Page 8 of 16 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ... LastLast
Results 176 to 200 of 390
  1. #176
    Anti-elitist
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    409
    Quote Originally Posted by Berkley View Post
    I'd rather have a brand new Deore derailleur than an 8 year old used XTR model.
    How about an 8 year old NOS XTR derailer?

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

    I can understand the OPs hate for obsoletion. But I don't share it. He just feels left out when he needs to replace an inexpensive part and ends up spending a lot more because of progress.
    It's pronounced "so pro and cool."
    It was an impulse decision.

  2. #177
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    18,503
    Quote Originally Posted by sauprankul View Post
    How about an 8 year old NOS XTR derailer?

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

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


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

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

    You're turning black metallic.

  3. #178
    Rep Power: Infinity
    Reputation: NateHawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    11,202
    Quote Originally Posted by Berkley View Post
    Yeah, it seems like a lot of folks talk about having "perfectly good" older generation high end derailleurs, and I wonder if they've had any experience on a new one for comparison. I usually end up replacing derailleurs because the pivots and springs develop play, not because I smash them into things. I do ride quite a bit, but I only get ~2 years out of a derailleur before it gets sloppy and loses precision.

    Some folks talk about still using derailleurs that are 8+ years old and I can't help but think that they must be worn out by this point. I'd rather have a brand new Deore derailleur than an 8 year old used XTR model.
    I was one of those guys. Rode the same xtr rear derailleur for 9 years. Was the first derailleur I wore out. It started throwing chains. At first I thought it was out of adjustment but it eventually occurred to me it might be wearing out. I went to the lbs to check out new derailleurs because I thought mine was damaged in a crash but when I started handling the new ones I realized that mine was worn. Got a NOS XT 9spd as a replacement because there is no good sense in upgrading the whole drivetrain to 10spd because I wore out a derailleur.

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

  4. #179
    bog
    bog is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,039
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.Magura View Post
    Which in the cases i have seen so far, has turned out very expensive

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

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

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

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


    Magura
    Hmmm, so it looks like you have something to do with Magura. You do understand that Magura makes disc brakes and suspension forks that would not be around if we were all riding rigid steel frames with rigid steel forks and canti brakes right!? Thankfully technological advances have given us these wonderful parts that allow us to ride more difficult trails with more control.
    SC Tallboy C : Spec Enduro 29 : Giant Propel Adv SL DA9000

  5. #180
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bridger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    246
    Quote Originally Posted by Millfox View Post
    Some things in the letter have a point.

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

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

    EDIT: I dont really see problem in new standards. Thing that bugs me more is the fact that sooner or later we'll be forced to buy a 2x10 or 1x11 because there will be nothing else that will be decent on the market.
    So what's wrong with 2x10? It's slim & trim and is just what many need.
    "Prollyisnotprobably"

  6. #181
    mtbr member
    Reputation: AmbientLight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    28
    I kind of like the progress. As someone who moved away from the sport of "Mountainbiking" over 10 years ago to pursue other things in my life, I am excited and in awe of the new technology, and how much things have changed (for the better). Things that were top of the line when I used to ride are considered entry level now, and as such much cheaper to buy. My current ride (A Giant STP-0) is a dream bike for me when I think back to my old "mountainbike" all purpose bike. The first jump I pulled on the new bike was a revelation. How the hell did I achieve what I did ten years ago on what was considered a very good bike at the time (I had a Diamond Back V-Link with Marzocchi Bomber Z2's). Without progress, no-one moves forward...

  7. #182
    DIY all the way
    Reputation: Mr.Magura's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    2,411
    Quote Originally Posted by Berkley View Post
    Yeah, it seems like a lot of folks talk about having "perfectly good" older generation high end derailleurs, and I wonder if they've had any experience on a new one for comparison. I usually end up replacing derailleurs because the pivots and springs develop play, not because I smash them into things. I do ride quite a bit, but I only get ~2 years out of a derailleur before it gets sloppy and loses precision.

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

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


    Magura

  8. #183
    Rogue Exterminator
    Reputation: kjlued's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    3,877
    As much as I would like to try and ride one of these, I imagine it wouldn't be too much fun on the trails.


  9. #184
    Flow like water
    Reputation: DavyRay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    712
    Quote Originally Posted by kjlued View Post
    As much as I would like to try and ride one of these, I imagine it wouldn't be too much fun on the trails.

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

  10. #185
    Rogue Exterminator
    Reputation: kjlued's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    3,877
    That would involve making advancements which forces us to spend more money and that would just be wrong.

  11. #186
    Pickin' n' Grinnin'
    Reputation: btl68's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    50
    I didn't read thru all the responses that were posted, so forgive me if it's all ready been suggested...


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

    Ignorance is bliss until they take your bliss away...

  12. #187
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,848
    Quote Originally Posted by NateHawk View Post
    ... Got a NOS XT 9spd as a replacement because there is no good sense in upgrading the whole drivetrain to 10spd because I wore out a derailleur.

    And that last sentence is the crux of the matter, isn't it? You enjoy your old bike the way it is and when something wears out you want to buy a new replacement of equal or better quality yet you don't want to upgrade half the bike (parts that don't need replacement yet) just because you wore something out.
    That is exactly right. I ride the bike I built in 2003. I used nice XT components throughout back then it was a nice riding bike. 9psd, V-brakes and all. These days is getting harder and harder to find similar quality parts without needing "upgrade" the entire bike. I rode bike in 2003/2004 and then took some time off riding. So the bike just sat in the garage. When I started riding it again last fall I felt no need to "upgrade" since the bike worked. In fact other than new tubes it needed nothing. That is right I still run tubes to. Now wear items like tires are new now, but they don't require me to upgrade the wheels to put them on. I just put on the tires and be done with it.

    I am close to the point where 1 failed part that should cost $20 will force a $500 upgrade. I busted a tooth off my middle chainring and was able to get a XT M751 middle ring. However I wanted to replace my big ring as I had couple teeth ground down going over rocks. It still worked, but while I had it off I figured it would be good change.. Well try to find a XT M751/752 big ring... You can't... The 760 might fit, but who wants to spend $80 on chain ring that "might" work. Then given the BB change I figure if something else breaks on there I will need a new BB/crankset. I could go on, but I think you get the idea.
    Joe
    2003 KHS Alite 4000 26" Hardtail - XC, All mountain, blah blah blah.. I just ride.

  13. #188
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,848
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.Magura View Post
    If maintained well, you can easily have old stuff that works pretty much like new.

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


    Magura
    Quote Originally Posted by kjlued View Post
    As much as I would like to try and ride one of these, I imagine it wouldn't be too much fun on the trails.

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

    All of these changes are detail changes and refinements. Just because they are out there it does not mean the old stuff is bad. It just means the new stuff is slight improvement. I don't dislike new stuff, but forcing upgrades not my idea of fun. There is that attitude that all the old stuff is bad or going to break. Hell no. A well built 10 year 26" hardtail with v-brakes will ride the trails today just fine. I did race on such bike a few weeks ago. Results were fine and I finished where I did due to me and not my bike. If I were racing for wins then I would probably need to upgraded, but when are just out for fun it is hard drop $$$ for only minor update.
    Joe
    2003 KHS Alite 4000 26" Hardtail - XC, All mountain, blah blah blah.. I just ride.

  14. #189
    DIY all the way
    Reputation: Mr.Magura's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    2,411
    Quote Originally Posted by JoePAz View Post
    Look the point is mtn bikes from 10-20 years ago are not that different. Not like what you see here. Changes from V-brakes to discs are not earth shattering. 9 or 10 speed drive trains, 29" wheels not to mention 31.8 vs 25.4 bars, taper head tubes. even 1 1/8 vs quill.

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


    Magura

  15. #190
    DIY all the way
    Reputation: Mr.Magura's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    2,411
    Quote Originally Posted by bog View Post
    Hmmm, so it looks like you have something to do with Magura. You do understand that Magura makes disc brakes and suspension forks that would not be around if we were all riding rigid steel frames with rigid steel forks and canti brakes right!? Thankfully technological advances have given us these wonderful parts that allow us to ride more difficult trails with more control.
    Hmm, it looks like Magura is my nickname in the real world, and has been for like 20 years

    I have no connection with the company called Magura.


    Magura

  16. #191
    Anti-elitist
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    409
    Magura... where does that come from?
    Anyway, it has been mentioned that the progress in MTB tech has been incremental. Its true, but only to a certain extent. Try free riding on a rigid 5 speeder with cantis. I dare you...
    Tech has allowed athletes to push the sport to its extremes, and new tech is made to accommodate those extremes.
    It's pronounced "so pro and cool."
    It was an impulse decision.

  17. #192
    DIY all the way
    Reputation: Mr.Magura's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    2,411
    Quote Originally Posted by sauprankul View Post
    Magura... where does that come from?
    Anyway, it has been mentioned that the progress in MTB tech has been incremental. Its true, but only to a certain extent. Try free riding on a rigid 5 speeder with cantis. I dare you...
    Tech has allowed athletes to push the sport to its extremes, and new tech is made to accommodate those extremes.
    I got that name back when hydraulic brakes were fairly unknown, and I guess I was much into them back then, so I got the nick.
    Now I just go by that name.

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

    Magura

  18. #193
    Anti-elitist
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    409
    Really? I like the concept of XX1. Not having to worry about shifting in front is already a known + of the 1 x n setup. Being able to achieve most of the ratios of a triple is awesome. Would it be possible to but a 42-10 cassette on a standard hub? Maybe the 11 speeds are unnecessary though.
    It's pronounced "so pro and cool."
    It was an impulse decision.

  19. #194
    DIY all the way
    Reputation: Mr.Magura's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    2,411
    Quote Originally Posted by sauprankul View Post
    Really? I like the concept of XX1. Not having to worry about shifting in front is already a known + of the 1 x n setup. Being able to achieve most of the ratios of a triple is awesome. Would it be possible to but a 42-10 cassette on a standard hub? Maybe the 11 speeds are unnecessary though.
    I'm doing a 40-11, 10 sp. at the moment, which does not seem to leave much to wish for compared to a 42-10, and mine is compatible with all the usual hubs.
    I would much rather have seen the industry do that, but the industry chose to make it a 1000$ upgrade, instead of a 50$ solution

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


    Magura

  20. #195
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,848
    Quote Originally Posted by sauprankul View Post
    Really? I like the concept of XX1. Not having to worry about shifting in front is already a known + of the 1 x n setup. Being able to achieve most of the ratios of a triple is awesome. Would it be possible to but a 42-10 cassette on a standard hub? Maybe the 11 speeds are unnecessary though.

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

    Now single speeds are completely different in that those riders WANT the challenge of just one gear. It is badge of honor really as you have learn to ride around the weakness of just one gear.
    Joe
    2003 KHS Alite 4000 26" Hardtail - XC, All mountain, blah blah blah.. I just ride.

  21. #196
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    738
    Quote Originally Posted by JoePAz View Post
    Look the point is mtn bikes from 10-20 years ago are not that different. Not like what you see here. Changes from V-brakes to discs are not earth shattering. 9 or 10 speed drive trains, 29" wheels not to mention 31.8 vs 25.4 bars, taper head tubes. even 1 1/8 vs quill.

    All of these changes are detail changes and refinements. Just because they are out there it does not mean the old stuff is bad. It just means the new stuff is slight improvement. I don't dislike new stuff, but forcing upgrades not my idea of fun. There is that attitude that all the old stuff is bad or going to break. Hell no. A well built 10 year 26" hardtail with v-brakes will ride the trails today just fine. I did race on such bike a few weeks ago. Results were fine and I finished where I did due to me and not my bike. If I were racing for wins then I would probably need to upgraded, but when are just out for fun it is hard drop $$$ for only minor update.
    I have to disagree. The difference between my 1992 Bridgestone MB4 and my 2013 Specialized FSR Stumpjumper Elite are profound. Both cost roughly the same in inflation adjusted dollars (I think I paid $800 bucks for the MB4) but the ride quality, speed, and comfort are not even in the same galaxy.

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

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

    So my letter to the bike industry would urge them to continue developing new, unnecessary technologies. I lead a fairly Spartan life, drive a cheap car, live in a modest house, and generally live well below the level that my income would allow me to if i was that kind of guy. My only real extravagances are bikes. Beats putting the money into our creaky and tottering financial system in the misguided expectation that the political cronies of Wall Street and the government will do anything to prevent our investments from being ass raped. My inlaws bought into the hype and have lost almost three-quarters of the value of their investments.
    Last edited by Ailuropoda; 11-29-2012 at 02:04 PM.

  22. #197
    Anti-elitist
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    409
    Quote Originally Posted by JoePAz View Post
    I personally think a 1x set-up it is big step backward. Ok if only ride a one trail type, but for all around use it is big step down. The triple chainring set-up gives you a wide range of gears and close spacing. Close spacing is important if you want to run a set cadence. For me idea is somewhere between 85 and 95 rpm. With more gears and maximize speed and maitiain optimum cadence.
    Triples are nice for narrow cassettes. Maintaining an optimum cadence isnt at the top of my list. Definitely not over reliability and simplicity. I ride for fun and fitness. I can go a little slower than my body permits if I want an optimum cadence.

    I think the 11 speed cassette is to be able to keep an optimum cadence even with a 1 x n drive train.
    It's pronounced "so pro and cool."
    It was an impulse decision.

  23. #198
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,149
    Quote Originally Posted by sauprankul View Post
    .

    I think the 11 speed cassette is to be able to keep an optimum cadence even with a 1 x n drive train.
    If you don't have strong legs, it's harder.
    Last edited by Mountain Cycle Shawn; 11-29-2012 at 06:07 PM.
    '96 San Andreas
    '12 Santa Cruz Nickel LT
    '08 KTM 530
    '12 Toyota FJ TT
    '05 MiniCooper S
    '95 Honda HB Si
    '71 Dino 246 GT

  24. #199
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    738
    Quote Originally Posted by sauprankul View Post
    Triples are nice for narrow cassettes. Maintaining an optimum cadence isnt at the top of my list. Definitely not over reliability and simplicity. I ride for fun and fitness. I can go a little slower than my body permits if I want an optimum cadence.

    I think the 11 speed cassette is to be able to keep an optimum cadence even with a 1 x n drive train.
    I confess to have never used the largest chain ring on a triple setup and for what it's worth would really prefer a 1x10 setup on most of my bikes with a 24 tooth chainring up front.

  25. #200
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,149
    Quote Originally Posted by Ailuropoda View Post
    I confess to have never used the largest chain ring on a triple setup and for what it's worth would really prefer a 1x10 setup on most of my bikes with a 24 tooth chainring up front.
    Really? Don't you spin out in the middle on flat ground?
    '96 San Andreas
    '12 Santa Cruz Nickel LT
    '08 KTM 530
    '12 Toyota FJ TT
    '05 MiniCooper S
    '95 Honda HB Si
    '71 Dino 246 GT

Page 8 of 16 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ... 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
  •