Page 5 of 16 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 15 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 125 of 390
  1. #101
    father, mountain biker
    Reputation: shredjunkie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    193
    Quote Originally Posted by Barheet View Post
    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?
    "He seems quite arrogant and ignores quite some valid points." -Millfox
    "I don't like you" -ne_dan

  2. #102
    Te mortuo heres tibi sim?
    Reputation: scrublover's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    8,456
    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?
    Florence Nightingale's Stormtrooper

  3. #103
    Bicyclochondriac.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    13,178
    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.
    15mm is a second-best solution to a problem that was already solved.

  4. #104
    All Lefty's, all the time Moderator
    Reputation: MendonCycleSmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    12,862
    Quote Originally Posted by kapusta View Post
    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.
    This is a Pugs not some carbon wannabee pretzel wagon!!

    - FrostyStruthers



    www.mendoncyclesmith.com

  5. #105
    mad scientist
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by B-Mac View Post
    Open letter to the bike industry:

    ....

    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).

    .....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.


    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.

  6. #106
    Bicyclochondriac.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    13,178
    Quote Originally Posted by MendonCycleSmith View Post
    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.
    15mm is a second-best solution to a problem that was already solved.

  7. #107
    Trail Prospector
    Reputation: Flyin_W's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,779
    Quote Originally Posted by kapusta View Post
    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!
    The best is the one you want to ride most often..

  8. #108
    Bicyclochondriac.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    13,178
    Quote Originally Posted by Flyin_W View Post
    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!
    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.
    Last edited by kapusta; 07-23-2012 at 01:00 PM.
    15mm is a second-best solution to a problem that was already solved.

  9. #109
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    141
    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...

  10. #110
    Registered text offender
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,147
    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.

  11. #111
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mwcet8k's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    413
    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.

  12. #112
    Five is right out
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    3,177
    Quote Originally Posted by dgw2jr View Post
    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.

  13. #113
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,459
    Quote Originally Posted by Flyin_W View Post
    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.
    Killing it with close inspection.

  14. #114
    mtbr member
    Reputation: moofish's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    121
    I like Beta

  15. #115
    Weekend warrior aspirant
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    400
    Quote Originally Posted by FireLikeIYA View Post
    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.
    Mountain bike with 15k miles, Road bike with 10k miles, breaking in my 29er by riding the entire AZ Trail

  16. #116
    mtbr member
    Reputation: GiantMountainTroll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    253
    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.
    2013 Specialized P 26 AM green/purple. Nuff said

    Giant Faith

  17. #117
    livin' the dream......
    Reputation: tjkm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,534
    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.

  18. #118
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    9
    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...

  19. #119
    mtbr member
    Reputation: chas_martel's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,482
    Quote Originally Posted by B-Mac View Post
    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.
    Amen!
    Nobody cares...........

  20. #120
    Gamers local 2112
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    594
    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!

  21. #121
    Bicyclochondriac.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    13,178
    Quote Originally Posted by rev106 View Post
    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.
    15mm is a second-best solution to a problem that was already solved.

  22. #122
    Registered text offender
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,147
    Quote Originally Posted by rev106 View Post
    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.

  23. #123
    RideDirt
    Reputation: aedubber's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    2,233
    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 .

  24. #124
    father, mountain biker
    Reputation: shredjunkie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    193

    the irony is killing me

    Quote Originally Posted by rev106 View Post
    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! Where's the irony emoticon when you need it?
    Last edited by shredjunkie; 08-06-2012 at 10:05 PM.
    "He seems quite arrogant and ignores quite some valid points." -Millfox
    "I don't like you" -ne_dan

  25. #125
    ~ B A D A S S ~
    Reputation: car bone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    2,240
    wtf is a carney??
    Rule #9 // If you are out riding in bad weather, it means you are a badass. Period.

    Quote Originally Posted by iheartbicycles View Post
    Specialized sucks ass.

Page 5 of 16 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 15 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •