and worn out components that the OP likes. He likes old technology. He doesn't necessarily use a 5 year old chain, but he like his cantis, even if he has to change his pads or even rims every now and then. He likes his square tapers, and is OK with getting a new BB every now and then, but doesn't want to have to change his BB if he wants a high end crank (though this makes no sense).

I can understand the OPs hate for obsoletion. But I don't share it. He just feels left out when he needs to replace an inexpensive part and ends up spending a lot more because of progress.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

sauprankul said:


> How about an 8 year old NOS XTR derailer?
> 
> You're missing the point. Its not used and worn out components that the OP likes. He likes old technology. He doesn't necessarily use a 5 year old chain, but he like his cantis, even if he has to change his pads or even rims every now and then. He likes his square tapers, and is OK with getting a new BB every now and then, but doesn't want to have to change his BB if he wants a high end crank (though this makes no sense).
> 
> I can understand the OPs hate for obsoletion. But I don't share it. He just feels left out when he needs to replace an inexpensive part and ends up spending a lot more because of progress.




An M592 Deore or M663 SLX is lightyears ahead of that 8 year old XTR. Both of these new derailers are "shadow" derailers with the mechanism tucked way in, so it doesn't hang out looking for rocks. They have stiffer springs, for more positive gear shifts. Wide pivots help with consistent shifting and eliminating flex/misalignment. They have the direct-feed cable mount, so no looping necessary.

I think a lot of us understand the sentiment, but it's like anything else. Can I just leave a computer dormant for 8-10 years and boot it up and expect it to run everything fine? Nope, the world has moved on, now there's a new OS and new browsers and so on. That's probably one of the most extreme case, but it's the same with many things. It would be one thing if you are actually using it enough to wear out wear-parts and occasionally damage stuff, that's where you upgrade and convert slowly as things change, thereby keeping the price manageable. Not much sympathy because those of us that put miles on bikes realize this stuff is all "disposable" to some extent. The further you move away from the main parts (frame), generally the more "disposable" it is. You might like your solid-rear axle Mustang, but they've squeezed about everything out that is possible and the only way to make it better and to hang with the camaros in the turns is to make the rear suspension independent. Ok, there will be plenty of people offering solid rear axles aftermarket, for a while, but things will eventually move on and stock will get scarce. By that time virtually no one will be using them, and the few holdouts that are will simply realize that their cars are essentially "disposable" at that point. It would be ultra-rare for it to have been owned by the same person the whole time, but if it really did reach that age with one guy, he's probably going to baby it and not use it for anything serious anymore...or realize it's disposable at that point.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

Berkley said:


> Yeah, it seems like a lot of folks talk about having "perfectly good" older generation high end derailleurs, and I wonder if they've had any experience on a new one for comparison. I usually end up replacing derailleurs because the pivots and springs develop play, not because I smash them into things. I do ride quite a bit, but I only get ~2 years out of a derailleur before it gets sloppy and loses precision.
> 
> Some folks talk about still using derailleurs that are 8+ years old and I can't help but think that they must be worn out by this point. I'd rather have a brand new Deore derailleur than an 8 year old used XTR model.


I was one of those guys. Rode the same xtr rear derailleur for 9 years. Was the first derailleur I wore out. It started throwing chains. At first I thought it was out of adjustment but it eventually occurred to me it might be wearing out. I went to the lbs to check out new derailleurs because I thought mine was damaged in a crash but when I started handling the new ones I realized that mine was worn. Got a NOS XT 9spd as a replacement because there is no good sense in upgrading the whole drivetrain to 10spd because I wore out a derailleur.

And that last sentence is the crux of the matter, isn't it? You enjoy your old bike the way it is and when something wears out you want to buy a new replacement of equal or better quality yet you don't want to upgrade half the bike (parts that don't need replacement yet) just because you wore something out.


----------



## bog (Jun 3, 2004)

Mr.Magura said:


> Which in the cases i have seen so far, has turned out very expensive
> 
> But yes, they naturally can be found, just not at a cost that has anything to do with the reality usually.
> 
> ...


Hmmm, so it looks like you have something to do with Magura. You do understand that Magura makes disc brakes and suspension forks that would not be around if we were all riding rigid steel frames with rigid steel forks and canti brakes right!? Thankfully technological advances have given us these wonderful parts that allow us to ride more difficult trails with more control.


----------



## bridger (Dec 7, 2010)

Millfox said:


> Some things in the letter have a point.
> 
> I also dont understand the reason for 2x10 or (new) 1x11 shifting systems. Sure that front derailleurs can be a pain in the ass but they ad flexibility to the ride. With 1x11 they plan to sell about 5 versions of crank wheels depending on the teeth count. With a classic 3x10 they sell 44-33-22 or 42-32-22... Thats much more of an all rounder IMHO.
> 
> ...


So what's wrong with 2x10? It's slim & trim and is just what many need.


----------



## AmbientLight (Nov 25, 2012)

I kind of like the progress. As someone who moved away from the sport of "Mountainbiking" over 10 years ago to pursue other things in my life, I am excited and in awe of the new technology, and how much things have changed (for the better). Things that were top of the line when I used to ride are considered entry level now, and as such much cheaper to buy. My current ride (A Giant STP-0) is a dream bike for me when I think back to my old "mountainbike" all purpose bike. The first jump I pulled on the new bike was a revelation. How the hell did I achieve what I did ten years ago on what was considered a very good bike at the time (I had a Diamond Back V-Link with Marzocchi Bomber Z2's). Without progress, no-one moves forward...


----------



## Mr.Magura (Aug 11, 2010)

Berkley said:


> Yeah, it seems like a lot of folks talk about having "perfectly good" older generation high end derailleurs, and I wonder if they've had any experience on a new one for comparison. I usually end up replacing derailleurs because the pivots and springs develop play, not because I smash them into things. I do ride quite a bit, but I only get ~2 years out of a derailleur before it gets sloppy and loses precision.
> 
> Some folks talk about still using derailleurs that are 8+ years old and I can't help but think that they must be worn out by this point. I'd rather have a brand new Deore derailleur than an 8 year old used XTR model.


If maintained well, you can easily have old stuff that works pretty much like new.

....and yes, I do have new stuff as well.

Magura


----------



## kjlued (Jun 23, 2011)

As much as I would like to try and ride one of these, I imagine it wouldn't be too much fun on the trails.


----------



## DavyRay (Apr 13, 2012)

kjlued said:


> As much as I would like to try and ride one of these, I imagine it wouldn't be too much fun on the trails.


You might want a slacker HT angle. That one looks a bit twitchy. Old school, you might say.


----------



## kjlued (Jun 23, 2011)

That would involve making advancements which forces us to spend more money and that would just be wrong.


----------



## btl68 (Nov 18, 2010)

I didn't read thru all the responses that were posted, so forgive me if it's all ready been suggested...


The #1 thing that I think that Shimano should do is remake the XT/XTR line of 8-speed from about 96-01. Talk about a money-maker! They would be selling gold from a gold mine, and all the tooling is already made!


----------



## JoePAz (May 7, 2012)

NateHawk said:


> ... Got a NOS XT 9spd as a replacement because there is no good sense in upgrading the whole drivetrain to 10spd because I wore out a derailleur.
> 
> And that last sentence is the crux of the matter, isn't it? You enjoy your old bike the way it is and when something wears out you want to buy a new replacement of equal or better quality yet you don't want to upgrade half the bike (parts that don't need replacement yet) just because you wore something out.


That is exactly right. I ride the bike I built in 2003. I used nice XT components throughout back then it was a nice riding bike. 9psd, V-brakes and all. These days is getting harder and harder to find similar quality parts without needing "upgrade" the entire bike. I rode bike in 2003/2004 and then took some time off riding. So the bike just sat in the garage. When I started riding it again last fall I felt no need to "upgrade" since the bike worked. In fact other than new tubes it needed nothing. That is right I still run tubes to. Now wear items like tires are new now, but they don't require me to upgrade the wheels to put them on. I just put on the tires and be done with it.

I am close to the point where 1 failed part that should cost $20 will force a $500 upgrade. I busted a tooth off my middle chainring and was able to get a XT M751 middle ring. However I wanted to replace my big ring as I had couple teeth ground down going over rocks. It still worked, but while I had it off I figured it would be good change.. Well try to find a XT M751/752 big ring... You can't... The 760 might fit, but who wants to spend $80 on chain ring that "might" work. Then given the BB change I figure if something else breaks on there I will need a new BB/crankset. I could go on, but I think you get the idea.


----------



## JoePAz (May 7, 2012)

Mr.Magura said:


> If maintained well, you can easily have old stuff that works pretty much like new.
> 
> ....and yes, I do have new stuff as well.
> 
> Magura





kjlued said:


> As much as I would like to try and ride one of these, I imagine it wouldn't be too much fun on the trails.


Look the point is mtn bikes from 10-20 years ago are not that different. Not like what you see here. Changes from V-brakes to discs are not earth shattering. 9 or 10 speed drive trains, 29" wheels not to mention 31.8 vs 25.4 bars, taper head tubes. even 1 1/8 vs quill.

All of these changes are detail changes and refinements. Just because they are out there it does not mean the old stuff is bad. It just means the new stuff is slight improvement. I don't dislike new stuff, but forcing upgrades not my idea of fun. There is that attitude that all the old stuff is bad or going to break. Hell no. A well built 10 year 26" hardtail with v-brakes will ride the trails today just fine. I did race on such bike a few weeks ago. Results were fine and I finished where I did due to me and not my bike. If I were racing for wins then I would probably need to upgraded, but when are just out for fun it is hard drop $$$ for only minor update.


----------



## Mr.Magura (Aug 11, 2010)

JoePAz said:


> Look the point is mtn bikes from 10-20 years ago are not that different. Not like what you see here. Changes from V-brakes to discs are not earth shattering. 9 or 10 speed drive trains, 29" wheels not to mention 31.8 vs 25.4 bars, taper head tubes. even 1 1/8 vs quill.
> 
> All of these changes are detail changes and refinements. Just because they are out there it does not mean the old stuff is bad. It just means the new stuff is slight improvement. I don't dislike new stuff, but forcing upgrades not my idea of fun. There is that attitude that all the old stuff is bad or going to break. Hell no. A well built 10 year 26" hardtail with v-brakes will ride the trails today just fine. I did race on such bike a few weeks ago. Results were fine and I finished where I did due to me and not my bike. If I were racing for wins then I would probably need to upgraded, but when are just out for fun it is hard drop $$$ for only minor update.


Exactly!

Magura


----------



## Mr.Magura (Aug 11, 2010)

bog said:


> Hmmm, so it looks like you have something to do with Magura. You do understand that Magura makes disc brakes and suspension forks that would not be around if we were all riding rigid steel frames with rigid steel forks and canti brakes right!? Thankfully technological advances have given us these wonderful parts that allow us to ride more difficult trails with more control.


Hmm, it looks like Magura is my nickname in the real world, and has been for like 20 years 

I have no connection with the company called Magura.

Magura


----------



## sauprankul (Sep 6, 2012)

Magura... where does that come from?
Anyway, it has been mentioned that the progress in MTB tech has been incremental. Its true, but only to a certain extent. Try free riding on a rigid 5 speeder with cantis. I dare you...
Tech has allowed athletes to push the sport to its extremes, and new tech is made to accommodate those extremes.


----------



## Mr.Magura (Aug 11, 2010)

sauprankul said:


> Magura... where does that come from?
> Anyway, it has been mentioned that the progress in MTB tech has been incremental. Its true, but only to a certain extent. Try free riding on a rigid 5 speeder with cantis. I dare you...
> Tech has allowed athletes to push the sport to its extremes, and new tech is made to accommodate those extremes.


I got that name back when hydraulic brakes were fairly unknown, and I guess I was much into them back then, so I got the nick. 
Now I just go by that name.

If you take a look around the MTBR, you'll see that I'm all for development, in fact I have made a few bits here and there myself. 
What I am against, is change for the sake of change, with no benefit besides lining the pockets of the industry.
Much of the "development" we see, has no real benefit. A great example is the new Sram XX1. That has to be a joke if you ask me. Even 10 speed offers very limited benefit.
The limited benefit XX1 offers, could be achieved without making another "standard", and at a minimal cost.

Magura


----------



## sauprankul (Sep 6, 2012)

Really? I like the concept of XX1. Not having to worry about shifting in front is already a known + of the 1 x n setup. Being able to achieve most of the ratios of a triple is awesome. Would it be possible to but a 42-10 cassette on a standard hub? Maybe the 11 speeds are unnecessary though.


----------



## Mr.Magura (Aug 11, 2010)

sauprankul said:


> Really? I like the concept of XX1. Not having to worry about shifting in front is already a known + of the 1 x n setup. Being able to achieve most of the ratios of a triple is awesome. Would it be possible to but a 42-10 cassette on a standard hub? Maybe the 11 speeds are unnecessary though.


I'm doing a 40-11, 10 sp. at the moment, which does not seem to leave much to wish for compared to a 42-10, and mine is compatible with all the usual hubs. 
I would much rather have seen the industry do that, but the industry chose to make it a 1000$ upgrade, instead of a 50$ solution 

Besides that, I guess we want the same thing, I just like that my stuff is not at total loss every time something goes south away from home. 
So I develop stuff that can be replaced by just about anything on the market, if need be, but offers the same as the top shelf stuff or better.

Magura


----------



## JoePAz (May 7, 2012)

sauprankul said:


> Really? I like the concept of XX1. Not having to worry about shifting in front is already a known + of the 1 x n setup. Being able to achieve most of the ratios of a triple is awesome. Would it be possible to but a 42-10 cassette on a standard hub? Maybe the 11 speeds are unnecessary though.


I personally think a 1x set-up it is big step backward. Ok if only ride a one trail type, but for all around use it is big step down. The triple chainring set-up gives you a wide range of gears and close spacing. Close spacing is important if you want to run a set cadence. For me idea is somewhere between 85 and 95 rpm. With more gears and maximize speed and maitiain optimum cadence. Now a triple does have overlap and so some might prefer a 2x10 to 3x9, but those are detail differences. I have road bike with a triple front and 12-23 9 spd rear. Compared to my mtb with its 11-34 rear I get the same number of grears, but a much tighter spacing. This is handy to allow me to pick just the right gear run at my max pedal force while also optimizing my cadence. These two thing combine to allow max speed for most any road or wind condition.

Now single speeds are completely different in that those riders WANT the challenge of just one gear. It is badge of honor really as you have learn to ride around the weakness of just one gear.


----------



## Ailuropoda (Dec 15, 2010)

JoePAz said:


> Look the point is mtn bikes from 10-20 years ago are not that different. Not like what you see here. Changes from V-brakes to discs are not earth shattering. 9 or 10 speed drive trains, 29" wheels not to mention 31.8 vs 25.4 bars, taper head tubes. even 1 1/8 vs quill.
> 
> All of these changes are detail changes and refinements. Just because they are out there it does not mean the old stuff is bad. It just means the new stuff is slight improvement. I don't dislike new stuff, but forcing upgrades not my idea of fun. There is that attitude that all the old stuff is bad or going to break. Hell no. A well built 10 year 26" hardtail with v-brakes will ride the trails today just fine. I did race on such bike a few weeks ago. Results were fine and I finished where I did due to me and not my bike. If I were racing for wins then I would probably need to upgraded, but when are just out for fun it is hard drop $$$ for only minor update.


I have to disagree. The difference between my 1992 Bridgestone MB4 and my 2013 Specialized FSR Stumpjumper Elite are profound. Both cost roughly the same in inflation adjusted dollars (I think I paid $800 bucks for the MB4) but the ride quality, speed, and comfort are not even in the same galaxy.

I am fortunate to have a pretty good job so I can afford nice bikes. Upgrades are fun which is the whole point of mountain biking. Certainly it's not pulling any chicks or increasing my social standing in the community. New bikes with cool technology are fun for their own sake and require no justification. If I were poor I would be happy (and was happy when I was poor) with a basic, sturdy, inexpensive bike but now, heck, mountain biking beats golf, hunting, or any other hobbies common in my demographic and it's probably cheaper in the long run.

The OP is a retrogrouch which is fine but five years from now what is now a high end component will be found on low-priced bikes and everybody will benefit. Heck, you can get a very nice "generic" carbon frame for less than $400 today. A few years back they were highly exotic and ran in the thousands. I happen to really like the ride quality and coolness factor of carbon.

So my letter to the bike industry would urge them to continue developing new, unnecessary technologies. I lead a fairly Spartan life, drive a cheap car, live in a modest house, and generally live well below the level that my income would allow me to if i was that kind of guy. My only real extravagances are bikes. Beats putting the money into our creaky and tottering financial system in the misguided expectation that the political cronies of Wall Street and the government will do anything to prevent our investments from being ass raped. My inlaws bought into the hype and have lost almost three-quarters of the value of their investments.


----------



## sauprankul (Sep 6, 2012)

JoePAz said:


> I personally think a 1x set-up it is big step backward. Ok if only ride a one trail type, but for all around use it is big step down. The triple chainring set-up gives you a wide range of gears and close spacing. Close spacing is important if you want to run a set cadence. For me idea is somewhere between 85 and 95 rpm. With more gears and maximize speed and maitiain optimum cadence.


Triples are nice for narrow cassettes. Maintaining an optimum cadence isnt at the top of my list. Definitely not over reliability and simplicity. I ride for fun and fitness. I can go a little slower than my body permits if I want an optimum cadence.

I think the 11 speed cassette is to be able to keep an optimum cadence even with a 1 x n drive train.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

sauprankul said:


> .
> 
> I think the 11 speed cassette is to be able to keep an optimum cadence even with a 1 x n drive train.


If you don't have strong legs, it's harder.


----------



## Ailuropoda (Dec 15, 2010)

sauprankul said:


> Triples are nice for narrow cassettes. Maintaining an optimum cadence isnt at the top of my list. Definitely not over reliability and simplicity. I ride for fun and fitness. I can go a little slower than my body permits if I want an optimum cadence.
> 
> I think the 11 speed cassette is to be able to keep an optimum cadence even with a 1 x n drive train.


I confess to have never used the largest chain ring on a triple setup and for what it's worth would really prefer a 1x10 setup on most of my bikes with a 24 tooth chainring up front.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

Ailuropoda said:


> I confess to have never used the largest chain ring on a triple setup and for what it's worth would really prefer a 1x10 setup on most of my bikes with a 24 tooth chainring up front.


Really? Don't you spin out in the middle on flat ground?


----------



## sauprankul (Sep 6, 2012)

Mountain Cycle Shawn said:


> If you don't have strong legs, it harder.


Hmm? I realize not having a granny gear would make it harder to do those grueling climbs but that's what... cross training is for.


----------



## JoePAz (May 7, 2012)

Ailuropoda said:


> I confess to have never used the largest chain ring on a triple setup and for what it's worth would really prefer a 1x10 setup on most of my bikes with a 24 tooth chainring up front.


By contrast I have used my 22, 32 and 44 chainrings on the same ride many times. Each chainrings has its purpose.

Now I am not against new technology, but do find if frustrating to be FORCED into upgrading when all you want to do is maintain a your bike. 10 years old is not old for piece of equipment that is 90% the same.


----------



## Ailuropoda (Dec 15, 2010)

Mountain Cycle Shawn said:


> Really? Don't you spin out in the middle on flat ground?


Our trails are mostly up and down...very few flat areas. And I'm more of a spinner than a masher.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

Ailuropoda said:


> Our trails are mostly up and down...very few flat areas. And I'm more of a spinner than a masher.


Let me rephrase that. Don't you spin out in the middle going down?


----------



## shekky (Oct 21, 2011)

this thread is similar to the _vinyl vs CDs vs mp3_ debate i suffer through sometimes as a broadcaster...


----------



## Mr.Magura (Aug 11, 2010)

shekky said:


> this thread is similar to the _vinyl vs CDs vs mp3_ debate i suffer through sometimes as a broadcaster...


It would have been, if the audio industry made it impossible to connect an old record player to a new stereo. 

Fortunately it is not so.

Magura


----------



## shekky (Oct 21, 2011)

Mr.Magura said:


> It would have been, if the audio industry made it impossible to connect an old record player to a new stereo.
> 
> Fortunately it is not so.
> 
> Magura


huh?  my seventies pioneer TT works just fine with my nineties tuner/amp--although it's routed through a early 00's gemini mixer...


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

Mountain Cycle Shawn said:


> Let me rephrase that. Don't you spin out in the middle going down?


I have a 22/32 crank and 11-34 cassette. The only place I spin out and care is on pavement (where I guess I really don't care, anyway). I I might spin out on a fire road, but not on singletrack. It's just too rough and/or twisty to be going that fast.

Been riding over 10 years this way, never saw the need for a big ring on the mtb.


----------



## Mr.Magura (Aug 11, 2010)

shekky said:


> huh?  my seventies pioneer TT works just fine with my nineties tuner/amp--although it's routed through a early 00's gemini mixer...


Try reading my post once more. 

Magura


----------



## shekky (Oct 21, 2011)

Mr.Magura said:


> Try reading my post once more.
> 
> Magura


gotcha...:thumbsup:


----------



## shekky (Oct 21, 2011)

kapusta said:


> I have a 22/32 crank and 11-34 cassette. The only place I spin out and care is on pavement (where I guess I really don't care, anyway). I I might spin out on a fire road, but not on singletrack. It's just too rough and/or twisty to be going that fast.
> 
> Been riding over 10 years this way, never saw the need for a big ring on the mtb.


to each their own.

since i don't own a car, lots of my riding involves a fair amount of pavement and fast fire roads. not having a big ring would be a quite a handicap.


----------



## kjlued (Jun 23, 2011)

JoePAz said:


> Look the point is mtn bikes from 10-20 years ago are not that different. Not like what you see here. Changes from V-brakes to discs are not earth shattering. 9 or 10 speed drive trains, 29" wheels not to mention 31.8 vs 25.4 bars, taper head tubes. even 1 1/8 vs quill.
> 
> All of these changes are detail changes and refinements. Just because they are out there it does not mean the old stuff is bad. It just means the new stuff is slight improvement. I don't dislike new stuff, but forcing upgrades not my idea of fun. There is that attitude that all the old stuff is bad or going to break. Hell no. A well built 10 year 26" hardtail with v-brakes will ride the trails today just fine. I did race on such bike a few weeks ago. Results were fine and I finished where I did due to me and not my bike. If I were racing for wins then I would probably need to upgraded, but when are just out for fun it is hard drop $$$ for only minor update.


Not significant changes in the last 20 years?

I disagree

The crappy Suntour XCR on my bike is a far cry better then the best early suspension forks. Not to mention the advancements in rear suspension.

Regardless, though, nobody is forced to buy anything. 
If you feel compelled to buy, that is your fault.

You statement is full of contradictions.

First you say all the changes are detail changes and refinements. 
Then you say they are improvements.

Next you say that you race for fun and you did fine on your old bike acting like you could care less about a win. Then saying if you wanted to win you would need to upgrade bikes. Sounds more like you are upset that you can't buy a new bike so you can't win. 
(Of course, that is an assumption that you could be the guys that beat you)

Let's face it, bike manufacturers could care less about your old bike. 
Your old bike doesn't make them a dime. 
They don't want you to have a 20 year old bike, they want you to buy a new one every year.


----------



## Scott In MD (Sep 28, 2008)

Edit - just be accountable, bro. Don't blame the bike industry if you decide you need bigger wheels, or smaller wheels ... to clean your line.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

Scott In MD said:


> Edit - just be accountable, bro. Don't blame the bike industry if you decide you need bigger wheels, or smaller wheels ... to clean your line.


Hey, what happened to all that other stuff you wrote, I liked it!


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

shekky said:


> to each their own.
> 
> since i don't own a car, lots of my riding involves a fair amount of pavement and fast fire roads. not having a big ring would be a quite a handicap.


On a bike with less knobby tires that I planned to ride on pavement much, I'd have a bigger ring for sure:thumbsup:


----------



## Scott In MD (Sep 28, 2008)

Mountain Cycle Shawn said:


> Hey, what happened to all that other stuff you wrote, I liked it!


I thought it was a little soap boxy.... But here's the full money version

This is a pretty lame theory, that there is some global industry conspiratorial kool-aid that causes us mindless bikers to irrationally and uncontrollably buy **** we don't need, aren't able to use, and can't afford... and can't live without. That's a bunch of crap.

Be accountable bro'.

When I was riding a full rigid ~1993 3x8 speed Prestige steel GT Avalanche (...wish I still had it) I couldn't wait to get into a suspension fork ..... But by the time I wore out the GT, I was glad that I'd ridden through the first generations of front suspension .... And moved up to a full suspension Stumpjumper in 2002. Looking back, that bike was a tank, but at the time it felt like silk. I remember to this day my first ride on suspension around Cathedral Rock in Sedona thinking there was no way a trail bike could ever be any better. I'd seen/heard about hydraulic brakes... But hey probably just a fad. And besides, $1800 was as much as I'd ever dream of paying for a bicycle, even if it had last year's V-brakes.

6 years later, in 2008, I was blown away at how much smoother a Titus full suspension RacerX 29r was. I splurged and set it up with only the best >>> full XT 3x9 ... And finally, hydraulic brakes! And tubeless. But day 1 on hydraulic/tubeless/29 didn't make me love the ride any more or any less.

Now, I'm looking forward to carbon. I think droppers will eventually be perfected, when they work flawlessly and weigh less, and that'll be awesome. And i hear that 2x10 is fantastic... But 39/26 is a little tall for 29ers so I don't mind waiting for more selection of 36/22 cranks. Or maybe 1x11? Actually, I really think 2x11 with electric FRONT derailleur ( and mechanical rear derailleur) will be the sweet spot... But until I pull that trigger, my Titus is rolling just fine.

Be accountable, bro. Don't blame Shimano if you decide Ice-Tech is going to give you added precision you need to clean your line so you drop a benji and scrap out your perfectly good OEM rotors. Don't blame Jamis for shaming you into 27.5 because you think your big wheels are "holding me back"

Me, I can't wait to see what's next..... But every time I get passed on a long climb by some guy (or gal) riding a v-brake 3X8 speed 26r I'm reminded it is the Indian, not the arrow.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

shekky said:


> to each their own.
> 
> since i don't own a car, lots of my riding involves a fair amount of pavement and fast fire roads. not having a big ring would be a quite a handicap.


I agree. I use my big on every ride. And I have a few cars.



Scott In MD said:


> I thought it was a little soap boxy.... But here's the full money version
> 
> This is a pretty lame theory, that there is some global industry conspiratorial kool-aid that causes us mindless bikers to irrationally and uncontrollably buy **** we don't need, aren't able to use, and can't afford... and can't live without. That's a bunch of crap.
> 
> ...


Right on!


----------



## kjlued (Jun 23, 2011)

Scott In MD said:


> I thought it was a little soap boxy.... But here's the full money version
> 
> This is a pretty lame theory, that there is some global industry conspiratorial kool-aid that causes us mindless bikers to irrationally and uncontrollably buy **** we don't need, aren't able to use, and can't afford... and can't live without. That's a bunch of crap.
> 
> ...


Yes on everything especially that lat part.

Seems people often want to blame the equipment for their problems and not their own inadequacies.


----------



## Mr.Magura (Aug 11, 2010)

kjlued said:


> Yes on everything especially that lat part.
> 
> Seems people often want to blame the equipment for their problems and not their own inadequacies.


Yet nobody besides you have brought up that topic in this thread.

So get your female hormones under control, and quit reading stuff that people don't type 

Magura


----------



## JoePAz (May 7, 2012)

kapusta said:


> I have a 22/32 crank and 11-34 cassette. The only place I spin out and care is on pavement (where I guess I really don't care, anyway). I I might spin out on a fire road, but not on singletrack. It's just too rough and/or twisty to be going that fast.
> 
> Been riding over 10 years this way, never saw the need for a big ring on the mtb.


I don't use the big ring on trails as much as the smaller ones, but I am happy to have it there. On faster flowing descents I will tend to move to the big ring just to reduce chainslap you get from the middle ring small rear cog combo. Plus in my last (and only) mtb race the last mile or 2 where on pavement and went into roadie mode with big ring and small cog to push 24 mph in order to pass another rider. I am sure glad I had triple on that ride.

Point is I like versatility of the triple. It give a wide range of gears and allows mix of options on how to ride those gears. Going to a double gives up either range, flexibiity, or spacing and a single front is even worse requiring you to give up a lot of range.


----------



## JoePAz (May 7, 2012)

kjlued said:


> Not significant changes in the last 20 years?
> 
> I disagree
> 
> The crappy Suntour XCR on my bike is a far cry better then the best early suspension forks. Not to mention the advancements in rear suspension.


Bikes still have 2 wheels, fat tires, gears, seats and handlebars. Overall they are the pretty much the same.

Frame materials have improved allowing for lighter bikes, but to to some degree they have offset by other things.

In the end a good rider on old bike and still ride the same trails as before. He or she may not be able to go quite as fast it is can still be done. Look 40 year ago mtn biking did not really exist so change does happen, but right now we are in the refinement phase. The first big revolution was create mtn bike in first place. That means double triangle bike with "fat" tires with gears and an intended purpose of riding in the dirt another rough surfaces.

The next revolution front suspension. The one following that was rear suspension. Since then there have been refinements to a lot of things. The funny thing about even these "revolutions" is that while most people run front suspension there are some that chose not to. There are even more still that chose to not run rear suspension. So that while the are revolutionary they are not not requirements either.



kjlued said:


> You statement is full of contradictions.
> 
> First you say all the changes are detail changes and refinements.
> Then you say they are improvements.
> ...


There improvements are detail changes and refinements. People would like to say a 10 speed drive train is 100% better than a 7 speed, but really it is not. It is a refinement and if used properly and improvement, but a minor one. On a recreational trail ride it not big deal either way. Still given the choice I would rather use my 9 spd vs the 7 spd on my 1998 bike. Even so I can't really say my riding got "better" on the 9 spd.

As for racing... I did one race for the fun of it. I will do some additional ones. I will not race to win, but I always give 100% because it is what I do. Now if I really wanted to dedicate myself to winning races I would start with a lot of training. Lots more than I do now and I know I don't have time for that. Then I would try to eek out every less ounce of speed from my bike. I have background in club level car racing so I know what it takes to race competitively. A few years ago I placed 4 in my class at the national championship race. I lead half the race and finished 4th 2.5 seconds out of the lead after 40 min. This is in a class where all the cars are "identical". I built and maintained my car myself so I know what it takes to try to get 100% from something. On race bike ounce make a difference and you need the latest whiz bang gizmo because seconds matter. What I am doing now on bike is far cry from that so I see no need to chase the latest "go fast" stuff. I am tired of that. I prefer to have fun of competition without the work it takes to win. I train when I can and race what I have. I give my 100% on course, but realize I will never win and just hope to be in the pack having fun. That goal is achieved even on an old bike because fundamentally the old bike is still competent with a competent rider. There more difference in rider skills and fitness separating overall field of riders in mtn bike race than in the equipment old or new.



kjlued said:


> Let's face it, bike manufacturers could care less about your old bike.
> Your old bike doesn't make them a dime.
> *They don't want you to have a 20 year old bike, they want you to buy a new one every year.*


This is quite true... and it is why they like to change standards and come out with new "must have" "Revolutionary" products each year.


----------



## JoePAz (May 7, 2012)

Scott In MD said:


> ...
> 6 years later, in 2008, I was blown away at how much smoother a Titus full suspension RacerX 29r was. I splurged and set it up with only the best >>> full XT 3x9 ... And finally, hydraulic brakes! And tubeless. But day 1 on hydraulic/tubeless/29 didn't make me love the ride any more or any less.
> 
> ..... But every time I get passed on a long climb by some guy (or gal) riding a v-brake 3X8 speed 26r I'm reminded it is the Indian, not the arrow.


Same here. I had similar experience "upgrading". In 1998 I bought an entry level mongoose. vbrakes 3x7 Indy "S" fork. Good bike for the day and price. I rode it everywhere and loved. However it was a bit heavy and did not have the best fork. I swapped the fork to Judy in 2002 and it got better. Then in 2003 I "rewarded" myself with new bike. This time I went light and XT. Built up a new bike with the latest 9spd system, hollow cranks, etc. I shaved off a solid 5-6lbs of bike weight even with re-using the Judy I bought year earlier. Funny thing though.. While the bike climbed better and rode better in every way, I was not having "more fun" on the trails. The fun was the same and while I might have saved 30 seconds on a 5 minute climb it did not really change my riding any.

I am still happy I upgraded when I did, but I realized that the bike was not going to give me super human skills. I sill had ride it. Today I could upgrade to the newest thing, but I ask myself.. "*Will it make riding any more fun?*" I have yet to find anything that stays "Yes" enough to drop $$$ on it.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

All I can say is, the MTB has come a hell of a long way since I bought my Diamond Back Arrival in 1988!! I figure, I have another 25 years to ride. I can't wait to see what changes will come in the next 25 years!! I say, eff the past and bring on the future!!


----------



## ehigh (Apr 19, 2011)

Who had to go an resurrect this dead thread? It died because:

everything's already been said

it's an endlessly debatable topic


----------



## rydbyk (Oct 13, 2009)

I like carbon frames over aluminum. Raced both.

I like 29er wheels on my hardtail vs 26" on my hardtail. Raced both.

I like carbon hoops better than aluminum. Raced both.

I like my modern fork with lock out better than my generation 1 Manitou with elastomer bumpers. Raced both.

I like disc brakes better than cantis and v brakes. Raced both.

If I raced DH, I would buy a dropper post in a heartbeat.

Yadda yadda yadda. 

Shame on the industry? Funny. What you fail to realize is that the bike you currently ride has evolved from the bikes available in the 1800s. 

Go buy a penny farthing and get on with it then..

Industry...please continue to evolve. I will manage to ignore the 10% of silly "must haves" that are introduced each season...

**Note: Look at what happened to Chris King when they refused to evolve. Still a great company, but making way way less money than 10 years ago.

Thanks.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

Progress, it's never going to slow down!!


----------



## Mr.Magura (Aug 11, 2010)

Mountain Cycle Shawn said:


> Progress, it's never going to slow down!!


Progress has slowed down for the MTB scene a long time ago.

It's mostly the marketing departments that are never going to slow down 

Magura


----------



## rydbyk (Oct 13, 2009)

Mr.Magura said:


> Progress has slowed down for the MTB scene a long time ago.
> 
> It's mostly the marketing departments that are never going to slow down
> 
> Magura


1980 to 1990, the advancements were?

1990 to 2000, the advancements were?

2000 to present, to me seems as relevant...maybe even more so. I do agree that marketing has increased, but that just mirrors what exists in nearly any industry today..


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

Mr.Magura said:


> Progress has slowed down for the MTB scene a long time ago.
> 
> It's mostly the marketing departments that are never going to slow down
> 
> Magura


I do not agree. Bikes and parts are getting better every year. Weather you like what's coming out or not is another thing.


----------



## Mr.Magura (Aug 11, 2010)

Mountain Cycle Shawn said:


> I do not agree. Bikes and parts are getting better every year. Weather you like what's coming out or not is another thing.


Mostly not better, just different 

Suspension has seen some real improvement within the last 10 years, and that's about it.

A top of the line gear system, is still working about the same as it was back then, and the same goes for brakes.

During those years, the marketing departments have done a great job though.

Magura


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

Iv'e been buying MTB frames and parts since 1988. Everything that I have bought has gotten better, lighter and stronger. Except those Hanabrink forks I bought, what a pile those were! Brakes are much better and lighter then 10 years ago.


----------



## Mr.Magura (Aug 11, 2010)

Mountain Cycle Shawn said:


> Iv'e been buying MTB frames and parts since 1988. Everything that I have bought has gotten better, lighter and stronger. Except those Hanabrink forks I bought, what a pile those were! Brakes are much better and lighter then 10 years ago.


One of the top brakes today, is the Hope M4. It's still pretty much the same as it was 10 years ago.

Need more examples?

Magura


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

I don't need your examples.


----------



## Mr.Magura (Aug 11, 2010)

Mountain Cycle Shawn said:


> I don't need your examples.


Naah, true, I forgot that claims against examples of the opposite, is not a nice game to play 

Magura


----------



## SV11 (Jan 2, 2011)

Mr.Magura said:


> Progress has slowed down for the MTB scene a long time ago.
> 
> It's mostly the marketing departments that are never going to slow down
> 
> Magura


I could not agree more, you noticed it as well.
It seems that the marketing departments are trying to reinvent the wheel.


----------



## BigwheelsRbest (Jun 12, 2007)

There are more and more innovations (as well as marketing - granted).
But these usually have an ever-decreasing impact on the scale of improvement. It's like we're reaching the plateaux - race times falling by lower increments; bike bits weigh less, but only by a few grams.
Every so often there is a step-change that lifts the game significantly. For me, tubeless is a good example - from 20 flats a year to none - incredible. Or 29" wheels for technical climbing.
What will the next step change be? Difficult to imagine, but it will come.


----------



## sauprankul (Sep 6, 2012)

BigwheelsRbest said:


> What will the next step change be? Difficult to imagine, but it will come.


That's R&D's job, not ours.


----------



## RobinGB (Oct 23, 2011)

I keep trying to ignore this post, but i just cant.

The splintering of mountain bikes into countless sub sections is the industry recognizing that i ride differently then you, i have different terrain in the place i live then you with different obstacles and features. 

The fact that RnD is being pushed as hard as it is, is the a great sign. It means mountain biking is becoming more mainstream, and is attracting a larger following and more interest. Why is this a good thing?, because we have come a long way form the days of rake and ride. Trails systems are being supported by towns and local communities, they are being supported by the land owners and are becoming draws for tourism and business to small towns everywhere.

Now do we "need" half the things that are put out ever year?, hell no (buts its still fun to buy, thank you anodized matching parts and spacers). But from time to time something comes along that quickly becomes a must have, like the dropper seat post and like the disc brakes before it. Are there two things needed?, no maybe not. Did they make riding easier for many people?, hell yes. And ya know, thats a good enough reason for me to buy into it.

Most technology that is quickly embraced are the things that make riding more exciting and safer, and these are two areas that always need to be worked on.

Shame the bike industries?. shame the auto industries, i mean the speed limit is the speed limit... who needs after market performance parts?. Hell shame the electronics industries, shame the entertainment industries (really do we need remakes of classics?). Shame everyone who ever put out a new product when the old one still worked fine, i mean did we need an iphone 5, the 4s is still pretty freaking amazing.

You know what happens when companies stop R&D and dont release new products, the go under and lots of people lose their jobs.

TL;DR
The op sounds like a kid who's friends have all the new toys and hes stuck using a department store bike, and is generally angry his parents wont buy him a new bike. I know because i used to be one of these people, suspension is stupid, hydros breaks are just going to leave you stranded on the side of the trail and dropper seat posts are just a gimmick. Stopping ever 20min on a trail to adjust my seat height is just as good. 

I most likely should not be wasting my time to feed the trolls but really... i mean really?


----------



## Mr.Magura (Aug 11, 2010)

RobinGB said:


> The fact that RnD is being pushed as hard as it is, is the a great sign. It means mountain biking is becoming more mainstream, and is attracting a larger following and more interest. Why is this a good thing?, because we have come a long way form the days of rake and ride. Trails systems are being supported by towns and local communities, they are being supported by the land owners and are becoming draws for tourism and business to small towns everywhere.
> 
> You know what happens when companies stop R&D and dont release new products, the go under and lots of people lose their jobs.


It's not the R&D departments that are being pushed, but the marketing departments....huge difference.
If the R&D departments were working that hard, and got that much funding, we would see real development from more than a handful of companies. The rest are just changing things to make them seem different, and leave the "development" to the marketing guys.

In fact what happens when the R&D departments don't develop new products, is that the development is grinding to something close to a standstill. 
......and that is exactly what we have pretty much had for the last 10 years.

Counting out the Shimano Dynasys, carbon MTB rims, some improvement of suspension, and some attempts at making a hydraulic dropper post work, nothing really new has hit the market for the last 10 years, just minor adjustments, and many of those not for the better.

Loads of BS has hit the market in that period, heavily supported by the respective marketing departments. Mind you, that is what most of the cash goes towards, or we would have some pretty hefty bikes today.

Magura


----------



## dru (Sep 4, 2006)

Oh, come on, Magura, don't you think that 10 speeds make me so much faster than 9 or even 8? I own those climbs now, (unless I need to shift the front because I have a 38 t big gear.)

My 70 mm stem makes me so edgy going down that my crappy climbing position doesn't even matter. Hell, if I drop it in the corners, it's not the bike's fault (maybe the short stem's though), it's mine because I forgot to get my weight forward.

Those wide bars give me so much more leverage than before (even though I'm riding a bike not a 240 lb motocrosser).

And I like buying new rings every second season the BCD changes. It's my money after all, and I'm faster damn it. 

My ultra small frame with 18 inches of post isn't fashion either. Don't you know a smaller frame is stiffer and handles better?

Tongue in cheek aside, we are at the 'motocross stage', where actual improvements are small each season. In moto, after 12 inches front and back in 1979, everything else has been minor by comparison.

Imho, on bicycles disc brakes and really good suspension are the big breakthroughs. Stuff like carbon fibre, tapered steerers, stiff cranks, and OS bars definitely help incrementally. Pretty much everything else is hyped up stuff that the sheeple "just have to have".

Drew


----------



## Mr.Magura (Aug 11, 2010)

dru said:


> Imho, on bicycles disc brakes and really good suspension are the big breakthroughs. Stuff like carbon fibre, tapered steerers, stiff cranks, and OS bars definitely help incrementally. Pretty much everything else is hyped up stuff that the sheeple "just have to have".
> 
> Drew


I guess we pretty much agree in the end of the day 

Magura


----------



## car bone (Apr 15, 2011)

The really nice things that has come lately is actual good working suspension. Stuff with actual working/good seals (such as hubs)









lock on grips

good grippy platform pedals

good working hydro discs

short stems

lots of weird handlebars

very light and durable steel frames

+3 gear internal gear hubs that actually works

dual gear cranks

I think these new cranks/bb's (hollow axle) are a step forward too (ease and speed of assembly) but the drawbacks seems to be durability

stainless and full length cables and housings

infinite poe hubs

centrelock hubs (!)

1 x whatever


----------



## Mr.Magura (Aug 11, 2010)

car bone said:


> The really nice things that has come lately is actual good working suspension. Stuff with actual working/good seals (such as hubs)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


All of the above, is more than 10 years old 

Magura


----------



## car bone (Apr 15, 2011)

Thats lately too me  

Those are good inventions. (imo)
The rest I'm not so sure about to be honest.


----------



## Mr.Magura (Aug 11, 2010)

car bone said:


> Thats lately too me
> 
> Those are good inventions. (imo)
> The rest I'm not so sure about to be honest.


I agree those are nice, but new....not so much 

I'm an old fool like yourself, but really, nothing has happened for quite some time if you think about it.

Magura


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

Mr.Magura said:


> Mostly not better, just different
> 
> Suspension has seen some real improvement within the last 10 years, and that's about it.
> 
> ...


I am not going to disagree with you that a lot of so called improvement is purely marketing. Actually I agree with most of what you are saying. I don't think things like through axels and taper head tubes make a difference to the majority of the riders out there. I certainly don't find they improve the ride of my bike at all.

But......right now I have a 5 and 5 26inch dually that comes in at a 23 pounds. The bike is amazing; I can race XC at fairly high level on it and at the same time rip around a lot of the trail super techy trails found on the coast of BC. 10 years ago no such bike existed. I needed two bikes, one for racing and one for techy trails.

There isn't a single product advancement that makes my bike a lot better then equivalent bike 10 years ago. What makes the bike a lot better is small improvements to each part.

As you have said the suspension is better, but new modern brakes and changes to drive trains have also improved bikes. In all irony the only part that I didn't like the performance on my new bike was the Hope brakes. After a couple of rides on them I switched them with some XTR brakes and was much happier.


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

If I went back in time to 1995 and handed myself the bike I am currently riding, I think I'd sh!t myself. Market hype or not, incremental improvements happen and it all adds up to some pretty kick ass stuff.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

Silentfoe said:


> If I went back in time to 1995 and handed myself the bike I am currently riding, I think I'd sh!t myself. Market hype or not, incremental improvements happen and it all adds up to some pretty kick ass stuff.


You are so right. Bikes have come a long way from the bike I bought in 1996. I just finished building a new bike and I ride the same trails I rode with my bike in 1996. The difference is unbelievable!! I can't wait to see what the next 16 years have in store for us.


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

Mr.Magura said:


> Suspension has seen some real improvement within the last 10 years, and that's about it.


Considering the importance of system and the huge difference it can make, that's a pretty huge thing you're just disregarding.


----------



## SV11 (Jan 2, 2011)

Major advancements in mtb's in general was achieved over a decade ago, mechanical disc brakes, hydraulic disc brakes, tubless wheels suspension innovations etc etc. All we've seen since then is minor tweaks and upgrades, nothing revolutionary as was the case a decade ago.


----------



## sauprankul (Sep 6, 2012)

"The rain drops make holes in stone not by violence but by oft falling" -some guy I don't remember. 
Point is, little things add up. And you end up with a holey stone.  no need of revolutions every time.


----------



## Mr.Magura (Aug 11, 2010)

sauprankul said:


> "The rain drops make holes in stone not by violence but by oft falling" -some guy I don't remember.
> Point is, little things add up. And you end up with a holey stone.  no need of revolutions every time.


Which is also fine with me. I really don't need a revolution.

What ticks me off, is that nothing much is happening lately, besides making things incompatible, disguised as development.

Magura


----------



## kjlued (Jun 23, 2011)

Mr.Magura said:


> Yet nobody besides you have brought up that topic in this thread.
> 
> So get your female hormones under control, and quit reading stuff that people don't type
> 
> Magura


What do you think "it is the Indian not the arrow" means?

Maybe you better check your own female hormones out before you try commenting on others. 

kjlued


----------



## Mr.Magura (Aug 11, 2010)

kjlued said:


> What do you think "it is the Indian not the arrow" means?
> 
> Maybe you better check your own female hormones out before you try commenting on others.
> 
> kjlued


It means either that Indians are troublemakers, and can't be trusted, or that he also pointed out that it's the man, not the equipment 

Nobody in this thread till that post, had claimed that equipment was the major factor....later it went downhill though.

Magura


----------



## kjlued (Jun 23, 2011)

JoePAz said:


> Bikes still have 2 wheels, fat tires, gears, seats and handlebars. Overall they are the pretty much the same.
> 
> Frame materials have improved allowing for lighter bikes, but to to some degree they have offset by other things.
> 
> ...


Cars for that last 20+ years still just have pretty much 4 wheels, seats and motor, otherwise they are pretty much the same. Which is why I don't feel compelled to have a brand new one. However, they still continually come up refinements compelling people to buy them. So what is your point.

Every industry will come up with newer greater "must have" stuff otherwise they will go out of business. If they kept just producing the same products, people would just be happy with the old and never buy new and replace unless it broke.

However, you still have a choice to keep what you have and be happy or be a sheep and follow the flock. In all honesty this whole thread comes across as sour grapes.


----------



## kjlued (Jun 23, 2011)

Mr.Magura said:


> It means either that Indians are troublemakers, and can't be trusted, or that he also pointed out that it's the man, not the equipment
> 
> Nobody in this thread till that post, had claimed that equipment was the major factor....later it went downhill though.
> 
> Magura


Yes, but you said I was commenting on something that somebody didn't right. 

Anyways, most threads go down hill after a the first couple pages.

Trying to insult people doesn't help.


----------



## Mr.Magura (Aug 11, 2010)

kjlued said:


> Cars for that last 20+ years still just have pretty much 4 wheels, seats and motor, otherwise they are pretty much the same. Which is why I don't feel compelled to have a brand new one. However, they still continually come up refinements compelling people to buy them. So what is your point.
> 
> Every industry will come up with newer greater "must have" stuff otherwise they will go out of business. If they kept just producing the same products, people would just be happy with the old and never buy new and replace unless it broke.
> 
> However, you still have a choice to keep what you have and be happy or be a sheep and follow the flock. In all honesty this whole thread comes across as sour grapes.


The car industry actually makes game changing developments on regular basis.

For instance ABS, traction control, collision control, parking aid, air bags, active suspension, and so on.

Those things actually slowly sifts down to even cheap cars today, making them a lot safer. 
The bike industry on the other hand, is comparatively at pretty much a standstill.

Magura


----------



## Mr.Magura (Aug 11, 2010)

kjlued said:


> Yes, but you said I was commenting on something that somebody didn't right.
> 
> Anyways, most threads go down hill after a the first couple pages.
> 
> Trying to insult people doesn't help.


No offense intended.
Sorry if it looked that way. 
I figured a smiley made it obvious that it was tongue in cheek.

Magura


----------



## kjlued (Jun 23, 2011)

Mr.Magura said:


> The car industry actually makes game changing developments on regular basis.
> 
> For instance ABS, traction control, collision control, parking aid, air bags, active suspension, and so on.
> 
> ...


Yeah, but a lot of that stuff has been around for 20 years.

Me, I would rather own a 20 year old car, pay $1000-$1500 for it, drive it for a few years to the wheels are ready to fall off and sell it somebody that whats a mechanic special for $500.

Why? As much as the newest latest greatest thing would be nice, I can't justify spending that kind of money for something I pretty much only use to only get me to the trail and back and the occasional road trip to see family. (I do have a company truck though).

Bikes are no different. 
The old stuff will do the job, you pedal they go. 
But without innovations, no matter how small, people would no longer feel compelled to buy and companies would go out of business. The worst part about that is that less competition means less R&D which means the next big thing may never be invented.

Although the bike companies keep making changes, nobody forces anyone to buy them.


----------



## kjlued (Jun 23, 2011)

Mr.Magura said:


> No offense intended.
> Sorry if it looked that way.
> I figured a smiley made it obvious that it was tongue in cheek.
> 
> Magura


I never take offense to anything typed on the internet.

Just couldn't figure why you thought I was commenting on something that nobody wrote especially after I put it in bold type.


----------



## grizzlyplumber (May 15, 2008)

FIGHT THE POWER!

Seriously, I had a square taper BB back in the day and that thing couldnt handle the riding I did, it was loose every night after a day of riding. Octalink worked great but I dropped over a pound when I switched to a two piecer with hollow BB. 
I think the OP probably has the right idea, ride what you have and enjoy it, but don't try to take away everyone else's enjoyment in buying new stuff all the time. Just remember that a portion of what people are spending makes its way into the hands of the people who build and maintain trails. 
And any sport that is not evolving is dying, so there are your two choices. Just relax and go ride.


----------



## Mr.Magura (Aug 11, 2010)

grizzlyplumber said:


> And any sport that is not evolving is dying, so there are your two choices. Just relax and go ride.


See this is most likely very true.

I'm all for real development, actually I'd prefer to be able to just go and buy the bits I need off the shelf. 
Fact is that I still make a load of parts myself, cause the development is hardly there in the industry.

So don't get me wrong, I'd love to see real development, it's the goofy marketing BS, and wannabee development that gives nothing but compatibility issues, that I don't like so much.

Magura


----------



## sauprankul (Sep 6, 2012)

Magura, are you implying that MTBing is dying?


----------



## Mr.Magura (Aug 11, 2010)

sauprankul said:


> Magura, are you implying that MTBing is dying?


Not tomorrow, but with time MTBing is getting less, if the industry don't get going.

This would not be the first time something similar has happened.

The industry has put emphasis on equipment and technology, but fail to deliver.
That situation can be saved by the marketing departments for a while, but not in the long run.

At some point even the most dense customers, are going to figure that "upgrades" are not really anything but change. At that point, selling new high $$ gear is going to be hard.

Magura


----------



## kjlued (Jun 23, 2011)

Actually, I think the mountain biking industry and the bicycle industry as a whole is exactly where it needs to be in order to grow. 

It is proving it can hold through tough economic times. 
Sure, maybe some of the small time shops and high end frame builders can't compete in these tough economic times and they end up fading away which is a shame but the industry itself will hold strong. 

Also, because of these economic times, people are choosing cheaper affordable forms of transportation such as bicycles.

We are are finally catching on to environmental awareness. 
More people are using human power to move themselves and although this does not generally affect the mountain biking industry directly, it does affect the biking industry as a whole. 

People are becoming more health conscious. Almost anyone can bicycle and it is a fun affordable way to get exercise (well affordable if you don't have to have the latest greatest innovations lol) 

So to say the industry would die is a little foolish. 

I honestly don't know what kinds of leaps and bounds anyone expects to be delivered in new innovations because when it comes right down to it, it will still always be two wheels, pedals and handlebars.


----------



## Mr.Magura (Aug 11, 2010)

If you take a look at the facts, the use of bicycles as transportation globally is decreasing, and has been since 2001.

The number of bikes sold is dropping, the use of bicycles (total ridden distance) is dropping,and the number of commuters is dropping. 

Now where do you see the industry doing well? 

The above is from figures obtained about the situation in Denmark, but the rest of the world seems to show a similar tendency. 

None of this has anything to do with the topic at hand though, so I'm not sure why you brought it up ?

The sports segment of the industry is not doing well in any way. A few big brands are at status quo, the rest are doing whatever they can to stay alive, which in most cases has meant minimal quality, minimal development, and manufacturing in Asia. 

Magura


----------



## Mr.Magura (Aug 11, 2010)

Come to think of it, a good example of how little development there really is in the industry, is the new suspension company called DVO.

They did a bit of real development work, and put a bit of cash towards development as well.
I'll bet you they are going to prove poisonous to many of the established manufacturers, as they for the most part, have tried to keep development at a bare minimum, and had the marketing departments take care of the rest.


Magura


----------



## kjlued (Jun 23, 2011)

Mr.Magura said:


> None of this has anything to do with the topic at hand though, so I'm not sure why you brought it up ?


Actually, you brought it up.


----------



## Mr.Magura (Aug 11, 2010)

kjlued said:


> Actually, you brought it up.


I was talking about the sports segment of the industry, as this entire thread is about that.
I did not say anything about the bicycle industry as a whole.

Anyhow, both are not doing too well. I guess for different reasons though 

Magura


----------



## kjlued (Jun 23, 2011)

Well, regardless, it really doesn't matter as this thread has really gone through 11 pages of nonsense that will never achieve anything. I mean honestly do you think the bicycle industry will cave in to a plea that makes people not want to buy new stuff? :lol:

It really is quite simple. 

They will keep developing changes and if people don't think it is worth it then don't buy it. 
If your old bike is good enough then love it and ride it. 
If it makes you feel like a better rider because you just got the latest piece of carbon fiber bling then get it. Buy or keep whatever makes you smile but don't b!tch and whine because the industry is profit driven.

(Not directed at you or anyone in particular)


----------



## LostBoyScout (Feb 7, 2008)

(I know this has been beaten to death by now but I want to offer my insight anyway)

I get frustrated by all the different standards too. Trying to buy a new frame without needing a new seatpost, fork, rear wheel and BB is getting increasingly difficult. I need a new front derailleur and it's almost easier just to buy the whole drivetrain so don't have to worry about 49.5 vs. 51mm spacing, 8 vs. 9 vs. 10 speed, etc. 

However to think that the 'bike industry' is intentionally pulling one over on us, going "heh heh this will get them to buy more stuff" is a conspiracy theory well removed from the real world. There is a huge amount of engineering going into components all the time, by a lot of different companies. 

Let's take the various new rear axle standards for instance. They crop up because related technologies (full suspension bike frames with lots of pivots) make them relevant (rear ends are flexier with all these pivots, and we're riding said frames harder than ever). A large part of why we end up with way too many different 'standards' is because a lot of different companies are working on the new designs simultaneously. Company A has already put hundred of engineering hours into their design by the time Company B releases their design. 

Kudos to companies that are making their product adaptable (such as replaceable ends on Hope hubs) to help alleviate the problem.


----------



## Mr.Magura (Aug 11, 2010)

kjlued said:


> Well, regardless, it really doesn't matter as this thread has really gone through 11 pages of nonsense that will never achieve anything. I mean honestly do you think the bicycle industry will cave in to a plea that makes people not want to buy new stuff? :lol:
> 
> It really is quite simple.
> 
> ...


You don't see me whine, I merely stated an observation of that the industry is not making the best of the situation 

If the industry would focus on getting forward, instead of claiming to move forward, and going all kinds of directions, they could put the money in development, sack 80% of the marketing budget, and come out ahead.

Personally I don't give a rats ass what the industry does, as I make most of my stuff myself these days.

Magura


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

Mr.Magura said:


> Personally I don't give a rats ass what the industry does


Then why do you keep endlessly arguing with everyone about what the industry is doing? While you're posting your smileys faces all over the place, like you're trying to make people feel good while you're endlessly tearing them a new ahole, because they have a different opinion.


----------



## Mr.Magura (Aug 11, 2010)

Mountain Cycle Shawn said:


> Then why do you keep endlessly arguing with everyone about what the industry is doing? While you're posting your smileys faces all over the place, like you're trying to make people feel good while you're endlessly tearing them a new ahole, because they have a different opinion.


That's called having a discussion, and has nothing to do with tearing anybody a new ahole.

That some are unable to have a discussion, without feeling stepped on by anybody who don't share their point of view, or even worse back up their claims with evidence, is really their own problem. 
This seems to be an issue to some here, so I suggest those don't engage in discussions, if all they want is to state their opinion, and be padded on the back, no matter how far their opinion may be from reality.

Magura


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

You're having a discussion about something that you, " don't give a rats ass" about. So, it seems like your primary purpose for being at this thread is just to argue with people.


----------



## sauprankul (Sep 6, 2012)

I think what Magura sees as "different", others recognize to be better. External bearing, tapered steerers, post mount, 31.8 wide bars, 12 x 142, 15mm, XX1, etc. are not just arbitrary changes. They were created in response to problems with older stuff like 9mm, square taper, 1 x 10, 25.4 bars, 1 1/8 steerers etc. They aren't all bad, and they still exist today. But the new stuff is for those who need more out of their bikes, and who have absolutely no room for compromise.


----------



## kjlued (Jun 23, 2011)

Mr.Magura said:


> or even worse back up their claims with evidence


I am pretty sure I can back up my claims

Industry Overview 2011 - National Bicycle Dealers Association

Bike Europe - Bicycling is Booming in Britain, Says London School of Economics

Now, can you?


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

kjlued said:


> I am pretty sure I can back up my claims
> 
> Industry Overview 2011 - National Bicycle Dealers Association
> 
> ...


Oh believe me, he'll have some argumentative comeback. Wait, let me get my popcorn!


----------



## Mr.Magura (Aug 11, 2010)

kjlued said:


> I am pretty sure I can back up my claims
> 
> Industry Overview 2011 - National Bicycle Dealers Association
> 
> ...


Bike Europe - Market Report

All but E-bikes are not doing well, and have not for a number of years by now.

I have been unable to find substantiated numbers for the states.

The numbers you got, are about all bikes, not even just the sport segment, let alone the MTB sport segment.

Magura


----------



## Mr.Magura (Aug 11, 2010)

Mountain Cycle Shawn said:


> You're having a discussion about something that you, " don't give a rats ass" about. So, it seems like your primary purpose for being at this thread is just to argue with people.


Try looking up the words "discussion" and "argument".

Quite a difference, until somebody gets his panties in a bunch, and turns the discussion into an argument, due to his hurt ego.

Magura


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

^ you might try to read the articles that you just posted. They look pretty positive to me!


----------



## Mr.Magura (Aug 11, 2010)

sauprankul said:


> I think what Magura sees as "different", others recognize to be better. External bearing, tapered steerers, post mount, 31.8 wide bars, 12 x 142, 15mm, XX1, etc. are not just arbitrary changes. They were created in response to problems with older stuff like 9mm, square taper, 1 x 10, 25.4 bars, 1 1/8 steerers etc. They aren't all bad, and they still exist today. But the new stuff is for those who need more out of their bikes, and who have absolutely no room for compromise.


Naah, I agree that 31.8 bars are better, 20mm axles too, also external BB's. 
They solved issues.
Those inventions are though like 10 years old by now.

The rest are diminishing improvements at best, if any at all, as I recall them.

It's the lack of such during the last 10 years I am pointing out.

Actually the front axle circus is a good example. 
The 20mm 110mm standard was more or less a standard followed by everybody.
All of a sudden, somebody (Fox as I recall) decided to make a 15mm version. That offered absolutely nothing but change and another goofy "standard".

Magura


----------



## Mr.Magura (Aug 11, 2010)

Mountain Cycle Shawn said:


> ^ you might try to read the articles that you just posted. They look pretty positive to me!


If you look a bit in depth, you'll find that they're positive due to the hope of the downwards development of the market, is about to change.

It's been going downwards since like 2002 as I recall, and there is a long way till they're back up where they were in 2000.

Magura


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

I posted about this in a thread last year, in short the entire industry is worth 6 billion dollars in sales, the same as it was 30 years ago. It rises and falls a bit year to year, but for all intents and purposes there is no significant growth (in dollars) across more than a few decades. Fighting for the same dollars does not indicate any growth, so the companies are fighting for their share of the same market total. If you add inflation to the figures it bodes even worse.


----------



## kjlued (Jun 23, 2011)

Mr.Magura said:


> The numbers you got, are about all bikes, not even just the sport segment, let alone the MTB sport segment.
> 
> Magura


Read on and you might learn something. 

The firs link goes on to break it down to the percentage of sales vs type of bike.

Not Magura


----------



## Mr.Magura (Aug 11, 2010)

kjlued said:


> Read on and you might learn something.
> 
> The firs link goes on to break it down to the percentage of sales vs type of bike.
> 
> Not Magura


Thanks for the hint.

Now that you point me to it, why didn't you read it?

MTB marketshare in 2005 = 29%
MTB marketshare in 2011 = 23%

That does not look like a market that is doing good.

Magura


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

AZ.MTNS said:


> I posted about this in a thread last year, in short the entire industry is worth 6 billion dollars in sales, the same as it was 30 years ago. It rises and falls a bit year to year, but for all intents and purposes there is no significant growth (in dollars) across more than a few decades. Fighting for the same dollars does not indicate any growth, so the companies are fighting for their share of the same market total. If you add inflation to the figures it bodes even worse.


You also have to factor in that in a lot of countries, populations are no longer increasing. In some European countries the populations are getting smaller. That's one reason why the global economy has been suffering for the last few years. Our whole economic system is based on the need for constant growth in order to do well. Compared to the global economy, the bike industry is holding up pretty well.


----------



## kjlued (Jun 23, 2011)

Mr.Magura said:


> Thanks for the hint.
> 
> Now that you point me to it, why didn't you read it?
> 
> ...


Yes I did and don't consider 6% to be a significant change or the death of mountain biking. 
However since 2006 it has only slightly fluctuated which probably means that in 2005 it simply had a spike. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out. 

Still not Magura


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

AZ.MTNS said:


> I posted about this in a thread last year, in short the entire industry is worth 6 billion dollars in sales, the same as it was 30 years ago. It rises and falls a bit year to year, but for all intents and purposes there is no significant growth (in dollars) across more than a few decades. Fighting for the same dollars does not indicate any growth, so the companies are fighting for their share of the same market total. If you add inflation to the figures it bodes even worse.





Mountain Cycle Shawn said:


> You also have to factor in that in a lot of countries, populations are no longer increasing. In some European countries the populations are getting smaller. That's one reason why the global economy has been suffering for the last few years. Our whole economic system is based on the need for constant growth in order to do well. Compared to the global economy, the bike industry is holding up pretty well.


^ So, it makes perfect sense that the bike industry is trending sideways.


----------



## kjlued (Jun 23, 2011)

Mountain Cycle Shawn said:


> ^ So, it makes perfect sense that the bike industry is trending sideways.


Trending sideways is a good thing in these economic times especially since for many, a bicycle is a luxury item (especially a mountain bike).


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

kjlued said:


> Trending sideways is a good thing in these economic times especially since for many, a bicycle is a luxury item (especially a mountain bike).


Thank you!!


----------



## Mr.Magura (Aug 11, 2010)

kjlued said:


> Yes I did and don't consider 6% to be a significant change or the death of mountain biking.
> However since 2006 it has only slightly fluctuated which probably means that in 2005 it simply had a spike. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out.
> 
> Still not Magura


6% of the total market, yes, and 20% of the MTB market.

The numbers you can see everywhere else, supports that from 2002 till today, the loss of MTB market, is on the other side of 20%, so obviously 2005 is not a spike.

Magura


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

Mr.Magura said:


> Bike Europe - Market Report
> 
> All but E-bikes are not doing well, and have not for a number of years by now.
> 
> ...





Mr.Magura said:


> Thanks for the hint.
> 
> Now that you point me to it, why didn't you read it?
> 
> ...


If you take the relatively new Ebike market out, you will see that it is doing very well.


----------



## Mr.Magura (Aug 11, 2010)

Mountain Cycle Shawn said:


> If you take the relatively new Ebike market out, you will see that it is doing very well.


The E-bike market is doing well yes, but the rest are not.

So far all the numbers you have supplied, and the numbers I have supplied, establish that the MTB market is not doing well.

Magura


----------



## kjlued (Jun 23, 2011)

Mr.Magura said:


> 6% of the total market, yes, and 20% of the MTB market.
> 
> The numbers you can see everywhere else, supports that from 2002 till today, the loss of MTB market, is on the other side of 20%, so obviously 2005 is not a spike.
> 
> Magura


Post these so called numbers

Again though, a mountain bike is a luxury item. :thumbsup:

Motorcycle sales have been down over the years too. 
Do you think that means the end of motorcycling is down?

No, it just means people are not spending as much money during these times on things that are necessities. 

Still happy to not be Magura 

(BTW, off topic but in all honesty why the hell do people feel the need to sign their posts with their user name? It isn't like we can't see it on the side. )


----------



## Mr.Magura (Aug 11, 2010)

kjlued said:


> Post these so called numbers


To be honest, I can't be bothered to spend time searching for it. 
Those numbers are all in bits and pieces, can't seem to find one single sheet that shows all the years globally, but the trend is the same all over.

2000 to 2002 were the top MTB years, and it has slowly gone downhill from that point, with some ups and downs in the mix.

Magura


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

Mr.Magura said:


> To be honest, I can't be bothered to spend time searching for it.
> Those numbers are all in bits and pieces, can't seem to find one single sheet that shows all the years globally, but the trend is the same all over.
> 
> 2000 to 2002 were the top MTB years, and it has slowly gone downhill from that point, with some ups and downs in the mix.
> ...


If I said the sky was blue on a clear day, you would argue it.


----------



## kjlued (Jun 23, 2011)

Mr.Magura said:


> To be honest, I can't be bothered to spend time searching for it.
> Those numbers are all in bits and pieces, can't seem to find one single sheet that shows all the years globally, but the trend is the same all over.
> 
> 2000 to 2002 were the top MTB years, and it has slowly gone downhill from that point, with some ups and downs in the mix.
> ...


Can't be bothered to spend the time searching for it but you can spend countless time to make posts in a thread arguing it.

I suppose we will just have to take your word for it.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

kjlued said:


> Can't be bothered to spend the time searching for it but you can spend countless time to make posts in a thread arguing it.
> 
> I suppose we will just have to take your word for it.


Don't forget, that's for an industry that he doesn't, "give a rats ass" about. He's to busy making his own parts. Unbelievable! 

Oh wait I forgot the


----------



## sauprankul (Sep 6, 2012)

I think Magura is losing, so I'll see if I can't help him.
Magura makes his own parts because the industry doesn't make better stuff anymore. It just makes different stuff. He feels no reason to "upgrade".
So, he has shunned the biking industry and all of its hype. He does not give a rat's ass about the industry because, in his opinion, it has come to a standstill.
However, he would care about the industry if it stopped marketing these relatively insignificant changes as revolutions and put that money into RnD. But they don't, which is what he is saying.
Am I right, Magura?


----------



## Mr.Magura (Aug 11, 2010)

sauprankul said:


> I think Magura is losing, so I'll see if I can't help him.
> Magura makes his own parts because the industry doesn't make better stuff anymore. It just makes different stuff. He feels no reason to "upgrade".
> So, he has shunned the biking industry and all of its hype. He does not give a rat's ass about the industry because, in his opinion, it has come to a standstill.
> However, he would care about the industry if it stopped marketing these relatively insignificant changes as revolutions and put that money into RnD. But they don't, which is what he is saying.
> Am I right, Magura?


Yes.

Magura


----------



## rydbyk (Oct 13, 2009)

this thread is trending sideways


----------



## kjlued (Jun 23, 2011)

rydbyk said:


> this thread is trending sideways


No, this thread has trended down hill for a long time. 
There is nothing sideways about it.


----------



## rydbyk (Oct 13, 2009)

kjlued said:


> No, this thread has trended down hill for a long time.
> There is nothing sideways about it.


 ++ =


----------



## sauprankul (Sep 6, 2012)

Wow did you actually go through all 13 pages and count?


----------



## SV11 (Jan 2, 2011)

AZ.MTNS said:


> I posted about this in a thread last year, in short the entire industry is worth 6 billion dollars in sales, the same as it was 30 years ago. It rises and falls a bit year to year, but for all intents and purposes there is no significant growth (in dollars) across more than a few decades.


If this is true, the amount of bikes sold today is the same amount sold 30 yrs ago, despite the population nearly doubling. I knew it was bad, but not that bad.
And, it can only get worse from here on in.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

AZ.MTNS said:


> I posted about this in a thread last year, in short the entire industry is worth 6 billion dollars in sales, the same as it was 30 years ago. It rises and falls a bit year to year, but for all intents and purposes there is no significant growth (in dollars) across more than a few decades. Fighting for the same dollars does not indicate any growth, so the companies are fighting for their share of the same market total. If you add inflation to the figures it bodes even worse.


Are you sure? What do your figures say?
Bicycles produced in the world - Worldometers


----------



## rydbyk (Oct 13, 2009)

Originally Posted by AZ.MTNS 
I posted about this in a thread last year, in short the entire industry is worth 6 billion dollars in sales, the same as it was 30 years ago. It rises and falls a bit year to year, but for all intents and purposes there is no significant growth (in dollars) across more than a few decades. Fighting for the same dollars does not indicate any growth, so the companies are fighting for their share of the same market total. If you add inflation to the figures it bodes even worse.


Seems impossible. 
1. No way the industry was worth 6 billion in 1980 and 6 billion in 2012. 
2. American industry? What about China's pop growth and their demand for bikes?
3. Inflation taken into account here?


----------



## BigwheelsRbest (Jun 12, 2007)

rydbyk said:


> Originally Posted by AZ.MTNS
> I posted about this in a thread last year, in short the entire industry is worth 6 billion dollars in sales, the same as it was 30 years ago. It rises and falls a bit year to year, but for all intents and purposes there is no significant growth (in dollars) across more than a few decades. Fighting for the same dollars does not indicate any growth, so the companies are fighting for their share of the same market total. If you add inflation to the figures it bodes even worse.
> 
> Seems impossible.
> ...


Agree with you rydbyk - simply not possible. Think about it...


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

US sales by year from this link.

Industry Overview 2011 - National Bicycle Dealers Association

"The size of the industry has remained remarkably stable since 2003, with sales between $5.8 billion and $6.1 billion each year (the exception being 2009). For comparison purposes, we have projected the industry at $5.3 billion in 2002, $5.4 billion in 2003, $5.8 billion in 2004, $6.1 billion in 2005 (an all-time high), $5.8 billion in 2006, $6.0 billion in 2007, $6.0 billion in 2008, $5.6 billion in 2009, $6 billion in 2010, and $6 billion in 2011."

As you can see the industry has no meaningful growth in dollars. It ebbs and flows but remains fairly constant with no appreciable growth. When you add inflation to the equation the market in dollars is actually shrinking.


----------



## Lance Strongarm (Oct 10, 2012)

Just because walmart sells more bikes doesn't mean the industry is growing . :madman:
All one has to do is think abot the number of manufactures that are now reduced to supplying dept store bikes. Unit numbers may have risin but unit price is plummeting. This is to be expected though when the general public demands the cheapest possibble crap.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

AZ.MTNS said:


> in short the entire industry is worth 6 billion dollars in sales


The U.S. is not the entire industry.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

of course that is the case for the U.S.. We are lazy and would rather drive.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

^+1


----------



## grizzlyplumber (May 15, 2008)

Dude come on, giving your own thread a +1 is some pretty weak jive. That is like slapping yourself five. You can do better than that.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

grizzlyplumber said:


> Dude come on, giving your own thread a +1 is some pretty weak jive. That is like slapping yourself five. You can do better than that.


Dude come on, that wasn't my post and this isn't my thread.


----------



## BigwheelsRbest (Jun 12, 2007)

cracks a beer, sits back, and hits refresh... :thumbsup:


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

BigwheelsRbest said:


> cracks a beer, sits back, and hits refresh... :thumbsup:


Don't forget the popcorn!


----------



## grizzlyplumber (May 15, 2008)

Mountain Cycle Shawn said:


> Dude come on, that wasn't my post and this isn't my thread.


Am I the only one who sees that post 16 is pointed at post 15 with a +1 and that they both have your name on them? If so then I apologize.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

daves4mtb said:


> i am curious as to the source of this figure.
> 
> From my own personal experience, that seems doubtful. Americans hardly ever rode bikes except as kids' toys in 1980, or as beach cruisers maybe. Since then there have been a big road bike wave, Floyd and Lance winning the TDF, mountain bikes being "invented" around the beginning of that era, gas prices going up, a rise in persons emphasizing sustainable culture and bike culture, and so on. And the bike prices go up every year, at least for the higher end bikes. If the market couldn't sustain that, you would see deep discounts everywhere. Further, the mountain bikes have become more specialized and there are more niches. The same can be said for road bikes.
> 
> ...





Mountain Cycle Shawn said:


> ^+1


This is the way it looks from me. Post 316, mine is pointed to post 315, daves4mtb. Which is the way I intended it to be.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

my earlier post is # 314


----------



## sauprankul (Sep 6, 2012)

Wow grizzlyplumber, I thought I was blind.
Haha jk. But how ....... I don't have the word for it... would you have to be to +1 yourself?
Does Shawn seem like that kind of a guy?


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

I have seen the post order get messed up before.


----------



## sauprankul (Sep 6, 2012)

Hence the jk. But usually the messed up order is universal, isn't it?


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

I would think.


----------



## kjlued (Jun 23, 2011)

grizzlyplumber said:


> Am I the only one who sees that post 16 is pointed at post 15 with a +1 and that they both have your name on them? If so then I apologize.


You better take a closer look.

But to answer your question, yes you are the only one seeing what you think you are seeing.:thumbsup:


----------



## grizzlyplumber (May 15, 2008)

sauprankul said:


> Wow grizzlyplumber, I thought I was blind.
> Haha jk. But how ....... I don't have the word for it... would you have to be to +1 yourself?
> Does Shawn seem like that kind of a guy?


I obviously stand corrected, to Shawn my most sincere apologies, as to what kind of guy he is, I think that is self evident and everyone here knows the answer to such a silly question. Please carry on.


----------



## balance_fit (Jul 5, 2010)

Many good valid points from rev106's letter all the way to the last posting. 

Being a bike rider since a kid and self mechanic from not much later on, i believe that some improvements made by the "bike industry" are very good and others fade with the test of time. 
Who doesn't love their "quick release" wheels? Great improvement, but, take notice, "nuts" are still seen on many wheels (pun not intended).
On the other hand, the famous quill stem and Biopace chainrings. For some reason or another, they're basically out of market.

And the list of sucesses and failures of the "industry" goes on. 

I believe the mountain biker can be well served by technological improvements. It all depends on the rider's needs, budget and mindset. A racer will never have the same equipment needs as a commuter, bmx'er or downhiller. 

My own case now:

Testing and deciding for myself, reading, asking and keeping very old mags and catalogues proves to be useful to find what works and what fades. 

Gears? -A common question from my peers- I went from one to 26 too many and stopped there, coming back to one. For a time, i was also a "follower" of the "industry" as well, adding gears as time went by. Why one now? I decided to work uphill and regain the feeling of riding as a kid, a very personal thing. Also, spinning out on flats and walking up an ocassional uphill won't make me feel bad. 

Parts, gadgets, add-ons, systems, came on my bike, some stayed, some fell off. But i tried them, deciding which suited my style and which don't. Yes, i had full suspension bikes too. 

I ended up on a singlespeed bike, on a steel frame, rigid, tubeless tires, 9 mm quick release, single piston hydro brakes, 1 1/8" here and outboard bearings there, clips, etc, etc. The best of old and new technology, as it suits my style and needs. 

Yes, i use a helmet, and have only one bike.

Take technology improvements and use what's needed, just don't overdo it. A bicycle moves on legs, arms and heart. 

May all be well


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

grizzlyplumber said:


> I obviously stand corrected, to Shawn my most sincere apologies, as to what kind of guy he is, I think that is self evident and everyone here knows the answer to such a silly question. Please carry on.


That was nice man, thanks! + rep for that!


----------



## marsh rider (May 18, 2008)

I'm just going to go ahead and disagree with the op's view of the bike industry. If you stick to your disipline (cross country, DH, free-ride, etc) standards don't change too much. I consider standards to be things like BB size, steerer tube diameter, handle bar diameter, and so on. Types of bottom brackets, gear setups, and most other parts are merely options for customization. 

I actually think all the different types of mountain bikes (XC, AM, DH...) is encouraging to see. It's a sign that mountain biking is becoming popular enough and is growing to the point where just a "mountain bike" doesn't cut it for everything we use these machines for. Just like the automotive industry. At first all you could buy was a "car." As the industry grew and people developed their individual needs, categories of cars started branching out into sports cars, SUV, trucks, hybrids, etc. This is an exciting time for mountain bikes and I can't wait to see what kind of technology will trickle down into the bikes that I can afford :thumbsup:


----------



## sauprankul (Sep 6, 2012)

balance_fit said:


> The best of old and new technology, as it suits my style and needs.


:thumbsup: Nice. That's a good conclusion to make. 300 odd posts later, we have a nice place to stop.


----------



## stepitup_onenotch (Aug 27, 2012)

What I want to know is why do the most expensive mtn bikes cost around $10,000 and the most expensive road bikes are practically double that price? there seems to be far fewer parts on a road bike.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

More emphasis on light weight. Less is more.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

Plus, roadies are dumb and will pay more. 

Disclaimer: The above is for entertainment purposes only. And may not reflect the views of the author and/or MTBR.com.


----------



## rydbyk (Oct 13, 2009)

stepitup_onenotch said:


> What I want to know is why do the most expensive mtn bikes cost around $10,000 and the most expensive road bikes are practically double that price? there seems to be far fewer parts on a road bike.


Agreed. It is plain dumb. I ride both. My mtb is far more complex than my road bike, yet costs 20% less.

A generalization here:
Avg car value at a road race = $42,000
Avg car value at a mtb race = $24,000

Also, in my opinion, the difference is much larger between a $2500 mtb and a $5000 mtb than when you compare a $2500 road bike to a $5000 road bike.

Don't even get me started on the tri scene here in San Diego...


----------



## sauprankul (Sep 6, 2012)

Agreed. I think its because mtbing is more mainstream. It appeals more to the common folk.
If a person wants to bike around town then they'll just get a cruiser or something. 
But you need an MTB to MTB.


----------



## wmac (Sep 29, 2010)

Hitler. There, I said it.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

wmac said:


> Hitler. There, I said it.


Holly crap! Hitler was your grand papi! That's heavy maaaan!


----------



## Warp (May 24, 2004)

Mountain Cycle Shawn said:


> Holly crap! Hitler was your grand papi! That's heavy maaaan!


Godwin's Law.

Godwin's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."

Citing other sources...

How to post about Nazis and get away with it - the Godwin's Law FAQ

"6. "Hitler!" Ha! The thread is over!

Nope, doesn't work that way. Not only is it wrong to say that a
thread is over when Godwin's Law is invoked anyway (Usenet threads
virtually always outlive their usefulness), but long ago a corollary to
the Law was proposed and accepted by Taki "Quirk" Kogama ([email protected]):

Quirk's Exception: Intentional invocation of this so-called 
"Nazi Clause" is ineffectual.

Sorry, folks. Nice try, though."


----------



## Guest (Dec 6, 2012)

rev106 said:


> An open letter to the bike industry
> 
> Dear Bike Industry,
> 
> ...


For me it is impossible not to agree. Mtb fans are teased over every limit of reasonableness. 
Stupidity and conformity are practically incurable disease in the era of marketing. I remember that marketing is the art of making us buy things we do not need with money we do not have. Of course there are people with low self-esteem that they need to feel integrated and always defend the new features offered by the companies.
Mtb magazines are a joke all over the world, to make entering one of them in a home is an insult to the intelligence of everyone.


----------



## wmac (Sep 29, 2010)

Warp said:


> Godwin's Law.
> 
> Godwin's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> ...


This is a bit much. Although highly consistent with Godwin's Law.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

Warp said:


> Godwin's Law.
> 
> Godwin's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> ...


Just to make it clear, I wasn't the one who brought up Hitler.


----------



## wmac (Sep 29, 2010)

Warp knows what I'm talking about.


----------



## Ailuropoda (Dec 15, 2010)

toscano said:


> For me it is impossible not to agree. Mtb fans are teased over every limit of reasonableness.
> Stupidity and conformity are practically incurable disease in the era of marketing. I remember that marketing is the art of making us buy things we do not need with money we do not have. Of course there are people with low self-esteem that they need to feel integrated and always defend the new features offered by the companies.
> Mtb magazines are a joke all over the world, to make entering one of them in a home is an insult to the intelligence of everyone.


You're over thinking it. I like to ride. I like to ride well-built, technologically advanced bikes. If I was poor I'd go on Bikes Direct and stretch my dollar as far as I could on an inexpensive but serviceable bike; as I have money I like to spend it on things I like...the Lord knows that between car payments, auto insurance, health insurance, malpractice insurance, disability insurance, property tax, income tax to support the entitled, the fat, the lazy, and the stupid I certainly spend a lot on things I don't like.

Mountain biking, by the way, is the opposite of conformity, at least where I live. Nobody understands it, they think spending more than a hundred bucks for a bike is insane, and chicks definitely don't dig it....my girlfriend for her part tolerates it but if I was the assistant manager at Taco Bell she probably wouldn't.

Additionally, while it's true that progress in technology is incremental, a high-end bike in 2013 is vastly better than one from 1993. By better I mean faster, more rugged, lighter, and just more fun to ride.

Anti-conformity is itself a kind of conformity, by the way. Avant garde is just as reflexive and provincial as normality. I care what people think about me, I adhere to social norms, I am not a rebel or vastly different in outlook from the majority of people which gives me the freedom to do things that I like without worrying about image.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

Ailuropoda said:


> You're over thinking it. I like to ride. I like to ride well-built, technologically advanced bikes. If I was poor I'd go on Bikes Direct and stretch my dollar as far as I could on an inexpensive but serviceable bike; as I have money I like to spend it on things I like...the Lord knows that between car payments, auto insurance, health insurance, malpractice insurance, disability insurance, property tax, income tax to support the entitled, the fat, the lazy, and the stupid I certainly spend a lot on things I don't like.
> 
> Mountain biking, by the way, is the opposite of conformity, at least where I live. Nobody understands it, they think spending more than a hundred bucks for a bike is insane, and chicks definitely don't dig it....my girlfriend for her part tolerates it but if I was the assistant manager at Taco Bell she probably wouldn't.
> 
> ...


My friend, you hit the nail right on the head and drove it all the way in!

The OP said something about forcing us to buy stuff. We are not forced to buy anything. It's a choice. I'm glad to have the choice to buy bikes and parts that are better then what I bought last. Even if it's only a little better. It's my choice to buy them or not, and for me to decide if they are enough of an improvement to buy. And if I do my due diligence I will know what to buy and what not to buy.


----------



## stepitup_onenotch (Aug 27, 2012)

toscano said:


> For me it is impossible not to agree. Mtb fans are teased over every limit of reasonableness.
> Stupidity and conformity are practically incurable disease in the era of marketing. I remember that marketing is the art of making us buy things we do not need with money we do not have. Of course there are people with low self-esteem that they need to feel integrated and always defend the new features offered by the companies.
> Mtb magazines are a joke all over the world, to make entering one of them in a home is an insult to the intelligence of everyone.


yes but marketing is just a polite word for propoganda. Companies are not advertising a cool fizzy drink, its a sexy ass on the beach. or something like that.

Have you seen the latest ads for the shimano Zee line? They don't even care about the product, its all about the image, all propoganda, sorry, polite company here, use the word propoganda your mind instantly goes to Hitler and Goebbels, I mean marketing.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

stepitup_onenotch said:


> yes but marketing is just a polite word for propoganda. Companies are not advertising a cool fizzy drink, its a sexy ass on the beach. or something like that.
> 
> Have you seen the latest ads for the shimano Zee line? They don't even care about the product, its all about the image, all propoganda, sorry, polite company here, use the word propoganda your mind instantly goes to Hitler and Goebbels, I mean marketing.


You should be smart enough to filter out the crap.


----------



## stepitup_onenotch (Aug 27, 2012)

Mountain Cycle Shawn said:


> You should be smart enough to filter out the crap.


It's not the fluffy ads that worry me, most people see through all that, it's the way people blindly believe whatever ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN etc show them.


----------



## wmac (Sep 29, 2010)

Godwin's law wins again! Marketing, advertising and salesmen do not sell products, they sell emotions. They don't sell you the thing, they sell you what you want the thing to do for you. In most cases, that boils down to getting laid.


----------



## DavyRay (Apr 13, 2012)

stepitup_onenotch said:


> It's not the fluffy ads that worry me, most people see through all that, it's the way people blindly believe whatever ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN etc show them.


You forgot to mention Fox.


----------



## DavyRay (Apr 13, 2012)

wmac said:


> Godwin's law wins again! Marketing, advertising and salesmen do not sell products, they sell emotions. They don't sell you the thing, they sell you what you want the thing to do for you. In most cases, that boils down to getting laid.


In general, yes. MTB parts, not so much. I am looking at all the many ads on this very web page, and none of them look like a Gillette razor ad. Ads for geeks is all I see. Maybe the marketing managers for bike component companies are poorly paid, or maybe they think we are too brainy to fall for ads with buxom lasses in them.


----------



## sauprankul (Sep 6, 2012)

Agreed. I like choices. The more I use trigger shifters, the less I like them. They put my hands in an uncomfortable position. I like the concept of twisters better. Alas! Shimano makes no respectable ones.
So if I want twisters I'm gonna have to switch out my entire drive train (fd and crank excluded)!


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

sauprankul said:


> Agreed. I like choices. The more I use trigger shifters, the less I like them. They put my hands in an uncomfortable position. I like the concept of twisters better. Alas! Shimano makes no respectable ones.
> So if I want twisters I'm gonna have to switch out my entire drive train (fd and crank excluded)!


I used to be one of those twister guys, for years. Then I tried a set of SRAM triggers with Shimano derailers. I'll never go back to twisting.


----------



## sauprankul (Sep 6, 2012)

What combo did you use?
Don't Shimano and SRAM have different pull ratios?


----------



## shekky (Oct 21, 2011)

holy groanin' god, this thread is still going? 

i hated grip shift. sachs made grip shifters that felt really nice but worked like (expletive) with shimano derailleurs.

i'm pretty happy with the SRAM/SRAM i'm using now. it's not by choice, they're just what my new bikes were spec'd with. as a matter of fact, i like the SRAM triggers better than the nineties-era shimano rapid fire on my alibi which i thought were a vast improvement over the thumbshifters and twisters i'd used previously..


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

sauprankul said:


> What combo did you use?
> Don't Shimano and SRAM have different pull ratios?


SRAM Rocket and Attack trigger shifters are made for Shimano derailers. I have three sets of them and they all work very well.


----------



## wmac (Sep 29, 2010)

Holy shiz. Unsubscribed.


----------



## sauprankul (Sep 6, 2012)

I don't think I'll be getting attacks anytime soon. The 1 to 1 thing gives easier shifting, compared to shimano.
The main reason I don't like shimano shifters is because of the index finger thing. I can dump a cassette shifting up, but using my index finger on the trails freaks me out. I realize that some higher end ones are convertible, but not the ones in my price range.
Sram thumb only shifters are nice, but I can't dump a cassette. I don't think that's worth it though. I may give them a try for right hand, but probably not.
Twisters allow for much easier and much safer shifting, IMHO, because its just a flick of the wrist vs having to let one of your fingers off the bars.
Def my next shifters will be twisters, provided that the industry doesn't declare them obsolete like friction shifters. :eekster:
Hopefully there will be plentiful options forever. Not everybody is alike.


----------



## stepitup_onenotch (Aug 27, 2012)

DavyRay said:


> You forgot to mention Fox.


just scared that a fan of Fox would come after me with a gun..........


----------



## Guest (Dec 7, 2012)

Ailuropoda said:


> You're over thinking it. I like to ride. I like to ride well-built, technologically advanced bikes. If I was poor I'd go on Bikes Direct and stretch my dollar as far as I could on an inexpensive but serviceable bike; as I have money I like to spend it on things I like...the Lord knows that between car payments, auto insurance, health insurance, malpractice insurance, disability insurance, property tax, income tax to support the entitled, the fat, the lazy, and the stupid I certainly spend a lot on things I don't like.
> 
> Mountain biking, by the way, is the opposite of conformity, at least where I live. Nobody understands it, they think spending more than a hundred bucks for a bike is insane, and chicks definitely don't dig it....my girlfriend for her part tolerates it but if I was the assistant manager at Taco Bell she probably wouldn't.
> 
> ...


The real question is if technological progress offers us real benefits or not.
Certainly bike maintenance and reliability are a big problem. And when you spend a lot of money you do not want problems, right?
In ten years many things have changed, it is true, but the feeling of being mocked, for me has increased.
Conformity and nonconformity are concepts near and far at the same time.
Here in Europe I guess that as you spend more money than you are intelligent and integrated into the system, not only about bikes.
I am an expert about useless things: I have a store where I sell gold and watches ...
A few minutes ago I sold a gold ring to a woman who would have something else to think about, the ring does not change her life but so goes the world ...
To spend money for someone can be a justification for a lifestyle and an hard job.
I remember a boy with an old bmx, rode with me and my friends, we were younger, we used to have long and challenging rides. he did not need full frame or carbon ...


----------



## car bone (Apr 15, 2011)

sauprankul said:


> I don't think I'll be getting attacks anytime soon. The 1 to 1 thing gives easier shifting, compared to shimano.
> The main reason I don't like shimano shifters is because of the index finger thing. I can dump a cassette shifting up, but using my index finger on the trails freaks me out. I realize that some higher end ones are convertible, but not the ones in my price range.
> Sram thumb only shifters are nice, but I can't dump a cassette. I don't think that's worth it though. I may give them a try for right hand, but probably not.
> Twisters allow for much easier and much safer shifting, IMHO, because its just a flick of the wrist vs having to let one of your fingers off the bars.
> ...


I have always felt the twister to be in the way. And I have had some accidental shifts. I also don't like having like half a good grip and the rest whatever sram wants me to have.
I aint never going back to twisters. I shift up with the thumb and down with the thumb, I love it.


----------



## sauprankul (Sep 6, 2012)

sauprankul said:


> Hopefully there will be plentiful options forever. Not everybody is alike.


I rest my case....

EDIT: I quoted myself to emphasize my point, that some obviously overlooked.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

sauprankul said:


> I rest my case....


Quoting yourself? That's like masterbating.


----------



## sauprankul (Sep 6, 2012)

Quoting me without my consent? That's like raping.


----------



## dru (Sep 4, 2006)

The problem with all this (un)liked technological 'progress' is more of an issue for store bought bikes. If you are building your own you can pick and choose.

For instance, my Salsa had state of the art XTR 975 brakes in '09 because I chose them. The same bike also had a set of square taper Middleburn cranks, and 5 bolt 94 bcd rings. 

I use what I like and disregard the rest, otherwise the 'marketing machine' would bother me a lot more than it does. 

I can pick and choose; the other bike just got 9 speed two months back.

10 speed, I could care less.

Drew


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

sauprankul said:


> Quoting me without my consent? That's like raping.


You enjoyed it so it doesn't count.


----------



## SV11 (Jan 2, 2011)

sauprankul said:


> I don't think I'll be getting attacks anytime soon. The 1 to 1 thing gives easier shifting, compared to shimano.
> The main reason I don't like shimano shifters is because of the index finger thing. I can dump a cassette shifting up, but using my index finger on the trails freaks me out. I realize that some higher end ones are convertible, but not the ones in my price range.
> Sram thumb only shifters are nice, but I can't dump a cassette. I don't think that's worth it though. I may give them a try for right hand, but probably not.
> Twisters allow for much easier and much safer shifting, IMHO, because its just a flick of the wrist vs having to let one of your fingers off the bars.
> ...


I absolutely hate SRAM shifters with a passion. They are designed for dyslexic people, using the thumb to upshift and downshift is not right, you can't execute fast shitfts either. I have both (shimano and sram shifters), and the sram totally blows. I've tried to live with it for 2 yrs, but I just can't, to me it's not natural. You can't position a sram shifter in the optimal position so your thumb can fall on both paddles. Having your thumb fall on the upshift paddle is great, then you have to reroute your thumb to get to the downshift paddle, not cool. It's not an optimal system if you need to take your thumb/finger off one paddle to get to the other paddle. I'll go with ergonomics this time.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

Do you really ride with your fingers ready to shift every moment? I don't. 

I have Saint on one bike and X9 on the other. I prefer the X9. Thumbs for shifting, index finger for braking. 

In the end, I'd say it's personal preference. I don't think one is inherently superior.


----------



## SV11 (Jan 2, 2011)

Yeah I do, constantly. Well, my fingers/thumb fall to the paddles naturally (with shimano).
What seperates them is the ergo's.


----------



## sauprankul (Sep 6, 2012)

Back to the point. The industry is doing the right thing by giving people several choices.
Whether you conceive them to be "must haves" or not is up to you.
@sv11 I think you mean thumb-thumb shifters, not SRAM shifters.


----------



## sauprankul (Sep 6, 2012)

SV11 said:


> Yeah I do, constantly. Well, my fingers/thumb fall to the paddles naturally (with shimano).


Lets see. 1 finger on up lever, 1 finger on down lever, 1-2 fingers on brake lever.
That's leaves your pinky to hold on to the bars.
:thumbsup:


----------



## SV11 (Jan 2, 2011)

sauprankul said:


> Lets see. 1 finger on up lever, 1 finger on down lever, 1-2 fingers on brake lever.
> That's leaves your pinky to hold on to the bars.
> :thumbsup:


erm no. I use my index finger to brake, reason being is that i dont normally upshift while braking, but I do downshift when braking. I never put my finger on the brake lever unless im about to use it.
I don't know whats holding back sram/shimano from making a 1 paddle shifter, it's not like they don't have the technology, resources or knowledge.


----------



## sauprankul (Sep 6, 2012)

Twas a joke, mate.
How would one use a one paddle shifter?

EDIT: Oh kinda like an indexed thumbie?

And did somebody hit wmac for his Hitler comment?


----------



## SV11 (Jan 2, 2011)

sauprankul said:


> Twas a joke, mate.
> How would one use a one paddle shifter?
> 
> EDIT: Oh kinda like an indexed thumbie?


Yeah just having 1 paddle, push/pull indexed (or friction) method, below the bar.


----------



## sauprankul (Sep 6, 2012)

I guess.
But there probably a reason neither has made one yet.
And there also a reason why SRAM still makes twisters.
And both SRAM and shimano make thumb thumb shutters.


----------



## car bone (Apr 15, 2011)

SV11 said:


> I absolutely hate SRAM shifters with a passion. They are designed for dyslexic people, using the thumb to upshift and downshift is not right, you can't execute fast shitfts either. I have both (shimano and sram shifters), and the sram totally blows. I've tried to live with it for 2 yrs, but I just can't, to me it's not natural. You can't position a sram shifter in the optimal position so your thumb can fall on both paddles. Having your thumb fall on the upshift paddle is great, then you have to reroute your thumb to get to the downshift paddle, not cool. It's not an optimal system if you need to take your thumb/finger off one paddle to get to the other paddle. I'll go with ergonomics this time.


FYI I friend of mine bought a scott scale and wanted me to have a look at it. I adjusted the whole bike and made sure everything was safe (such as the headset with 5mm play!!!).

And then we came to the shifters, shimano xt or similar, the ones thet you can operate both with your thumbs and the index finger. He really liked the index finger shifting, but I somehow convinced him thumb/thumb is much better since you only use your thumb. I adjusted the angle of the shifter to make this easier and I heard no complaints about it since.

I'd go so far as to say thumb/thumb shifting is one of the most revolutionary things that has ever happend to mtbs. I hate twisters with a passion, but index/thumb is like one ppm away in the retarded category if you ask me. And this also happens to be the only thing of any kind of value/improvement to the riders that sram actually contributed to mountainbiking.

But its big if you ask me. Its about the same level of importance as hydro disc brakes. IMO.


----------



## caid (Jun 28, 2011)

For the same reasons that upside down forks, disc brakes, liquid cooling, progressive suspension linkages etc. are standard in the motocross industry and fuel injection, disc brakes, variable valve timing, power steering, ABS, stability/traction control etc. are standard in the auto industry, Tapered headtubes, hydro brakes, disc brakes in general, air spring forks, thru axles, etc. are becoming a new standard in the bike industry. Imagine driving a carburated car, with drums on all fours, with a powerband to try to match with every shift from an unsynced transmission with a goofy clutch, that handles like a boat. Progress sounds like a good idea now eh?


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

caid said:


> For the same reasons that upside down forks, disc brakes, liquid cooling, progressive suspension linkages etc. are standard in the motocross industry and fuel injection, disc brakes, variable valve timing, power steering, ABS, stability/traction control etc. are standard in the auto industry, Tapered headtubes, hydro brakes, disc brakes in general, air spring forks, thru axles, etc. are becoming a new standard in the bike industry. Imagine driving a carburated car, with drums on all fours, with a powerband to try to match with every shift from an unsynced transmission with a goofy clutch, that handles like a boat. Progress sounds like a good idea now eh?


I drove a 69 bug as my daily driver for ten years until 07, worked just fine, was simple, cheap and very durable, I also put over 200k on a 68 powerwagon only replacing Ujoints, Alternators, fuel pumps, tires and of course belts, to date the bug is the one car I absolutely miss and probably will get another for a main driver.
Now I have a nice newer Tundra that I cannot do anything to and any repairs run into the 1000s, no argument it is much more comfortable and quiet, but really I got along just fine previously and had I never upgraded to a truck I am afraid to use as a truck, my pocket book would have been quit a bit happier.


----------



## 7stg (Jul 28, 2006)

The 2x10 or 1x11 systems really do not suit me. I will take a 3x10, but would rather have a 3x7 or 3x8 set with 28/38/48 or 26/36/46 x 11-24 or 11-28 and cranks in 185

29" wheels are nice, each wheel size has its advantages. Unfortunately, I do not see that many 26ers out there, sure a few specialty brands but it seems many of the main line companies have all but abandoned them. 

The new tapered head tube is great and should have been done along time ago.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

I like the versatility of my 3x9. I just wish someone made a decent 9 speed 11-36 cassette, instead of 11-34.


----------



## webb-o (Nov 16, 2011)

I agree with the tenor of the OP's letter, but I do like my 29 inch wheels and mech disc brakes. 700c is really nothing new, and IMO disc brakes are safer than v-brakes, etc for MTBing. 

Suspension, carbon bits, dropper seatposts, $1,000 wheelsets, 10 speed group, and all the other stuff I can do without....it is not necessary to have a good time on the trail.


----------



## sauprankul (Sep 6, 2012)

webb-o said:


> Suspension, carbon bits, dropper seatposts, $1,000 wheelsets, 10 speed group, and all the other stuff I can do without....it is not necessary to have a good time on the trail.


Ha! Go say that in the AM, XC and WW sections and see what you get! :thumbsup:


----------



## rydbyk (Oct 13, 2009)

Mountain Cycle Shawn said:


> I like the versatility of my 3x9. I just wish someone made a decent 9 speed 11-36 cassette, instead of 11-34.


try lucky nino..i had an 11-36 ti cassette from him. worked well imo.. i did have to have him send a better 11t because the initial one was milled wrong.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

webb-o said:


> Suspension, carbon bits, dropper seatposts, $1,000 wheelsets, 10 speed group, and all the other stuff I can do without....it is not necessary to have a good time on the trail.


Yep, not necessary to have a good time. But it all makes my time much gooder. Lol!



rydbyk said:


> try lucky nino..i had an 11-36 ti cassette from him. worked well imo.. i did have to have him send a better 11t because the initial one was milled wrong.


Sounds expensive!


----------



## sauprankul (Sep 6, 2012)

I think there also one Shimano 12 - 36 cassette. HG 61, SLX level, I believe.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

^ Iv'e seen that. It's pretty heavy. I would like XT level or better, but 12-36 would be fine.


----------



## rydbyk (Oct 13, 2009)

Mountain Cycle Shawn said:


> Yep, not necessary to have a good time. But it all makes my time much gooder. Lol!
> 
> Sounds expensive!


yep. $210. XTR price. i raced it for a season and sold it for about $150. not bad.


----------



## fenix501 (Jul 18, 2008)

Ah, Rev, you're missing a little sunshine in your life, I think...

I have an idea. Go look at your bike in the garage, on it's hook or where ever you keep it. Now go watch some of the television coverage of the RedBull Rampage that just happened. 

If you can't find it on television (which you probably can't because I'm guessing you've got a 15" black and white Zenith from 1981, right? And, of course, it isn't compatible with HDMI and HD or whatever other artificial "standard" those blood-suckers in the cable tv/electronics industry have cooked up to rook you and me out of our hard earned dollars! ) just head to your local grocery store's magazine aisle. Any one of the shiny, ad-stuffed MTB magazines on sale there will feature multiple full-bleed images of guys hurling themselves off absolutely massive cliffs on... wait for it... mountain bikes.

Now picture one of those guys doing that stuff on your trusty Bridgestone MB-1 from 1990, or whatever it is that you ride. Doesn't really work, does it?

People push boundaries. It's just what we do. Especially young, foolish people with no sense of self preservation who want to get laid by pretty girls they'll invariably meet at the "after party" of the Rampage. Even in Utah. The kids want to go bigger and go faster. Heck, I want to go bigger and faster and I'm 42! 

People are doing things today on mountain bikes that were simply unimaginable ten or twenty years ago. The marketplace responds. 

Smart engineers and marketing people tasked with selling the products produced by their respective bicycle companies look out at this glorious circus of bike riding that we've all created and work furiously to come up with ideas and products to help us do those crazy things better, easier or faster. If their products are worthy, either by being well engineered, lighter, novel or sometimes just really shiny and cool looking, they find their place in the market and people purchase them.

This is progress in our little corner of the world. You are not required to participate. There is no one checking your bike before you go out for a ride to make sure that you have the latest in mountain bike technology.

But begrudging others their luscious suspension, carbon fiber and dropper posts is just bad form, Rev. We are having a ton of fun riding our amazing bikes up and down terrain that I don't think you are going to be able to enjoy on your older bike. You get to vote with your wallet, same as the rest of us, but when you attempt to call the "bike industry" to the carpet for trying to make a decent living, you just make yourself look like a spiteful grouch.

Enjoy the ride, Rev! And maybe borrow a buddy's over-engineered miracle bike and see what all the fuss is about.

Yours,

Pete


----------

