# Old riders, new bikes. New techniques, too.



## formica (Jul 4, 2004)

Alright, so who has embraced the new bikes? More slack head angles, more travel, shorter stems, wider bars, dropper post, dropped top tube, wheel sizes....

I for one have. Why would I stay on a 3" travel bike with a 100 mm stem if I feel and ride so much better on the new stuff? I get surprised by how locked into ways people can get, especially folks that have been mountain biking since the beginning of time.

Never mind that riding styles have changed. With the advent of more slack geometry, you don't HAVE to stick your ass over your rear wheel to keep from endoing. There's new thinking in riding bikes that makes the rider much more multi dimensional (ie fore/aft/lateral) movement and balanced that for some "old dogs" is very much a new trick. Taken a skills clinic lately? Learned anything new?

{go ahead, insert retro grouch curmudgeon luddite grumpy stuff}


----------



## Flamingtaco (Mar 12, 2012)

Blah, blah, blah, new, old, sideways, who cares what each of us chooses to do? Just enjoy your ride, I'll enjoy mine, and we can all bask in the nirvana that is different riding styles getting along famously.


----------



## Velobike (Jun 23, 2007)

formica said:


> Alright, so who has embraced the new bikes? More slack head angles, more travel, shorter stems, wider bars, dropper post, dropped top tube, wheel sizes....


The new bikes are more suited to trail parks with generally easy (ie do-able) climbs and exciting downhills with berms and "flow", so if that's your riding, they're great.

The bikes with steeper head angles don't flop around so much on steep climbs and are suited more for a natural trail with its unpredictable features, and so are better for general purpose riding.

That's two fairly big generalisations, and there will be some overlap, and both approaches are equally valid, but it's how I see the current market.

But what would I know? I haven't advanced to suspension or gears yet, and I'll take any bike anywhere.


----------



## veloborealis (Oct 25, 2009)

I'm with flamingtaco on this one... ride what you want, and let me ride what I want. I just want to see more riders out there and more trails to ride on. But if it's curmudgeonliness you desire...

GET OFF MY TRAIL.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Velobike said:


> But what would I know? I haven't advanced to suspension or gears yet,


I would think it's tough to have a worthwhile opinion regarding something you have no experience with, no?

As far as most the 'advances' listed originally by Formica, besides dropper posts, most are 'trends' I've been liking for 15 years or so, on all sorts of terrain. Don't think I've run 100mm stem since ~98.


----------



## Velobike (Jun 23, 2007)

slapheadmofo said:


> I would think it's tough to have a worthwhile opinion regarding something you have no experience with, no?...


I have used gears and suspension and seen either no advantage, or that the advantage is outweighed by the disadvantages.


----------



## formica (Jul 4, 2004)

Velobike said:


> The new bikes are more suited to trail parks with generally easy (ie do-able) climbs and exciting downhills with berms and "flow", so if that's your riding, they're great.
> 
> The bikes with steeper head angles don't flop around so much on steep climbs and are suited more for a natural trail with its unpredictable features, and so are better for general purpose riding.
> 
> ...


Yep what would you know? I haven't been to a bike park in 15 years.


----------



## Velobike (Jun 23, 2007)

formica said:


> Yep what would you know? I haven't been to a bike park in 15 years.


I'm not talking about how people here use their bikes, but commenting on the market segment being targeted by the many of the manufacturers.

I did say _"That's two fairly big generalisations, and there will be some overlap, and both approaches are equally valid, but it's how I see the current market."

_ie the current trend is to design bikes for trail parks because the majority of riders prefer that, or have restricted access, and thus have no choice but to ride trail parks, hence the emphasis is on downhill speed and handling.

Which leaves a minority wanting bikes for actual cross country type use.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

I have been reading MTBR forums since 1996 and every time any kind of advancement is brought up the Luddites discount it. Thankfully they are not in charge of bike design or we would all be stuck on crap steep&short bikes. My 15 Knolly Warden is a better mountain bike than anything I've ever been on before. I plan to build a HT for winter and smoother trails but it will have a slacker HTA, long reach, short stem, wide bar, and a dropper. I don't feel the need to handicap myself with steep head angles, long stems, and rigid posts.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Velobike said:


> I'm not talking about how people here use their bikes, but commenting on the market segment being targeted by the many of the manufacturers.
> 
> I did say _"That's two fairly big generalisations, and there will be some overlap, and both approaches are equally valid, but it's how I see the current market."
> 
> ...


Not sure where you live, but this is completely the opposite of the situation in the US, currently and historically. The overwhelming majority of riding takes place without any sort of lift service. If I had to venture a number, I'd put it at well over 95% and still consider that conservative.


----------



## Velobike (Jun 23, 2007)

slapheadmofo said:


> Not sure where you live, but this is completely the opposite of the situation in the US, currently and historically. The overwhelming majority of riding takes place without any sort of lift service. If I had to venture a number, I'd put it at well over 95% and still consider that conservative.


I wasn't talking about uplifts. That's really downhill bike territory.

I currently live in Scotland, but used to live in Australia, and ridden in several other countries, but never the USA.

Everyone's experience varies of course. The only times I go to a trail park is for a race so my opinion of trail parks is formed by what I see there. My dominant impression is that they are built for excitement, and no matter how unpredictable the track may look at first sight, there's always a line. Basically trails built for mtbs generally have a climb that can be done comfortably by most people at a reasonable speed, and the downhills are steeper, and dangerous features are either removed or well signposted.

What I call a natural trail is one that has evolved over many years from a variety of uses, eg foot traffic, sheep, deer or pony tracks being examples, but definitely not purpose built for a bicycle or maintained. When following them, they can often disappear in a bog or overgrown vegetation, only to reappear on the other side.

A natural trail usually take the most direct route up a hill and make no concessions to a bicycle, so often you're riding so slowly that you're at the point of balance. At that speed a floppy front end is a severe disadvantage. Of course, other times it's so steep that the bike has to go on your shoulder while you scrabble up using your hands and feet - in which case, you don't care what the geometry is, just how light your bike is.


----------



## formica (Jul 4, 2004)

Travis Bickle got it. I was trying to ask, tried anything new and how did you like it?
I had coaches recommending wide bars, short stem, flat pedals to me for several years before I would try it. I tried it, I liked it. Are you open to new stuff or are you going to keep doing what you've been doing? I now teach fundamental bike skills, and most certainly, some of the things I teach are new information to people that have been riding the same exact way they started. 
Velo bike I have numerous photos scattered in the forum. They are as far from bike park trails as you can get.


----------



## Velobike (Jun 23, 2007)

formica said:


> ...Velo bike I have numerous photos scattered in the forum. They are as far from bike park trails as you can get.


I think we're talking at cross purposes. I was not accusing anyone of being a trail park rider (not that there's anything wrong with that).

I was commenting on who all the "new" geometry was aimed at.

And you did say _{go ahead, insert retro grouch curmudgeon luddite grumpy stuff}_ 

I'll drop out for now. I don't seem to be communicating very successfully.


----------



## formica (Jul 4, 2004)

I don't think the new geometry is geared towards park riders at all. Maybe that's a UK thing. Trail? Enduro? Sure, but hey it works for me and if I ever did an enduro race you can be assured I'd be last lol.


----------



## Phillbo (Apr 7, 2004)

My ride is a 2013 so i don't consider it 'new' technology any more.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

formica said:


> I don't think the new geometry is geared towards park riders at all. Maybe that's a UK thing. Trail? Enduro? Sure, but hey it works for me and if I ever did an enduro race you can be assured I'd be last lol.


True. It's just mountain bike geometry. I did 1 enduro race and it was on easier trails. Our local enduro race coincided with me having to fast, pouring rain, and a course I wasn't crazy about so I skipped it. Not really sure what a trail park is, but around here all the trails were built by mountain bikers or trials bikers, and it's a great thing. I have been on loads of boring hiking trails in the past and this is the golden age of riding.


----------



## Glide the Clyde (Nov 12, 2009)

I use a 3 year old design Banshee Paradox with around a 69* head angle, 120mm travel, sub 17" chain stays, shorter stem and a 31" bar for my XC race/ride and trail rig. And the occasional mild park rig. Most fun, stable, confidence inspiring hardtail I've ever had.

Yeah, hardtail mountainbike geo. Jack of many trades and master of none.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

I guess I'm not really familiar with the term 'trail park'.
Doesn't sound like something we have a lot of in my area.

My main ride right now is from ~08. Steel, single pivot, 6" FS, adjustable travel fork. 
It does pretty much whatever. I have other more (or less) specialized bikes for different applications/moods. The only ones that have long stems/narrow bars/high top-tubes/etc are around mostly for nostalgia's sake rather than really being all that good at anything.


----------



## older'nslower (Feb 28, 2009)

I vote new. 800 mm bars, 60 mm stem, platform pedals, dropper post. I do have an old GT LTS that is my retro ride though, updated with some more current parts. However, I would not take it to some of the places that I take my AM bike. It's too old and fragile to take much abuse anymore. (Like some of us?)

I came to mtn biking in '89 from a motorcycle background and was surprised by what I considered to be the rather primitive technology exhibited by bicycles, especially in light of the rapid development of suspension and brakes that had occurred in the motorcycle industry during the '70s and '80's. That may explain my comfort with the new stuff - it's catching up to where I thought it should be. (Although I did have a hardtail, steep angled, 22 lb Ti bike back in the mid-90s that climbed like a goat and descended passably.)


----------



## Eric Malcolm (Dec 18, 2011)

As a bike designer/builder/rider, I have to keep up with where the trends are going, so it does not do me any good not being able to relate to changes in the industry. I do agree with Velobike in that the trend does have a focus to the masses who tend to access the more populous trails rather than the raw terrain shaped routes used by animals. I am happy to see the 27.5 trend. I am a tall 6'2" rider and large wheels should suit me, but I have to consider my shorter brethren who have restrictive problems sizing on the bigger wheels. The trend to 800mm/short stem bars/large wheels means big problems for 5'2" lightweight people. The idea is to make a heavy steering feel and respond 'lightly' with good balance. But short armed people are not fitting this trend well. I do like the move to the new 47mm BB shell and the generally beefier construction of frame parts. If MTB had not come along, we would still most likely be riding road bike dimensions for all cycle parts and not much exciting would be happening at all in this industry. The pace of change is currently very rapid in the cycle world and most of it can be applied universally and some needs to stay in its appropriate niche. The BMX BB bearing standard for instance never got off the ground in MTB. Over-sized H/bar/stem diameters, seat stems, BB axles, Direct Mount derailleurs, Steerer stems and A-head are all advances. All of these are excellent design moves and represent the best of bicycle progress. These improvements have been seamlessly appearing in your upgrades over the past decade. Haven't harmed anyone yet.

Eric


----------



## k2rider1964 (Apr 29, 2010)

Travis Bickle said:


> I have been reading MTBR forums since 1996 and every time any kind of advancement is brought up the Luddites discount it. Thankfully they are not in charge of bike design or we would all be stuck on crap steep&short bikes. My 15 Knolly Warden is a better mountain bike than anything I've ever been on before. I plan to build a HT for winter and smoother trails but it will have a slacker HTA, long reach, short stem, wide bar, and a dropper. I don't feel the need to handicap myself with steep head angles, long stems, and rigid posts.


Exactly!!! Ride what you want, where you want, when you want but to try to deny that todays bikes with all of the advancements are not better products is silly nonsense. Todays AM bikes climb better than XC bikes of past generations...at least mine do.


----------



## Cayenne_Pepa (Dec 18, 2007)

I like the new stuff too(bars, stem, dropper, tapered fork, 1x11, etc)....but cannot see any justifiable benefit from spending $$$$ to have 38mm wide rims, Boost148 and 20x110.


----------



## andytiedye (Jul 26, 2014)

Dropper post: Yay!
Disc brakes: meh
1X: boo hiss!
big wheels: YUCK!


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

20mm hubs were around first and 15mm was a step backwards. What other mountain bike part decreased in diameter? Everything gets larger and stiffer except the front axle.

1X IMO is one of the best things, ever. 11-42 still gives me more range than I need, lighter weight, and let's my left thumb do what it's meant to, work the dropper.


----------



## johnnyspoke (Sep 15, 2005)

Travis Bickle said:


> 20mm hubs were around first and 15mm was a step backwards. What other mountain bike part decreased in diameter? Everything gets larger and stiffer except the front axle.
> 
> 1X IMO is one of the best things, ever. 11-42 still gives me more range than I need, lighter weight, and let's my left thumb do what it's meant to, work the dropper.


The way you feel about 20-15mm is pretty much exactly how I feel about 2X - 1X


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

Front derailleurs should be melted down to make extended range cassettes.


----------



## Skooks (Dec 24, 2008)

Travis Bickle said:


> Front derailleurs should be melted down to make extended range cassettes.


I don't know about that Travis. I like the simplicity of a 1x setup, and I have one (30 x 11-42) on my Chilcotin. However, I really like having a 2x setup on my Warden though. The extra range on the low end makes the bike more versatile. The trail I rode this afternoon, called Cardiac, would have been a walking fest if I didn't have my granny gear. Just being able to make it up this climb is a huge challenge for just about anyone, regardless of age.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

Travis Bickle said:


> Front derailleurs should be melted down to make extended range cassettes.


Gigantic mega-range clusters should be melted down to make boat anchors.


----------



## Ericmopar (Aug 23, 2003)

Velobike said:


> The new bikes are more suited to trail parks with generally easy (ie do-able) climbs and exciting downhills with berms and "flow", so if that's your riding, they're great.
> 
> The bikes with steeper head angles don't flop around so much on steep climbs and are suited more for a natural trail with its unpredictable features, and so are better for general purpose riding.
> 
> ...


That's pretty much how I feel too. I came to Nevada with a Stumpjumper FSR frame that was the new generation of longer top tube bikes a few years back (12) and then got a Mountain Cycle San Andreas with more traditional geometry and was much happier, except the BB height was just a little too high. 
Then after 4 years of bashing the San An around Bootleg, it broke, so the guys at Mountain Cycle offered me a MC Fury that I still have and love riding. The Fury is similar to the San An but with better pivot placement and BB height. 
I've tried wider bars, but I always end up trimming them down after a few rides to about shoulder width. 
With the short wheelbase bikes, I have less problems with the front tire washing out, because the farther out the front wheel is in a bike, and the shorter the chainstays, the more weight is on the rear instead of front wheel. 
It suddenly dawned on me one day, that 29ers might have an edge in climbing, simply because the stays are longer and thus the weight distribution is farther forward and more even between front and rear while climbing. 
The stays being longer can really help a tall and or heavy rider keep the weight forward of the rear axle during steep climbs. 
When you are climbing a grade, the taller a rider is and the higher their saddle has to be, the closer the Center of Gravity is to, or even behind the rear axle. 
At Bootleg the speeds are slower on most trails with tight curves and I really don't like the longer bikes. 
I wouldn't mind having a custom swingarm on my bike that was about an inch longer though.

There's more to it than that. In tight terrain the longer bars can hang up easier. 
Another problem is tight turns in technical terrain with long top tubes and long bars. Both together, or individually, long bars and long top tubes make for a longer reach to whatever grip ends up on the outside of a tight turn.
Bikes for taller riders should have stay about an inch longer than the smaller size frames.


----------



## Skooks (Dec 24, 2008)

andytiedye said:


> Dropper post: Yay!
> Disc brakes: meh
> 1X: boo hiss!
> big wheels: YUCK!


You are joking about the disc brakes right? 
(or else your trails are pretty flat). Powerful, reliable, able to bring you to a stop anywhere anytime using just 2 fingers, what is not to like? Biggest innovation in bike technology in the last 20 years in my opinion.

Getting back on topic, I am having loads of fun on my new warden and on my old Chilcotin. Wide bars, slack fork, long and low frame, bigger / wider wheels. I will take any technical advantages I can get, especially when they make riding more fun.

Continuously trying to improve my skills and fitness to match the capability of the bike too. Luckily this involves riding alot, usually with people much younger and faster than me. Sometimes I can even keep up!


----------



## Crankout (Jun 16, 2010)

formica said:


> Alright, so who has embraced the new bikes? More slack head angles, more travel, shorter stems, wider bars, dropper post, dropped top tube, wheel sizes....
> 
> I for one have. Why would I stay on a 3" travel bike with a 100 mm stem if I feel and ride so much better on the new stuff? I get surprised by how locked into ways people can get, especially folks that have been mountain biking since the beginning of time.
> 
> ...


I'm more of a xc guy, so I like less travel on my FS. I admit to not having any experience on any of the more recent AM or trail bikes though.


----------



## Ericmopar (Aug 23, 2003)

Skooks said:


> You are joking about the disc brakes right?
> (or else your trails are pretty flat). Powerful, reliable, able to bring you to a stop anywhere anytime using just 2 fingers, what is not to like? Biggest innovation in bike technology in the last 20 years in my opinion.


Nope... I doubt they are joking. Proper Vees did everything almost as good, wet weather being the exception. 
Actually my Vs with the proper rims and pads were just as good as my discs are now, except for mud and rain. Here in the desert I'd be plenty happy with a great set of V Brakes. 
Cheaper, Lighter, Easier to maintain, No sticky pistons, no off centered BS after fixing a flat and no worries of getting air in the lines if you tip the bike upside down doing a field repair or crash. 
Also my spokes lasted longer and wheels stayed truer without fussing with the tension, because the high stresses were at the rim not the hub. 
The key to great Vs is a Mavic UB Control Rim, Kool Stop Salmon pads and Avid Single Digit V Brakes. (before Kool Stop invented the pad backing that bends.) 
When you could still get all the proper V Brake parts in the early 2000s, hardly anyone wanted to deal with discs and many still don't, but the bike industry forced discs on us just like 29ers. It's a money maker for them, the disc parts are ungodly more expensive and make for a higher profit margin.

There are exceptions. I wouldn't want a downhill bike with Vs and I'd still want discs if I lived in a wet environment like parts of the Pacific Northwest. 
My next utility bike is probably going to be a Felt with Vs on it.

I wonder how many have ridden a old bike sitting in the garage too long, that has stale pads on it, and are comparing that with a new set of discs? 
Or Vees on a Wally World bike?


----------



## veloborealis (Oct 25, 2009)

Ericmopar said:


> Nope... I doubt they are joking.


If they ain't jokin' they be smokin'!

Seriously, vees were ok; cantis, too, but I'll take disc brakes any time, wet or dry conditions. The only thing I don't like is the howl when they get wet. Can't seem to adjust that out of mine.


----------



## Skooks (Dec 24, 2008)

I live and ride in North Vancouver and spend a lot of time in Squamish. Ride year-round, which includes 4-6 months of soggy, muddy trails. Often ride long 45+ degree rock faces as well (but only when they are dry). There is absolutely no way I could ride most of my local trails with the speed and control that I currently do without good disc brakes. I sure liked having them down in Utah on the insanely steep slickrock faces too. Good disc brakes have totally transformed riding for me and everyone else that I ride with.


----------



## k2rider1964 (Apr 29, 2010)

My rankings on the innovations you speak of...

Disc brakes....Best innovation for SAFETY

Suspension....Best innovation for COMFORT

1x11....Best innovation for making my life simpler and I have no intention of going back. What is not to like? Pretty much the same gearing as most 2x10 but lighter weight, less parts to break or get out of whack and one less thing to think about 

Dropper Post....Everybody I ride with would disagree 100% (as would most on this board) but while I have a dropper on my bikes, I rarely use them. After riding dirt bikes for nearly 40 years, I'm too conditioned to use my seat as I maneuver down, around and over obstacles. I usually don't even think to use the dropper and when I do, I feel totally unsafe when dropping it more than 1-2".


----------



## Skooks (Dec 24, 2008)

Haven't tried 1x11 yet. I know I would like it though. Regarding the dropper post, I adjust my seat height far more than I shift gears.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Skooks said:


> Regarding the dropper post, I adjust my seat height far more than I shift gears.


Maybe an intervention is in order.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

k2rider1964 said:


> My rankings on the innovations you speak of...
> 
> Disc brakes....Best innovation for SAFETY
> 
> ...


There's a lot of great innovations over the years.

I find ODI Lock On grips to be towards the top of the list.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

Best innovation in the last 20 years? Without question the Awes0me Strap, it has completely transformed the way I ride.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

J.B. Weld said:


> Best innovation in the last 20 years? Without question the Awes0me Strap, it has completely transformed the way I ride.


Shhhh [top secret] don't let the cat out of the bag. The edge one rider has over another Awesome Strap strapped is nothing short of mind boggling.


----------



## Skooks (Dec 24, 2008)

Nope, I just ride lots of rolling trails with steep downhill sections and punchy climbs.


----------



## formica (Jul 4, 2004)

J.B. Weld said:


> Best innovation in the last 20 years? Without question the Awes0me Strap, it has completely transformed the way I ride.


Yep, awesome strap FTW.


----------



## Fuzzle (Mar 31, 2015)

My '95 McMahon custom blue anodized TI MTB (if you're not familiar with anodizing TI it can be deadly) is my pride and joy but I don't ride it much because it's to twitchy/lively. It's strange how it never felt that way till I moved to Bend. If I had it my way I would probably ride it a lot more if I could control it. 

I've been following this thread and wanting to join in but I have to admit I really have know idea what everyone here is talking about. I have been riding since '85 and I've had some very nice pro bikes that my husband picked out for me and maintained as well.

All I did was ride as hard as I could till I felt like I was going to puke.


----------



## Velobike (Jun 23, 2007)

Ericmopar said:


> ...Proper Vees did everything almost as good, wet weather being the exception...


I agree. The proviso is the whole brake system must use good quality components (which includes the rim) AND be properly setup.

Where I lived in Australia when it was dry, it was dry, and when it was wet, it was torrential, so riding in wet conditions tended to be only when I was caught out, so I never saw any advantage in disks which meant heavier wheels.

When I came to Scotland, I initially had a bit of a problem because wetness is part of riding here. I sorted out the V-brakes by making a little wiper (bit of a windscreen wiper). It was on a wire frame (old spoke bent to shape) and attached to the brake blocks and it touched the rim before the brake block to sweep most of the water and mud off. Not perfect, but better than without.

It worked well enough for me to continue using V-brakes instead of disks. However after a particularly muddy 24 hour race in which I wore a set of brandnew (and expensive  ) rims to paper thinness, I knew I had to convert to disk or use steel rims.

I then got through a succession of disk brake setups without satisfaction, and developed an intense dislike for anything hydraulic. In the meantime though the disk systems have improved, and the rims have got lighter by dispensing with the need for a braking surface. My preference for disks became for cable operated BB7s, which can be given a very solid feel if you use solid outers and good levers.

After a particular race where I got through 3 sets of brake pads I found that disks have their limitations in muddy winter 24 hours races. This is a major hit because I ride unsupported (solo means solo IMO), so I have to do my own pad changes. That's no fun at stupid dark o'clock at subzero when your fingers are like sausages and you keep dozing off while doing it. 

Thus I came to use disks for my day ride stuff, and drum brakes for the winter stuff. Now although drum brakes can be good if set up properly, they are not equal to a decent disk, but if that means not losing 1½ hours out of a 24 hour they are worth it. Drums also last forever. Mine are now 5 years old and the braking surface is hardly worn, which means they could easily be constructed a bit lighter.

However in the meantime, the world has moved on, and I'm going to try a set of XTs in the next 24 hour - pad changes can be done through the top so are much quicker. But first I will try doing a pad change when the temperatures here drop below zero. I'd love a shrouded disk like Honda motorbikes used to have, so I may try to build a shroud for the brakes - they won't overheat in winter.

Basically all a brake has to do is transmit the effort at the lever to the pad at the braking surface. If it can do this without losses then it doesn't matter what the system is IMO. All you have to do then is make sure no lubricants get on the braking surfaces (eg water, mud etc).


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

Drum brakes? Good grief! Might as well go full-on cave man-









I admit I don't live in a rain forest though


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

Disc brakes are probably #1 for me followed closely by the dropper seatpost. I would give up my 150mm of rear travel long before I give up my dropper.


----------



## Velobike (Jun 23, 2007)

J.B. Weld said:


> Drum brakes? Good grief! Might as well go full-on cave man-


Nah, stick in the spokes is full caveman 

Drum brakes are better than most people think, but there again most people have never used a properly setup modern drum brake.

They use them in pedal race cars, and those things get up to speeds most of us will never see while pedalling.

One day I might have a go at this race 

https://www.bristol24race.co.uk


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Velobike said:


> After a particular race where I got through 3 sets of brake pads


That must have been one really messed up batch of pads.
I and countless others regularly get way, way, WAYYYY more than 6 or 8 hours between pad changes, even on DH bikes in terrible conditions. I don't know if I'ver ever heard of anyone wearing out pads in anything remotely close to a handful of hours, even riding with the brakes on the majority of the time. The one and only time I've completely trashed a braking system in a day was DHing at Mt Snow with V-brakes ~1997 when I went through 2 sets of pads and ruined a set of rim sidewalls while I was at it.

Another great thing about discs is you don't need to be as finicky about rim straightness. You can ride a pretty damn wobbly wheel out of the woods and still have functional brakes.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

Disc brakes work, every time you squeeze the lever, the same cannot be said of V's. Get water on your rim when it's below freezing and you've got nothing. Rims can now be made without a braking surface allowing stronger and lighter rims as well. This was a debate 15 years ago and mtbs moved on for good reasons.


----------



## Velobike (Jun 23, 2007)

slapheadmofo said:


> That must have been one really messed up batch of pads.
> I and countless others regularly get way, way, WAYYYY more than 6 or 8 hours between pad changes, even on DH bikes in terrible conditions...


24 hours racing in granite mud does that. Some of the other competitors got through 5 sets. The local bike shop sent their mechanic to strip the pads out of the display models. Quite a few riders had to quit early because there were no brake pads to be had, and many of the riders in teams had their partly used pads cannibalised for the soloists.

DH racing is over in minutes, so it doesn't really compare, even if you stack up several runs.

The race is the Strathpuffer :: The Strathpuffer 24 Mountainbike Endurance Event in the Scottish Highlands :: Gallery which is run in January, usually in subzero, or worse, just above zero and sleet, and it's notoriously hard on brake pads.

That said, I think brake pads have improved over the last few years. We haven't had the same attrition of them in the race recently, which is why I am going to use disks this time instead of my drum brakes. (But I'm taking a spare bike with drums just in case)


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Velobike said:


> DH racing is over in minutes, so it doesn't really compare, even if you stack up several runs.
> 
> )


I'm not referring to doing a single or even handful of DH runs (that comparison obviously doesn't even make sense) but rather doing many runs a day, day after day, mainly in New Hampshire and Maine and Vermont (no shortage of granite, mud, snow or fall-line gnarly stuff around here). I'm talking hours upon hours of actual saddle time, typically using the brakes a lot harder than you're likely to in a trail-riding scenario.

As far as trail use, I can't say I change out pads any more with disc than I did with V's. Probably a lot less actually. And I don't ever wear through rim sidewalls anymore.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Learned anything? Yup. My 29er rolls over stuff and climbs better, for me, than my old 26er. Slight disadvantage in the real chunky, tech, tight twisty turns. Offset by the first 2. I can't believe there is even a disc vs anything debate, out. 6 inches of travel on my enduro kicks a$$. All day, everyday. No more back pains. Same bike with good tubeless rims and tires, are best for my riding conditions. Rocky, rooty and a fair amount of thorns. 1 flat in 3 years. Fat bikes are fun, so much that I sometimes choose it over my said enduro I have been singing the praises of. It's a Trek Farley 8, bluto front sus, 1x11 drivetrain, set up tubeless. Did I say wicked awesome? 26 x 3.8 tires, studded set up coming soon. Naysayers, just demo a fat one, you will thank me. Really.


----------



## OldGringo (Oct 2, 2015)

Travis Bickle said:


> 1X IMO is one of the best things, ever.


Yep.


----------



## Skooks (Dec 24, 2008)

leeboh said:


> Learned anything? Yup. My 29er rolls over stuff and climbs better, for me, than my old 26er. Slight disadvantage in the real chunky, tech, tight twisty turns. Offset by the first 2. I can't believe there is even a disc vs anything debate, out. 6 inches of travel on my enduro kicks a$$. All day, everyday. No more back pains. Same bike with good tubeless rims and tires, are best for my riding conditions. Rocky, rooty and a fair amount of thorns. 1 flat in 3 years. Fat bikes are fun, so much that I sometimes choose it over my said enduro I have been singing the praises of. It's a Trek Farley 8, bluto front sus, 1x11 drivetrain, set up tubeless. Did I say wicked awesome? 26 x 3.8 tires, studded set up coming soon. Naysayers, just demo a fat one, you will thank me. Really.


I hear you about the fat wheels. I demoed a 650b+ Rocky Mt Sherpa a while ago. I was fully prepared to hate it but it was ridiculously fun. amazing amounts of traction and the thing climbed like a billy goat. Loads of fun on the decent too. I can't see buying one any time soon but maybe one day...


----------



## Velobike (Jun 23, 2007)

slapheadmofo said:


> I'm not referring to doing a single or even handful of DH runs (that comparison obviously doesn't even make sense) but rather doing many runs a day, day after day, mainly in New Hampshire and Maine and Vermont (no shortage of granite, mud, snow or fall-line gnarly stuff around here). I'm talking hours upon hours of actual saddle time, typically using the brakes a lot harder than you're likely to in a trail-riding scenario.
> 
> As far as trail use, I can't say I change out pads any more with disc than I did with V's. Probably a lot less actually. And I don't ever wear through rim sidewalls anymore.


I'm talking about something that actually happened.

Back on topic:

As for the something new, I'm quite keen to try the 650B+ sized wheels. I briefly rode a 29er+, and while it was quite nice, it felt compromised. I couldn't quite put my finger on what it was.

The extra volume of the tyre was appreciated though, and as a 650B+ comes out to around the same size as a 29er, I know what will work for me in the way of geometry.

I'm going to build up a set of wheels and give it a try in my race bike.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Travis Bickle said:


> Disc brakes work, every time you squeeze the lever, the same cannot be said of V's. Get water on your rim when it's below freezing and you've got nothing. Rims can now be made without a braking surface allowing stronger and lighter rims as well. This was a debate 15 years ago and mtbs moved on for good reasons.


Yup!
Plus V's scratch your rims up which in itself is a turn off. No woman in her right mind would look twice at a man with scratched rims.


----------



## Cleared2land (Aug 31, 2012)

Ok DJ, is that rich content?


----------



## dwt (Jul 19, 2009)

Where I live in the northeast USA, two specific modern trends don't work too well: low bottom brackets and 700mm bars. Pedal &'chainring strikes in rocky chunk rule out low bb's and don't give me that crank ratchet BS. I want to charge through, letting my suspension work & i don't want to even think about my pedals or my chainring hitting rocks or logs. Running a ring no larger than 34T helps that. Plus, we have a lot of very narrow tree lined single track. Too wide bars can result in bruised or busted pinkies, or a crash if you hook a tree too close. You cut the bars down to suit the specific trails. Nothing wrong with short stems, slack HTA's, or of course dropper posts. I run a 1X10 drivetrain on 27.5" wheels, 130mm suspension. My chainring is an Absolute Black narrow/wide oval direct mount on SRAM X9 spline crank. Love the direct mount ring, you can run small chainrings as low as you want with no worry of chain spider contact. No spider also means no PITA chainring bolts (I really hate futzing with them).
Next bike will be 27.5", 140mm or more suspension, 1X11 drivetrain.


----------



## FASTFAT (Oct 22, 2015)

get on , pedal, go..


----------



## kosmo (Oct 27, 2004)

k2rider1964 said:


> Dropper Post....Everybody I ride with would disagree 100% (as would most on this board) but while I have a dropper on my bikes, I rarely use them. After riding dirt bikes for nearly 40 years, I'm too conditioned to use my seat as I maneuver down, around and over obstacles. I usually don't even think to use the dropper and when I do, I feel totally unsafe when dropping it more than 1-2".


Thank you. Jeebus, thank you for letting me know I'm not (quite) alone.


----------



## dwt (Jul 19, 2009)

Fuzzle said:


> I've been following this thread and wanting to join in but I have to admit I really have know idea what everyone here is talking about. I have been riding since '85 and I've had some very nice pro bikes that my husband picked out for me and maintained as well.
> 
> All I did was ride as hard as I could till I felt like I was going to puke.


Damn, but you're hard core. Suffering through childbirth AND riding till you puke, shutting up all the macho men. We'll give you a pass for not wrenching your bikes or even pumping your tires. What's the cliche? You go girl!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## dwt (Jul 19, 2009)

Travis Bickle said:


> Front derailleurs should be melted down to make extended range cassettes.


+1. The other way to lower gearing is small direct mount chainrings which do not require spiders so no interference with chains. 28T even 26T rings possible. Chainrings smaller than cogs another thing old folks need to learn to wrap their heads around, eh?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## dwt (Jul 19, 2009)

k2rider1964 said:


> My rankings on the innovations you speak of...
> 
> Disc brakes....Best innovation for SAFETY


Totally agree. Plus control: stopping power and modulation



> Suspension....Best innovation for COMFORT


Agreed



> 1x11....Best innovation for making my life simpler and I have no intention of going back. What is not to like? Pretty much the same gearing as most 2x10 but lighter weight, less parts to break or get out of whack and one less thing to think about


Again, agreed. Front derailleur on mtb a useless part. I don't miss chain suck, that's for sure. Once they came out with small direct mount chainrings and huge cassette cogs, more than one chainring unnecessary.



> Dropper Post....Everybody I ride with would disagree 100% (as would most on this board) but while I have a dropper on my bikes, I rarely use them. After riding dirt bikes for nearly 40 years, I'm too conditioned to use my seat as I maneuver down, around and over obstacles. I usually don't even think to use the dropper and when I do, I feel totally unsafe when dropping it more than 1-2".


I use mine in the usual way and in another unconventional way: climbing. Yes. Climbing. Back in day when the climb got vertical, you'd slide foreword and stuff the drop nose of your WTB saddle up your butt crack, and short leg pedal your way up. Much better leverage. With a dropper post, you can stay seated and get the leverage without the discomfort and skid mark on your shorts. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

dwt said:


> Front derailleur on mtb a useless part.


One persons trash is another's treasure. Rear derailleurs are useless for some.


----------



## dwt (Jul 19, 2009)

J.B. Weld said:


> One persons trash is another's treasure. Rear derailleurs are useless for some.


Front derailleurs are useless for everybody:

For geared riders because they are 1) an inefficient part, as (a)they require the rider to slow down (if only minimally) to use and can be mis timed & fail; and 
(b) more importantly, a single front ring is sufficient

and

(2) For 1X & singlespeeders because they are irrelevant

Rear derailleurs are only useless for singlespeeders; 
geared riders will need and want one to shift an 11 cog cluster which will go with their single chainring.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## andytiedye (Jul 26, 2014)

Front derailleurs are useful for anyone who needs more range than 1x can supply


----------



## dwt (Jul 19, 2009)

andytiedye said:


> Front derailleurs are useful for anyone who needs more range than 1x can supply


That is getting less necessary with 1x11 and direct mount chainrings. But of course , there are so many variables, from rider and bike weight, to wheel diameter, suspension amount or none, tire tread, tubed or tubeless, crank length, shoe sole material, to clipless or flat pedals, etc, etc, etc.

For me the ideal is a single ring. I'd need a 1X11 650b with 28 or 30t chainring, 10-40 cassette, 25lbs or less. 130mm suspension min.

In today's market, we're taking $10k+. Explain that to the wife, huh.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

dwt said:


> Front derailleurs are useless for everybody:


Speak for yourself. a ft. derailleur is very useful to me.

Not because of gear range, but because of $40 xt cassettes, longer lasting chainrings, much better chainline, no grinding up the climbs, etc. I have zero problems with my front derailleur and shifting it doesn't bother me in the least.

I don't care if others use only 1 chainring, why does it bother you that I prefer 2?


----------



## kosmo (Oct 27, 2004)

J.B. Weld said:


> Speak for yourself. a ft. derailleur is very useful to me.
> 
> Not because of gear range, but because of $40 xt cassettes, longer lasting chainrings, much better chainline, no grinding up the climbs, etc. I have zero problems with my front derailleur and shifting it doesn't bother me in the least.
> 
> I don't care if others use only 1 chainring, why does it bother you that I prefer 2?


There just seems to be something about riders that convert to 1x and dropper seatposts. Many become pretty evangelical and adamant about those two choices.

Personally, I choose 1x over 2x, but I don't even begin to pretend that there aren't some tradeoffs (the silence tips the balance for me, but barely).

I don't, however, find droppers of much use, so elect to go without that one additional complication and bit of extra weight. I've been on SO many all day epic group rides where one of the guys was fighting dropper issues.

I'm eagerly awaiting a dropper post that telepathically raises and lowers ~30mm, and adds less than 100 g when compared to a Thomson aluminum seatpost. I'll be first in line!


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

Been riding mountain bikes since ~1990. Grew up on a BMX bike in the 70's. Lived through the birth and evolution of suspension bikes, and owned/rode a ton of them. Same for disc brakes, and all the other stuff.

Built up an oldschool steel rigid 26er with a 1x8 gear set in ~2008 because I was getting tired of all the maintenance, expense, weight, and complexity of my full suspension bikes. After about six months I realized all the "new" bikes hadn't been ridden in about six months, so I sold em all off.

My current "new" bike is a fifteen year old steel 26er with a rigid fork, V-brakes, *Gates belt drive, and internally geared hub*. For the kind of riding I do it's pretty much the pinnacle of technology as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## dwt (Jul 19, 2009)

J.B. Weld said:


> I don't care if others use only 1 chainring, why does it bother you that I prefer 2?


It doesn't. TBH there are many times when I run out of gear going up and I curse myself for my slavery to fashion. Really haven't found the perfect set up yet. My 28lbs bike too heavy, not to mention 200 lbs body  if I slimmed down bike and body I could ride 1X11 anywhere in my area comfortably. Plenty of time for that dream

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

dwt said:


> My 28lbs bike too heavy


:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:


----------



## dwt (Jul 19, 2009)

slapheadmofo said:


> :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:


Too heavy for fat guy 1X. lol

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Velobike (Jun 23, 2007)

kosmo said:


> There just seems to be something about riders that convert to 1x and dropper seatposts. Many become pretty evangelical and adamant about those two choices....


Yes.

They're on their road to Damascus whereupon full enlightenment will befall them and then they'll match the number of rear cogs to the front.

And become obnoxiously evangelical


----------



## dwt (Jul 19, 2009)

Velobike said:


> Yes.
> 
> They're on their road to Damascus whereupon full enlightenment will befall them and then they'll match the number of rear cogs to the front.
> 
> And become obnoxiously evangelical


Bike must have 27.5" wheels as well.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Velobike (Jun 23, 2007)

dwt said:


> Bike must have 27.5" wheels as well


The purity of oneness absolves one from trendy wheel sizes.


----------



## dwt (Jul 19, 2009)

Velobike said:


> The purity of oneness absolves one from trendy wheel sizes.


You must think you've got this pretty much wrapped up. Big Woop

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

Forget to mention.....getting rid of the camelback in favor of a frame bag, and old fashioned water bottles has been another of the best "new" things I've tried. Not as hot, better freedom of movement, and less back pain.


----------



## Cleared2land (Aug 31, 2012)

dwt said:


> Front derailleurs are useless for everybody:
> 
> more importantly, a single front ring is sufficient





dwt said:


> if I slimmed down bike and body I could ride 1X11 anywhere in my area comfortably.


I find your 'factual' statements amusing of "useless for everybody" and that " a single front ring is sufficient" to be funny given that you qualify it with your ability to "ride 1X11 anywhere in my area comfortably."

Even more interesting that your area must be synonymous with everyone else's area.

Your elitist and absolute qualities shine like a beacon.


----------



## Velobike (Jun 23, 2007)

dwt said:


> You must think you've got this pretty much wrapped up. Big Woop


Yup.

Until I'm facing a steep hill, then the purity of oneness gets questioned, and the impurity of walking is indulged...


----------



## dwt (Jul 19, 2009)

Cleared2land said:


> I find your 'factual' statements amusing of "useless for everybody" and that " a single front ring is sufficient" to be funny given that you qualify it with your ability to "ride 1X11 anywhere in my area comfortably."
> 
> Even more interesting that your area must be synonymous with everyone else's area.
> 
> Your elitist and absolute qualities shine like a beacon.


Actually. It's worse than elitist. It's arrogance. Trying to sound like I know more than I really do. Add in a little elitist & you've got a total troll, I suppose.

What was really funny before narrow wide chainrings was taking off the front derailleur and all but one chainring, then ADDING a chain retention device. Quelle irony. At least you lost a chain ring or two.

We're still evolving here. Goal is still efficiency and simplicity. Lighter weight never hurts, either. Care to bet what we'll be buying in 3 years?

My bet is direct mount single narrow wide chainrings, huge cogs, and long cage clutch rear mechs

I won't bet the store though. Could be a long shot.

I did win the bet on 650b though, in spite of huge opposition from both the born again 29'er crowd and the die hard 26'er crowd, so ya never know.

It's a strange and fickle market.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

"It's a strange and fickle market"


And all products old and new have their place. Why bash another riders taste in how their bike is set up? Because it doesn't match your preference of how a bike should be in 2015'.

I say let all choose what suits them best. Ride and have fun. After all isn't that the most important part.


----------



## dwt (Jul 19, 2009)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> "It's a strange and fickle market"
> 
> And all products old and new have their place. Why bash another riders taste in how their bike is set up? Because it doesn't match your preference of how a bike should be in 2015'.
> 
> I say let all choose what suits them best. Ride and have fun. After all isn't that the most important part.


Certainly. In the end, I think a front derailleur is a preference, and a valid one, but not a necessity for a geared bike. If gears are your preference, you can get there with a single ring or a front derailleur and a double or triple, plus a rear cassette. Neither a single, double or triple are "perfect", all are preferences, only a rear derailleur is a necessity for a geared bike.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Velobike (Jun 23, 2007)

dwt said:


> ...I did win the bet on 650b though, in spite of huge opposition from both the born again 29'er crowd and the die hard 26'er crowd, so ya never know. ...


I didn't see it coming.

I figured between 26" and 29er, the bases were covered, a place for each size.

However the introduction of B+ tyres for the 650B size has me very interested.


----------



## dwt (Jul 19, 2009)

Velobike said:


> I didn't see it coming.
> 
> I figured between 26" and 29er, the bases were covered, a place for each size.
> 
> However the introduction of B+ tyres for the 650B size has me very interested.


Another "whatever floats your boat" option and I say good. The differences are there, some great, some subtle but enough to justify making and selling a variety to suit different tastes

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tedsalt (Sep 17, 2008)

I'm 56 yo and my ride is a Biria Easy Boarding bike that I have updated with the newest flavor of Shimano Alfine 8 speed IGH. Anymore I am into more casual riding on some of the new paved trails in the Kansas City northland. I did have to get a long seat post and stem and riser bars for a more upright position (bad elbow). I'm just trying to put in some miles and lose some weight. If I can find a Breezer Uptown LS in the XL size I'd use that frame ...


----------



## Bail_Monkey (May 8, 2007)

I went from FS to 26" carbon HT, the 2010 era which is a while ago considering mtb technology these days. I spend a lot of time behind the seat on descents with a steeper HTA for sure.

I test road a 27.5 SC Bronson at Sea Otter last April (With the Enve wheelset), very cushy ride, felt a bit sluggish at slower speeds. The bike hauls A and is made to do so...

I feel comfortable on 26" still and would not mind getting a used SC carbon blur... I can slacken the HT with an angleset a few degrees if needed. The only reason why I would not get the latest carbon 27.5 is b/c I can't afford to spend ~4-5k on a bike (used).


----------



## wmb (Jul 5, 2007)

In 2009 I got a new mtn bike. Single speed Monocog. That thing kicked my butt for a few years. Loved the 29 tires though. Did an ice and mud ride and wore out the brake pads, went disc and loved it. Decided I needed gears. I ride either short and punchy rollercoasters or long uphill grinds into the mountains. I test rode a Spec Fuse and loved it other than being too small. 27.5 tires had insane traction and ability to soak up the bobble heads. It has a dropper post, I think I would love that. It has a suspension fork, know I will love that. 74BCD front chainring, can put a smaller ring on if needed/wanted. 
Currently riding a Karate Monkey 1x9, 32x34 low, full rigid. New Fuse for me this coming spring. 
Back in the day it seemed like I was going through bottom brackets every few months. I found a bottom bracket with the sealed ball bearing cartridge and was freed from that headache.
Did a snow ride today. 2-6" depending on drifting, man what a workout.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Another Mike said:


> Yes.
> 
> However this positive attitude doesn't help stoke egos of the uh, great internet bicycle paragraph authors.
> 
> Stop making sense and promoting fun.


Sorry I lost my head there for a minute.


----------



## Velobike (Jun 23, 2007)

formica said:


> Alright, so who has embraced the new bikes? More slack head angles, more travel, shorter stems, wider bars, dropper post, dropped top tube, wheel sizes.......


Slack Head Angle - √

Shorter Stem - √

Wide Bars - √

Dropped Top Tube - √

Odd Wheel Size - √

Go faster when you apply them brakes - √ (bonus)










More travel, you say? Why you can ride thousands of miles on one of those, in comfort.

Dropper post? - only when fumble fingers removes it.

I'm off to the local downhill track with my new weapon.


----------



## Cleared2land (Aug 31, 2012)

Unquestionably, that's a sleeper bike. It's so stealthy, no one will see it as a threat.


----------



## Julie (Jul 26, 2005)

LOVE dropper post (old knees SO much happier cuz I'm not riding with the seat a bit low all the time for all mountain riding)-much less leg fatigue/back pain when you can slightly change positions at will

LOVE disc brakes-wet or dry

LOVE slacker head angle-feel much safer on steep downs and switchbacks-also climbs some types of technical terrain better-pops over rocks more easily

LOVE tubeless tires-can run much lower pressures (15 lbs !) and finally stopped bouncing off rocks with my 120 lbs rider weight

LOVE modern suspension setups-no more boing boing boing going uphill so you can have fun fun fun going down

LOVE 27.5...29er not so much...but that is a function of my size. 27.5 is rollover and traction advantage over 26 but preserves good maneuvering for tight turns and such

LOVE 1x11 but mainly for the weight savings (a pound off my Mach 6) I was very happy with 2x10 but hated 3x9 for all the chainring scars I have all over my legs. 

LOVE modern fork design-currently a dual position Pike so I can lower the front (slack) end for climbing...or other times I prefer a less slack ride

LOVE new materials and lighter frames...probably more important to very light riders than other folks

I've tried bars up to 740 but find I prefer my 660/60mm stem comb (XS Pivot) Again, probably depends on torso and arm length, as well as type of terrain. Once you've hooked a tree at high speed and been flung off a cliff, you embrace the idea of shorter bars. 

Jury still out on flat pedals-I have a set but discovered I can fall just as easily with those as with my very quick releasing SPDs-and I do feel climbing isn't as easy with them. Also if you have too many pegs and sticky shoes they can actually be harder to get "out of" than SPDs set to release easily. 

I'm doing everything I can to keep riding at the overripe age of 66.75 ! Rode Zippedy Doo Dah this October in Fruita..anyone older than me on that ? Female ?


----------



## Eric Malcolm (Dec 18, 2011)

Julie, you're switched on. 

Eric


----------



## Repack Rider (Oct 22, 2005)

I like new bikes. Old bikes didn't have brakes.

I like a lot of travel at both ends. I rode a rigid bike out on a relatively mild trail recently. I forgot how brutal the ride was.

I can feel the difference between my old 29er and the new bike, 650B, but that probably has more to do with geometry than wheel size. Whatever wheels come on the bike are fine with me.

I like dropper posts. I like big fat tubeless tires.


----------



## andytiedye (Jul 26, 2014)

dwt said:


> It doesn't. TBH there are many times when I run out of gear going up and I curse myself for my slavery to fashion. Really haven't found the perfect set up yet. My 28lbs bike too heavy, not to mention 200 lbs body  if I slimmed down bike and body I could ride 1X11 anywhere in my area comfortably. Plenty of time for that dream
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


30# bike, 147# me gonna stick to my 3x10.


----------



## BADDANDY (Feb 20, 2012)

4th workout ride on my new bike yesterday. 3x9, 22/30/40. 11-34.
A coworker who is a MTB nutter is trying to talk me into 1x.
I experimented and rode entirely in the middle chainring. 
I only had one very steep short climb where I had to walk after the tires broke thru the frozen dirt crust 3/4 of the way up. 
All other climbs that I used to shift 22T/33 (2nd) or 34 (1st) were no factor in 30T/34. 
I also learned that I could rarely use 9th (11T). 
So last night I ordered a 12/36 cassette and a 30T single chainring.
This will allow me to use 9th, lower my lowest climbing gear, and the additional rational for the 1x9 12/36/30T combo; to reduce unneeded weight and equipment.
I also was very surprised that the suspension works a whole lot better on that middle chainring.


----------



## Bail_Monkey (May 8, 2007)

BADDANDY said:


> 4th workout ride on my new bike yesterday. 3x9, 22/30/40. 11-34.
> A coworker who is a MTB nutter is trying to talk me into 1x.
> I experimented and rode entirely in the middle chainring.
> I only had one very steep short climb where I had to walk after the tires broke thru the frozen dirt crust 3/4 of the way up.
> ...


I'm on a 32t chainring and a 11/36 cassette with a Wolftooth 40t added. I also purchased the 16t replacement so there is no major jump in the cassette. I can make most climbs w/32-40t combination. (Over 10% and I'm looking for another gear) I might think about getting the 42t next year.

If you go 1x and get a 40t/42t, you'll need a medium/long cage derailleur (to work with the larger cog) and adjust the b screw to optimize the chain/derailleur gap for the 40t. May need a new chain as well.


----------



## BADDANDY (Feb 20, 2012)

Bail_Monkey said:


> If you go 1x and get a 40t/42t, you'll need a medium/long cage derailleur (to work with the larger cog) and adjust the b screw to optimize the chain/derailleur gap for the 40t. May need a new chain as well.


That may be a future plan as I went cheap and my cassette's rings are riveted together. I would need a whole new cassette to do that mod. I had ordered a 32T before doing the calculator, but changed it to a 30T with the 12/36 as the ratios became the same as the original 11/34.
(30T 11/34 is the same as 32T 12/36)
Future plan maybe some day, 32T 12/40. 12/36 already has a 16T.
I already have a long cage derailleur.


----------



## andytiedye (Jul 26, 2014)

Bail_Monkey said:


> I'm on a 32t chainring and a 11/36 cassette with a Wolftooth 40t added... I can make most climbs w/32-40t combination. (Over 10% and I'm looking for another gear)...


Most climbs around here average at least 10%.


----------



## SADDLE TRAMP (Aug 26, 2010)

Can't say that I have learned a single thing about the subject at hand after reading from the start to the present position.

What I have learned...I hate to say it...my wife just might be right...undeniable evidence of "selective hearing" going on here.

But, put my vote down for the entertainment...in the end that is all that matters...right? :thumbsup:

Ride on guys, ride on.


----------



## dwt (Jul 19, 2009)

Sand Rat said:


> Can't say that I have learned a single thing about the subject at hand after reading from the start to the present position.
> 
> What I have learned...I hate to say it...my wife just might be right...undeniable evidence of "selective hearing" going on here.
> 
> ...


Can't say that I learned a single thing from this post either, not even sure it was entertaining.

Ride on is the truth, however, but so is ski on.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SlimL (Aug 5, 2013)

Well I think you are all right; ride what you want. Sort of depends what trails you ride; purpose built bike trails like here in Washington are a lot different then the hiking trails that I rode in Tucson. But both are fun. Granted I haven't been riding long but when I started I was riding a late 90s Specialized Hardrock and my 14 Giant Trance has it beat to smithereens no matter what I am riding. And with the lock outs on the suspension it will go up hill pretty good. With it's geometry, it goes down pretty good too.


----------

