Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567
Results 601 to 675 of 675
  1. #601
    mtbr member
    Reputation: J.B. Weld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    11,193
    Quote Originally Posted by Emax View Post
    How many people do you see riding on a road bike in a foul weather? Not many on New Jersey roads

    I can imagine, I'd be scared $hitless to ride New Jersey roads in any weather


    Discs are better in any weather, people used to say the same about v-brakes. Face it, you're a curmudgeon.
    I brake for stinkbugs

  2. #602
    2x is underrated
    Reputation: richj8990's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    1,568
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparticus View Post
    Sorry if I hurt your feelings, that's not my intent. But I'm entitled to my opinion and my opinion is that 26" wheels are drastically inferior to larger diameter wheels for *someone my size* and *where I ride* and *how I ride.*
    =sParty

    One thing I found as a surprise, really a bit of a shock, is that no one tells you the real diameter of a rim plus tire until you actually measure it yourself.

    26 standard (1.95) is really 25.0 to 25.2 inches

    27.5 standard (2.10) is really 27.0 to 27.2 inches

    29 standard is...I have not measured but I think 29 x 2.3 is actually 29 inches


    However, and this is key, 26" standard tires are not really mountain bike tires, at least not now in 2018. They were 20 years ago, but not now. If you go up at all in width to say, 2.10, or 2.25, or 2.40, the diameter suddenly jumps up an inch to 26.0 - 26.2, because the side casing is longer than on a 1.95, which is basically a relatively wide road bike tire with some extra tread on it.

    So what's the gist of the post? If you ride a 26 x 1.95 on a trail, as Sparticus says it is drastically inferior. Clearance is horrible, bumps are amplified, downhill steering is handicapped. But...there is a solution. 2.5, 2.7, 2.8, 3.0 sizes. 26 x 2.5 and 2.7, maybe 2.8 should be able to fit in your front fork (the back may only be able to take 2.1 to 2.5). You can also buy a 27.5" fork and then put in a 26 x 3.0 tire. The wider 26" tires are not drastically inferior. They may not be as good all-around as 27.5 tires but they are at least in the same range of performance. My 26 x 2.8 can handle chunkier/ruttier stuff significantly better than my 27.5 x 2.5. So if you still have a 26" bike you should really try out wider 2.5, 2.7, or 2.8 tires, you might be surprised what they can do on the trail.
    From Ancient Times - Scarlet Skies Burn to Ash

  3. #603
    Music & Bikes
    Reputation: fokof's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,406
    Quote Originally Posted by OneTrustMan View Post
    Like something between 80 to 130 dollar.
    I can find only stuff for like 250 up to 500 dollar.
    hub 50$ + Rim 40$ + spoke 40$ = 130$

    Very easy to mount a wheel yourself


    https://www.jensonusa.com/Shimano-SL...oost-Front-Hub
    https://www.jensonusa.com/Sun-Rhyno-ABT-Lite-Rim
    https://www.jensonusa.com/Sapim-Race...s-Steel-Spokes
    "There is a big difference between kneeling down and bending over" -FZ

  4. #604
    Music & Bikes
    Reputation: fokof's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,406
    Quote Originally Posted by richj8990 View Post
    One thing I found as a surprise, really a bit of a shock, is that no one tells you the real diameter of a rim plus tire until you actually measure it yourself.
    A 26 with 4,8 tire is bigger in diameter than a 700 wheel with a 2.1 tire
    "There is a big difference between kneeling down and bending over" -FZ

  5. #605
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,614
    Quote Originally Posted by kapusta View Post
    650b was in very limited use at the time it was chosen for mtb use compared to 26 and 29 when they were. It is not even close.

    Early 26” mtbs were repurposed and modified balloon bikes and cruisers. THAT is why 26” was standard. Its not like the early 27.5 mtbs were repurposed randonneur bikes. They were purpose built mtbs, and the builders specifically chose 650b among a range of obscure sizes they could have chosen.

    And no, 650b did not first come from people stuffing 650b tires in their 26”. There were scant few 650b wheels and zero mtb tires to do it with. They did not have them to play with until 650b bikes were already in production.
    You're missing my point that 650b was an off the shelf size not one derived from R&D specifically for MTB.

    There is no dedicated MTB wheel size period. Only repurposed existing sizes from other bikes. 26" roots come from beach cruisers, 29" from road bikes, 650b from comfort bikes, fitness bikes, kids road bikes....

  6. #606
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    63
    Quote Originally Posted by J.B. Weld View Post
    I can imagine, I'd be scared $hitless to ride New Jersey roads in any weather


    Discs are better in any weather, people used to say the same about v-brakes. Face it, you're a curmudgeon.
    Yeah...? you can't compare discs on the road bike to discs on a mountain bike - the conditions are vastly different, and discs are far superior to v-brakes in wet, muddy conditions that are much more commonly encountered on the trails. If the discs were so much better on road bikes - racers would have jumped on the opportunity to use them - but they don't and the truth is that the are not much of an improvement over calipers. And for a regular cyclist they are a nightmare to service....
    BTW... no need to call me names - can't come up with a reasonable argument for your position - then just don't write... if you want to use latest tech - go forth and prosper, but this is forum where we're all allowed to state our opinions freely...

  7. #607
    Out spokin'
    Reputation: Sparticus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Posts
    9,302
    Quote Originally Posted by J.B. Weld View Post
    Discs are better in any weather
    Agreed.
    =sParty
    disciplesofdirt.org

    We don't quit riding because we get old.
    We get old because we quit riding.

  8. #608
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Pedalon2018's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    428
    Quote Originally Posted by Emax View Post
    Yeah...? you can't compare discs on the road bike to discs on a mountain bike - the conditions are vastly different, and discs are far superior to v-brakes in wet, muddy conditions that are much more commonly encountered on the trails. If the discs were so much better on road bikes - racers would have jumped on the opportunity to use them - but they don't and the truth is that the are not much of an improvement over calipers. And for a regular cyclist they are a nightmare to service....
    BTW... no need to call me names - can't come up with a reasonable argument for your position - then just don't write... if you want to use latest tech - go forth and prosper, but this is forum where we're all allowed to state our opinions freely...
    You of course are entitled to your opinion and no name calling here. I must state that your comment on disc brakes being a nightmare for the regular rider is not really accurate. I bought the world’s worst hydraulic disc brakes in 1998 made by Hayes on a Trek 8900 that I just gave away after 20 years. As bad as they were in term of acting like a light switch, I rode that bike 20,000 miles and could not count one day where using the brakes or servicing them could be any where close to being a nightmare. I do recall one day where a few of us rode down Aliaska Ski Resort mountain in Alaska very well. Grass was waist deep and wet with moose standing in the thickest parts with only their Racks visible. My Friends with rim brakes were basically out of control the whole way down. My discs allowed me a very safe and controlled descent. Lastly, road racing hydraulic discs are still new to the racing scene where tradition often trumps improvement in equipment for sometime after introduction. Some riders were complaining about the safety of the discs with the possibility of a slicing injury. So ride what you like but the best hydraulic discs are way superior to rim brakes. When I was living in Germany, I rode the Alps with a 18 mile downhill and I was scared all the down on my rim brakes. Actually I was terrified way back in 1973. That was a road bike I bought in Paris. Rim brakes may weight a bit less but disc are way safer in some situations if not all. I hate slowing down but when you must, I want the best stopping power available, Road or Mountain applications. Safe Travels all!

  9. #609
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Pedalon2018's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    428
    Quote Originally Posted by blaklabl View Post
    I actually have this specific post bookmarked, as it may be my favorite on MTBR of all time.
    I ride in many places all the time and just never see riders acting that way. I ride expensive equipment and most folks I meet do not even know what they are looking at. Riding just seems like folks I do not know much if at all enjoying the sport. Most could care less what you ride. If you are having fun and being safe, the make or model of your bikes means nothing. I rode my 26 for 20 years and in the last several years rode it mostly to MSU football games while leaving the big dollar bikes safe at home. Often folks would yell as I rode by, nice Trek. Ride what you like and for the few that bitch, you know what to tell the losers.

  10. #610
    mtbr member
    Reputation: J.B. Weld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    11,193
    Quote Originally Posted by Emax View Post
    If the discs were so much better on road bikes - racers would have jumped on the opportunity to use them - but they don't and the truth is that the are not much of an improvement over calipers. And for a regular cyclist they are a nightmare to service....


    Most world tour pros are using them now and within a few years disc brakes will be ubiquitous on road bikes. Most riers who use them seem to think they're better.

    Also disagree that they're a nightmare to service, different yes but not rocket science.
    I brake for stinkbugs

  11. #611
    mtbr member
    Reputation: J.B. Weld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    11,193
    Quote Originally Posted by Emax View Post
    BTW... no need to call me names - can't come up with a reasonable argument for your position - then just don't write...



    Sorry I didn't mean to offend, only joking around. I'll tread more lightly in the future.
    I brake for stinkbugs

  12. #612
    Bicyclochondriac.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    13,615
    Quote Originally Posted by J.B. Weld View Post
    Sorry I didn't mean to offend, only joking around. I'll tread more lightly in the future.
    RoadBikeReview.com and BikeForums.com have entire subforums dedicated to arguing about disc brakes on road bikes.

    It's a raw subject for a lot of folks.
    15mm is a second-best solution to a problem that was already solved.

  13. #613
    mtbr member
    Reputation: J.B. Weld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    11,193
    Quote Originally Posted by kapusta View Post
    RoadBikeReview.com and BikeForums.com have entire subforums dedicated to arguing about disc brakes on road bikes.

    It's a raw subject for a lot of folks.


    Weird. I don't see any argument, just something that's happening. Most see it as an improvement but some don't. Same as it ever was.

    There will be options for calipers for decades.
    I brake for stinkbugs

  14. #614
    Bicyclochondriac.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    13,615
    Quote Originally Posted by J.B. Weld View Post
    Weird. I don't see any argument, just something that's happening. Most see it as an improvement but some don't. Same as it ever was.

    There will be options for calipers for decades.
    Go look around some road biking sites and you will see epic ones
    15mm is a second-best solution to a problem that was already solved.

  15. #615
    mtbr member
    Reputation: J.B. Weld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    11,193
    Quote Originally Posted by kapusta View Post
    Go look around some road biking sites and you will see epic ones


    I believe that they're arguing but I just can't figure out why. Sort of like most of this thread.
    I brake for stinkbugs

  16. #616
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    63
    Quote Originally Posted by Pedalon2018 View Post
    I must state that your comment on disc brakes being a nightmare for the regular rider is not really accurate. I bought the world’s worst hydraulic disc brakes in 1998 made by Hayes on a Trek 8900 that I just gave away after 20 years. As bad as they were in term of acting like a light switch, I rode that bike 20,000 miles and could not count one day where using the brakes or servicing them could be any where close to being a nightmare.
    The early Hayes cable actuated hydraulic brakes were weird (not sure if these are the ones you had but 1998 brings those to my mind)... I'm a happy user of Hope Mono Minis, and Hope Tech disc brakes, and before that I used Magura Marta's that leaked, and the totally worry free Avid BB7s, so this is not an argument about discs not being great for stopping. I've had much of issues with my Marta SL's and that is what I'm basing my comments on - I've had bent rotors, contaminated pads, master cylinder leaking, air in the line, inconsistent feel - left to right... granted most of these were due to a leaky cylinder. I've spent many hours trying bleed the system before I figured out that the master cylinder was leaking. On the other hand my Hopes have been worry free... So I get that you can travel down crazy downhills and need the discs - or not... but if I live in flat lands - do I need discs? Not really. But pretty soon that's all that will be on sale - whether we need it or not... and at that extra cost that we are willing to pay for it.

  17. #617
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    188
    Quote Originally Posted by Emax View Post
    And for a regular cyclist they are a nightmare to service....
    I don't get this. As a newer cyclist, I have found disc way easier to service then V-brakes. Bleeding brakes is so easy versus the seeming constant need to adjust V-brakes.

  18. #618
    Music & Bikes
    Reputation: fokof's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,406
    Funny how everyone compares 20 year old 26 with modern/recent 650 or 700 bikes.

    I have a custom made Ti bike made to my specs ,26er ,modern geometry.
    Perfect. (see answer 571)
    Haven't try a 650/700 bike that comes close with handling and accelerating , climbing.

    BTW , I'm 6'2''
    Last edited by fokof; 11-19-2018 at 06:53 PM.
    "There is a big difference between kneeling down and bending over" -FZ

  19. #619
    Music & Bikes
    Reputation: fokof's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,406
    Quote Originally Posted by Hman0217 View Post
    Mass production and standardization of parts - the same thing we (myself included) lament - allow us AMAZING choices as consumers.
    Maybe but the problem is that the industry changes the standards every couple of years so as a consumer , I don't have the choice of buying new stuff.

    One example : I got a bike as a commuter 5 years ago , cool bike. The frame broke but it was lifetime warrantied, so now the new bikes are 700 wheeled , boost , thru axle , they couldn't just swap the parts on a new frame , so the company offered me instead a brand new complete bike.
    Very cool (in theory) but now I have a bike that I'm unable to put any of my tires , my wheels , my cassettes (11 sp) ..... And I have lots and lots of parts/tires.....
    All new standard that forces me to buy new stuff all over again.
    (I won't , I'll probably sell it)


    Luckily , the 26er standard have been there for so long that there's still a lots of parts available. No such luck with newest frames though....... got to go custom.
    "There is a big difference between kneeling down and bending over" -FZ

  20. #620
    mtbr member
    Reputation: DaveRider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    145
    Because the 26" is paid for. I am faster on a 29er though.

  21. #621
    mtbr member
    Reputation: gravityryder26's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    27
    This thread reminds me of this song....

    I'm Faster Than You...IFHT Films

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyTyjQbvylg

  22. #622
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    3
    Depends on terrain and budget.

    Try to buy a nice used FS bike in newer wheel sizes for reasonable $$ ...

    I just got a K2 alum frame, carbon swing arm with air on both ends, Deore, Mavic, even a Ti seat post for $100 and a few days work to straighten out. I bought it to convert to a eMTB, but it was/is so nice, I just couldn't do it ... It's my new favorite trail cruiser

    I bough a Hardrock Sport (used) to convert. Added a Manitou R7 fork in place of that god awful RST fork and it's a sweet ride too. It'll be even better with a Thudbuster and a mid drive kit

    All in for both bikes (not including the conversion kit) I'm in for less than 1 large.

    If I spent that same budget on one MTB, I'd not reach my goals (MTB and eMTB) and I'd be one one bike for a long time, for everything ...

    Used 26'ers give me options and diversity and fun

  23. #623
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    415
    Quote Originally Posted by BrocLuno View Post
    Try to buy a nice used FS bike in newer wheel sizes for reasonable $$ ...

    I just got a K2 alum frame, carbon swing arm with air on both ends, Deore, Mavic, even a Ti seat post for $100 and a few days work to straighten out. I bought it to convert to a eMTB, but it was/is so nice, I just couldn't do it ... It's my new favorite trail cruiser :
    Just my opinion, but personally i'd rather have lower end but newer components than old but higher end stuff.
    Yeah, Mavic and Deore sounds cool, but how old and how beat up are those components? That technology might have trickled down to the most basic stuff by now.
    Air on both ends is cool too, but how good do they work after all these years? Can you still service them and get parts for them? How much more abuse will that old carbon swing arm take?
    What about oldschool geometry? What about all the old standards and compatibility? If you want to buy something for the bike, do you have to hunt down old used parts?

    Old and cheap stuff has it's charm for sure, but I wouldn't say it's always an alternative to modern stuff. Again just my opinion of course and I probably sound a bit ranty. I worked in a shop where we mainly dealt with old and vintages bikes and i've had a horrible boss that thought every modern component sucked and for him a hydraulic brake was the devil itself. I've heard him say such bulls**t to clueless customers so many times.

  24. #624
    mtbr member
    Reputation: IPunchCholla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    701
    Quote Originally Posted by HollyBoni View Post
    Just my opinion, but personally i'd rather have lower end but newer components than old but higher end stuff.
    Yeah, Mavic and Deore sounds cool, but how old and how beat up are those components? That technology might have trickled down to the most basic stuff by now.
    Air on both ends is cool too, but how good do they work after all these years? Can you still service them and get parts for them? How much more abuse will that old carbon swing arm take?
    What about oldschool geometry? What about all the old standards and compatibility? If you want to buy something for the bike, do you have to hunt down old used parts?

    Old and cheap stuff has it's charm for sure, but I wouldn't say it's always an alternative to modern stuff. Again just my opinion of course and I probably sound a bit ranty. I worked in a shop where we mainly dealt with old and vintages bikes and i've had a horrible boss that thought every modern component sucked and for him a hydraulic brake was the devil itself. I've heard him say such bulls**t to clueless customers so many times.
    It really depends on the components and bike. I bought a used 2012 Jedi with a 2011 boxxer with a charger damper, code brakes, ccdb air shock (2016), Stan's wheels, saint drive train, for about 1/3 what the equivalent setup would have cost. Just because it was 26. For DH bikes, if you not racing, the geometry had only changed incrementally. If I was buying today and buying new and money wasn't an issue, I would go 29 but just because that is where the industry is headed, not because I think it will make much difference in my riding.

    Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk
    It's just a flesh wound!

  25. #625
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    3
    Agreed 100% If you are cruising and just exploring around; 26 will do most, if not all. It has for decades. If you want to race, or even just to maintain race pace, yeah, you'll have to go bigger or split sizes.

    26 semi fat on rear and bigger up front might work out best ... Been that way on MX and Enduro (18~21) motorcycles for a long time

  26. #626
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    415
    I didn't mention the wheelsize on purpose, my comment was about all the other components. Probably off topic. Sorry!

  27. #627
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    3

    Listen! 26 is good basis for conversion

    I get that. But, in my case all the parts were in decent/OK shape. Was owned by a Marin County resident who spent serious bank going weight weenie and then sold it on to one of his buds who let the air run down on the Marzocchi forks and decided it was broke ... So he sold it for $100

    I got it home and realized they had reversed the lower shock mounting plate so the rear was all jacked up. A new used Fox shock w/o piggy back boost chamber (the part that created the mounting dilemma) and a reset on the plate with new SS screws and JB Weld under (onto clean slightly abraded carbon/epoxy), and it was sorted.

    I emailed the PO owner requesting owners manuals or service guides, and the adapter for the air fork? He wrote back that he did not have any lit, AND did not even know you could pump up the forks ... Needless to say, there was not that much total time on the bike

    I'll buy rich posers cast-offs any day. I don't feel bad about it. And yes, you can get seal kits for the fork from Dr Marzocchi in the EU. Fox will recondition any shock sent in so what's to loose ... Carbon stress? Well it has to be ridden for that to be a thing ... Clueless owners are a good thing - for me

    Used parts all over eBay. Just gotta know what you are looking for, and try alternate listings and spellings

    Once you rescue an older MTB, it can be pressed into general trail riding service, passed on down the line to the next generation, get blinged out as a white-walled cruiser, or converted to an eBike.

    26" MTB's are the best choice for all these things as they are tough, have interchangeable parts, can be re-geared easy enough, usually have wide enough rear triangles to accept + tires, etc. Fork swaps are not that tough. Getting a whole package under 30 lbs is doable. Under 25 lbs is spendy, but also doable.

    How cush is it to ride along with your buds down the RxR right-of-way with no jarring while they are cussing big sharp rocks and rough ground ... I don't need a 29'er to do that - just decent suspension

    That K2 is now my favorite cruiser and play trail rider. The Hardrock Sport is becoming a MTB eBike. My old Trek is still going off road, just not as often now that the K2 is here

    Will I get a full carbon 29'er with suspension on both ends, maybe ... I have trails that could demand it (Mt Tamalpias & Mt St Helena). But I'm not convinced that it is needed. If the speed and the jumps are dialed back a bit, it's not a problem until you get to dbl Black Diamond stuff ...

  28. #628
    occupation : Foole
    Reputation: Fuelish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,548
    I'm a shorter guy, so 26 "fits" me better, not to mention the bikes are paid for, adjusted/tuned to my liking, and I feel like I'm not missing out on anything. Not to mention I prefer to run my guitars through tube amps, and I drive a 6 speed manual car......guess I'm a Luddite, or something

  29. #629
    Snow Dog
    Reputation: sXeXBMXer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    2,326
    Quote Originally Posted by Fuelish View Post
    I'm a shorter guy, so 26 "fits" me better, not to mention the bikes are paid for, adjusted/tuned to my liking, and I feel like I'm not missing out on anything. Not to mention I prefer to run my guitars through tube amps, and I drive a 6 speed manual car......guess I'm a Luddite, or something
    hmmm...tube amps!! Love it! I record (bass) with tube amps, but use SS live...sort of like my old 26er is now my commuter/ rec trail bike, and my 29+ gets all beat up. Nothing like having multiple tools!!!
    " ...the moonlit swamp Krampus is a king among bikes." - geraldooka

    15 Surly Krampus
    LET IT SNOW!

  30. #630
    mtbr member
    Reputation: supersedona's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    688
    Quote Originally Posted by BrocLuno View Post
    Agreed 100% If you are cruising and just exploring around; 26 will do most, if not all. It has for decades. If you want to race, or even just to maintain race pace, yeah, you'll have to go bigger or split sizes.

    26 semi fat on rear and bigger up front might work out best ... Been that way on MX and Enduro (18~21) motorcycles for a long time
    Actually I took a couple years off for finances and did a couple trail races this year with the ol 26" steed. This year on 2.23" tires and still got 3rd and 2nd in two of them. Lots of remarks about being old school, but in a tight technical maneuvering trail race I like the second nature of a well practiced setup.
    '93 Giant Sedona ATX custom
    '93 Giant Sedona AtX aero-edition
    '73 Schwinn Suburban
    '95 Fuji Suncrest

  31. #631
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Pedalon2018's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    428
    Quote Originally Posted by sXeXBMXer View Post
    hmmm...tube amps!! Love it! I record (bass) with tube amps, but use SS live...sort of like my old 26er is now my commuter/ rec trail bike, and my 29+ gets all beat up. Nothing like having multiple tools!!!
    Well I use both a tube pre amp and two mono block tube amp, drive two different cars with manuals and ride 29ers. They just roll over stuff better. I still rode my 1998 Trek 8900 til earlier this year I gave her away. Just saying...Yeti Yeti Yada Yada Yada

  32. #632
    Music & Bikes
    Reputation: fokof's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,406
    Still love my 26
    Last edited by fokof; 12-09-2018 at 08:27 PM.
    "There is a big difference between kneeling down and bending over" -FZ

  33. #633
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    2,614
    Cross-post-warning

    I fell in love with my 2005 Komodo when I built it ground-up in 2006. It's began life as a freeride hardtail:
    Attachment 1228257

    Moved to an even more freeride hardtail:

    Attachment 1228258

    Then put on a 5lbs diet as a trail bike:

    Attachment 1228261

    Then to an all mountain shredder:

    Attachment 1228262

    To a rigid all mountain hardtail:

    Attachment 1228264

    Finally back to a 5" All Mountain hardtail:

    Attachment 1228265

    There wasn't any configuration that this bike couldn't do well.

    It's been pretty greasy with the freeze and thaw weather. It was finally cold enough to freeze the ground hard. Finally, I could get off the gravel and hit some singletrack again!

    I fired up the truck and headed out watching my house disappear through the back glass of my truck...eyeballing my 12 year old Komodo behind me as the exhaust billowed out...stark white into the crisp 20 degree air instantly seeming to freeze completely still, hovering over the road.

    The trail head is only 3 miles from my front door...I was there in minutes and on the bike only seconds later.

    10 minutes into my ride, tragedy strikes. My saddle falls like a tree in the forest...and I knew it was over.

    Attachment 1228269


    I rode back to the truck standing the entire way...knowing how much trouble I'm in...my nearly new 135mm rear Hope hub clacking at me reminding me of the planned obsolescence of 135mm dropouts on my 12 year old frame.

    My barely broken-in 150mm fork damper swishing as the suspension compresses and rebounds as if it was whispering to me..."my steerer is just 1 1/8" straight."

    My 26" tires crunching on the frozen ground crying out to me as if to say..."hey... it's been a good long run & 26 ain't dead yet...but good luck finding a suitable replacement!"

    Well my friends...the only thing that could have made this size large Kinesis-built freerided hardtail frame any better would have been offering it in a size XL for people my height, with a seat tube/top tube gusset on top instead of on bottom, and a slightly bigger reach, stack, & head tube.

    The very next day, I scored a brand new in box XL Mullet frame that meets all of those desires!!

    It's on the way and my old friend has already gone through organ donor surgery.


    Attachment 1228270


    26 ain't dead!!!

  34. #634
    Just A Mountain Biker.
    Reputation: blaklabl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,276

    I just love my 26" wheels.

    Listen, I have had them all. 26 (more than I care to count), 27.5 (1), 29 (probably 5). At 5'8" and a 30" inseam, I am not especially tall - really not tall at all. I have also spent more than I care to think about on bicycles over the years than I care to think about, always chasing the next best thing and whatever riding discipline was en vogue.

    As it turns out, I REALLY like single speeding, and I like the way 26" wheels handle FOR ME. I am more financially secure than I have ever been in my life at this point, and can really afford t get myself whatever I'd like if the mood struck, but so far it hasn't. Every time I throw my leg over my bike and go for a ride, I catch myself wondering "well what if I got this thing" or "I wonder if that would make this better"...and then I run up on a rock-strewn, uphill pitch covered in baby heads that I am able to just pick my way up through and keep momentum as I crest it, and that usually silences the chatter. I can't even begin to imagine trying to do that stuff on a 29 or 29+, what with my short legs trying to turn over cranks and all...

    Sure, my rigid titanium SS 26"er is a beautiful pile of compromises and standards for the not too distant past, but I love it and it does whatever I ask it to without hesitation.

    One day, when I do have to get a new frame I will move to 27.5 for the parts availability, disc brakes, etc...but for now I'm pretty content with what I am rolling.

    26? What's the point??!!-img_3320.jpg

    26? What's the point??!!-img_3354.jpg
    MTBR: Your dad's online mountain bike forum.



  35. #635
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    7,518
    Those chrome bars...nice...

    Had a set of old Profiles super similar; I miss those things.
    Sinister Bikes
    Wraith Bicycles
    Sunday River Mtn Bike Park
    NEMBA
    Wachusett Brewing Co.

  36. #636
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    22
    Rims were usually wider back in the 80s when 26s were the size to have - maybe part of the problems people have had with 26s in modern times has something to do with the ever narrowing of rims down to a typical 17/19mm.

  37. #637
    High Plains Luddite
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    86
    Quote Originally Posted by Fuelish View Post
    I drive a 6 speed manual car......guess I'm a Luddite, or something
    If you were a true Luddite, you'd drive a three on the tree!


  38. #638
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    415
    Quote Originally Posted by MikeyMK View Post
    Rims were usually wider back in the 80s when 26s were the size to have - maybe part of the problems people have had with 26s in modern times has something to do with the ever narrowing of rims down to a typical 17/19mm.
    Rims were wider (and steel) back in the 50s-60s too when a 28 x 1 1/2er was the size to have.

  39. #639
    Enthusiast
    Reputation: JonathanGennick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,348
    Quote Originally Posted by blaklabl View Post
    Sure, my rigid titanium SS 26"er is a beautiful pile of compromises and standards for the not too distant past, but I love it and it does whatever I ask it to without hesitation.
    I also have a 26er rigid that for a few years was my main ride, and still I'm on it a lot. My SS is a 650b though, for no particular reason than that's how the parts fell together. Your Titanium bike, wow, it looks really nice. I like the little touches of red that you have going on. Or is that purple, that I see centered around the crank-arm bolt? Your bike looks nice, that's for sure.

  40. #640
    Just A Mountain Biker.
    Reputation: blaklabl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,276
    Quote Originally Posted by slapheadmofo View Post
    Those chrome bars...nice...

    Had a set of old Profiles super similar; I miss those things.
    They are titanium, made by Defiance Frameworks in Homer, Alaska
    MTBR: Your dad's online mountain bike forum.



  41. #641
    Just A Mountain Biker.
    Reputation: blaklabl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,276
    Quote Originally Posted by JonathanGennick View Post
    I also have a 26er rigid that for a few years was my main ride, and still I'm on it a lot. My SS is a 650b though, for no particular reason than that's how the parts fell together. Your Titanium bike, wow, it looks really nice. I like the little touches of red that you have going on. Or is that purple, that I see centered around the crank-arm bolt? Your bike looks nice, that's for sure.
    Purple on the crank. It has a bunch of ano colors, purple, orange, lime green...pretty much anything goes with ti
    MTBR: Your dad's online mountain bike forum.



  42. #642
    occupation : Foole
    Reputation: Fuelish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,548
    Quote Originally Posted by Squeeze View Post
    If you were a true Luddite, you'd drive a three on the tree!

    True, but....fwiw, I have driven a couple....and I guess I would be riding a SS and playing acoustic guits (I do have a couple)….was just a swipe at Gibson's Henry J's quote about folks wanting "traditional" Gibsons as Luddites....I don't need no steenking robot tuners....LOL

  43. #643
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    231
    Quote Originally Posted by MikeyMK View Post
    Rims were usually wider back in the 80s when 26s were the size to have - maybe part of the problems people have had with 26s in modern times has something to do with the ever narrowing of rims down to a typical 17/19mm.
    hmm maybe in the mid 80s we had something close to 30mm wide rims IIRC (eg on my 85 Rocky Sherpa). and again late 90s the 27mm Sun Rhyno rims were std issue for north shore riding when I lived in Vancouver. By the early 90s the rims got narrower with the obsession with XC racing of the day, they were narrow as you say like road racing rims ish. Today all I see mainly is 32-45mm rims around here. My narrowest is 38mm, my widest is 45mm

  44. #644
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    2,614
    Well, I did try to get the frame warrantied by Jamis...they said they actually still had a few of those 2005 Komodo FX frames in a size large in stock in grey...but the warranty on a Komodo and Kromo were only 5-years b/c of the rowdy nature of the bike.

    They did say that if I could find my 12-year-old receipt that they could give me a discount on a new frame.

    Either way...I should have been running an inch-or-so longer seatpost. Then it'd still be alive.

    They also said that the lifetime warranty on their other hardtails are only good for the lifetime of the frame material.

    "Lifetime warranty refers to the materials lifetime. Each material has a fatigue life, the failures you are seeing are the result of fatigue, not from any manufacturing defect. If you need more clarification on this, check out the support section of our website..." etc...

    So really...a lifetime warranty never means the lifetime of the components - duh
    May or may not mean the life time of the original owner...
    Could possibly not cover frame material failure...um...wha?

    I get it that they definitely cover defects in construction...but not covering failure of a material they choose to use in the construction of the product seems like a CYA loophole to me. If you don't trust the material to last a lifetime...don't give it a lifetime warranty.



    We offer a lifetime warranty!! (Unless you break it.)

    No big deal. I'm set either way. I really should consider trying to dig up my 12y.o. receipt and getting a good deal on a Dragonslayer 26+.

  45. #645
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    7,518
    Quote Originally Posted by blaklabl View Post
    They are titanium, made by Defiance Frameworks in Homer, Alaska
    Thanks; I like.
    Sinister Bikes
    Wraith Bicycles
    Sunday River Mtn Bike Park
    NEMBA
    Wachusett Brewing Co.

  46. #646
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Bluegill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    138
    Quote Originally Posted by chelboed View Post
    No big deal. I'm set either way. I really should consider trying to dig up my 12y.o. receipt and getting a good deal on a Dragonslayer 26+.
    If that's the way they want to play it (*****ing out on a lifetime warranty) then just make up your own receipt from a now-defunct bike shop.

  47. #647
    Sneaker man
    Reputation: mik_git's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,786
    Thats the way all manufactures run a lifetime warranty...people read "Lifetime" and think it's their life, when in fact it what the manufacture thinks is a good lifespan for the frame and it's intended use... usually about 5 years.
    SOmetime a great company will honour a warranty outside their specified timeframe, others will be sucktastic on "lifetime".
    All the gear and no idea.

  48. #648
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bridgestone14's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,029
    I have created receipts for small things in the past. If all they want is a receipt pretty sure you or someone you know can make that happen.
    Looking for a Medium Scott Scale frame, preferably a 2012 in 26.

  49. #649
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    2,614
    Nah. I'm not gonna lie about it. I bought it from Jenson in 2006. I've got a replacement that will fit me even better coming in 2 days.

    I'm good.

  50. #650
    Special Ed
    Reputation: Neuner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    102
    Found this interesting. DH'r Neko Mulally, who likes to fiddle around with different designs, tried out 27.5 vs 29 several times on a test course and had this to say at the end;

    One thing that was reiterated as we debated the potential benefits of one wheel size versus the other was that it was really difficult to tell the difference between the two. Neko said, "I changed rear wheels almost every run and at times would forget which wheel I had on while I was riding. I would rail a turn and think, man this 27.5 wheel turns fast and then realize I had the 29er on." Using the stopwatch confirmed that it doesn't make much of a difference in the conditions he was testing in.
    'Things you own...begin owning you.'

  51. #651
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    5
    I still have my 26er" dirt jump specific bike. My 4 other bikes are 27.5. I had converted my Mosso Scandium hardtail from 26 to 27.5 and I will never ever change it back. It's like night and day. Enjoy it significantly more now. So much so I converted my 2005 Santa Cruz Heckler to 27.5 and it is not going back to 26 as long as I own it. I sold all the 26" wheels. I know there's a lot of die hards but I feel the difference and I ride longer and more enjoyably than before. That's just my 2 cents and I've been riding a very long time. I won't go to 29 though. I've tried it but not for me.

  52. #652
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mr Pig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    10,528
    Quote Originally Posted by gabe999 View Post
    I won't go to 29 though. I've tried it but not for me.
    What didn't you like about it?

  53. #653
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Pedalon2018's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    428
    I switched from a 1998 Trek 8900 to a Ti Hardtail last spring. That was a 26 to a 29 jump. Weird after riding 20 years in a 26-2.1. However in the course of my first two long rides, not only did the clown wheel feel go away, I discovered the biggie wheels go over roots and the like much better. Really surprised me. I have come to really enjoy the 29ers. Only draw back is the extra weight in both the wheels and rims. They are almost like sitting on top of the cycling world.

  54. #654
    VENI VEDI BIKI
    Reputation: skankingbiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    812
    Quote Originally Posted by Pedalon2018 View Post
    I switched from a 1998 Trek 8900 to a Ti Hardtail last spring. That was a 26 to a 29 jump. Weird after riding 20 years in a 26-2.1. However in the course of my first two long rides, not only did the clown wheel feel go away, I discovered the biggie wheels go over roots and the like much better. Really surprised me. I have come to really enjoy the 29ers. Only draw back is the extra weight in both the wheels and rims. They are almost like sitting on top of the cycling world.
    Try a 29+
    Veni Vidi Biki

    I came, I saw, I biked.

  55. #655
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    5
    I've tried, recently as well, all the high end, big name brands 29ers from Santa Cruz, Trek, Giant, Rocky Mountain, Specialized, etc.. I'm 5'7". I wouldn't say dislike them. The best of the lot was from Rocky Mountain which felt most like a 27.5". If I had to replace my hardtail 27.5 it would be with a RM 29er....if I could afford it. That said, I ride mostly trail/Enduro and like to jump and something about the take off and the landing on a 29er just was not inspiring, somewhat scary (maybe the feeling being up high and thought of keeping the large wheels straight) and the extra effort for me to make that launch feel impactful. I hope that makes sense. During xmas I vacationed in Phoenix and Sedona. Did the National Trail on a rented 29er. It was great since I didn't know what I was up against. I'd do it again on 27.5 for that more connected, bottoming out of my suspension feel...like I own that bike, man.

  56. #656
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Pedalon2018's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    428
    Quote Originally Posted by skankingbiker View Post
    Try a 29+
    I will do that. Waiting for my LBS to get me the new eTap AXS 46/33 w/10-28, and then change up the rubber. Thanks for the tip. I have a Fatty but never tried 29+.

  57. #657
    STEEL IS REAL
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    24,913
    The last 26er I ever owned tried to kill me and because of that, it was the last 26er I ever owned.
    life is... "All About Bikes"...

  58. #658
    VENI VEDI BIKI
    Reputation: skankingbiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    812
    Quote Originally Posted by Pedalon2018 View Post
    I will do that. Waiting for my LBS to get me the new eTap AXS 46/33 w/10-28, and then change up the rubber. Thanks for the tip. I have a Fatty but never tried 29+.
    I have a pugsley converted to 29+ ...a "Krampug." It rolls over everything. Feels like riding a monster truck. Its fun, but a big difference from carving with a 26 HT
    Veni Vidi Biki

    I came, I saw, I biked.

  59. #659
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Jack Burns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    1,784
    I remember when I first really trail rode my 26" fatbike it was super amazing to ride anywhere at all and get away with all kinds of shenanigans that would be painful on a skinnier 2.0- 2.4 tire.

    That fatbike is not what I think of as a 26er.

    Plus tires are a bit like that too.

    It all depends on skill and where you ride, as well as the bike, of course.

    I think that current variety of tire widths are wonderful thing. Something for everyone.

    Narrower tires have to be placed better on the trail, and with more precision, with less suspension and smaller diameter.

    Old school 26" rigid bikes are more difficult to ride. But they can ride.

    Kind of like old school skiis.

    Once you learn them, you can turn them.

    Nothing wrong with the latest stuff. It's better.

    But like vintage for vintage sake, that's okay. Just get out of the way old man!

    Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk

  60. #660
    VENI VEDI BIKI
    Reputation: skankingbiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    812
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Burns View Post
    Old school 26" rigid bikes are more difficult to ride. But they can ride.

    Kind of like old school skiis.

    Once you learn them, you can turn them
    Funny. On ride with buds last fall on my oldie but goodie 26er. They say: "Wow, you are really carving on that thing; how are you able to keep up without a dropper or rear suspension"
    Veni Vidi Biki

    I came, I saw, I biked.

  61. #661
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,614
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Burns View Post
    I remember when I first really trail rode my 26" fatbike it was super amazing to ride anywhere at all and get away with all kinds of shenanigans that would be painful on a skinnier 2.0- 2.4 tire.

    That fatbike is not what I think of as a 26er.

    Plus tires are a bit like that too.

    It all depends on skill and where you ride, as well as the bike, of course.

    I think that current variety of tire widths are wonderful thing. Something for everyone.

    Narrower tires have to be placed better on the trail, and with more precision, with less suspension and smaller diameter.

    Old school 26" rigid bikes are more difficult to ride. But they can ride.

    Kind of like old school skiis.

    Once you learn them, you can turn them.

    Nothing wrong with the latest stuff. It's better.

    But like vintage for vintage sake, that's okay. Just get out of the way old man!

    Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk
    Some of the new stuff is better yes, but I must say the pressfit BB on my 650b "super enduro" bike sucks. The interntal cable routing sucks too. I also don't like the 148 rear spacing which has caused more damage to hangers and mechs than I've ever dealt with. I also find 27" wheels to be little more than a weight penalty. Geo improvemnts on the other hand are great but I was south of 66 10 years ago. IMO, head angles are the biggest improvement in bikes over the past 10 to 15 years. Seat tubes too but that's not as important to me. TT lenghths and BB height I find annyoing. I just size down now, or run stupid short stems that make the sterring twitchy.

  62. #662
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Jack Burns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    1,784
    "but I was south of 66 10 years ago."

    Head angle, or years old?

    Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk

  63. #663
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Pedalon2018's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    428
    Quote Originally Posted by slimat99 View Post
    Some of the new stuff is better yes, but I must say the pressfit BB on my 650b "super enduro" bike sucks. The interntal cable routing sucks too. I also don't like the 148 rear spacing which has caused more damage to hangers and mechs than I've ever dealt with. I also find 27" wheels to be little more than a weight penalty. Geo improvemnts on the other hand are great but I was south of 66 10 years ago. IMO, head angles are the biggest improvement in bikes over the past 10 to 15 years. Seat tubes too but that's not as important to me. TT lenghths and BB height I find annyoing. I just size down now, or run stupid short stems that make the sterring twitchy.
    Press fit bb are one of the worst ideas in bike design. One chap had a high dollar Trek and the press fit was making a ton of noise. Trek did nothing to fix so he went Ti with a threaded bb, the only way to go.

  64. #664
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    7,518
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Burns View Post
    "but I was south of 66 10 years ago."

    Head angle, or years old?

    Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk
    I also was running ~66 HTA 10 years ago; I've found I prefer something a little steeper for trail riding.
    Sinister Bikes
    Wraith Bicycles
    Sunday River Mtn Bike Park
    NEMBA
    Wachusett Brewing Co.

  65. #665
    VENI VEDI BIKI
    Reputation: skankingbiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    812
    Quote Originally Posted by Pedalon2018 View Post
    Press fit bb are one of the worst ideas in bike design. One chap had a high dollar Trek and the press fit was making a ton of noise. Trek did nothing to fix so he went Ti with a threaded bb, the only way to go.
    Why I won't buy a Stache
    Veni Vidi Biki

    I came, I saw, I biked.

  66. #666
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,614
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Burns View Post
    "but I was south of 66 10 years ago."

    Head angle, or years old?

    Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk
    Sometimes I do feel that old. I miss the old days honestly, and not because of wheel size. I miss what proper gnarly trails used to be like before the younger generation sanatized everything. I miss being able to ride social trails without strava getting them shut down. Most of you dumb kids don't even know everything is going to their heat map even when you're not tracking rides. Strava is responsilbe for so many trail colsures just so you kids can see who's best at straitlining corners. You kids started with better bikes than us old crusties, but we had local's trails that you kids would pee your little panties over.

  67. #667
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Pedalon2018's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    428
    Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! I needed a good laugh. Yea, we also wrecked a lot more back in the day and we rode with almost no protection. I have scars to prove it. Safe Travels All!

  68. #668
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Jack Burns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    1,784
    I'm getting a lot of grey hair now. I'm 59!

    Riding in the 80-90's there was no discussion about wheel size. All the tires were pizza cutters by today's standards.

    Tubeless was not even on the horizon.

    Just to survive a weekend of gnarly riding would entail all kinds McGuivery.

    The style of riding was heavily influenced by the exacting requirements in equipment preparation and riding technique.

    Low air pressure was dangerous back then. If I wanted to shred down something, in direct contrast to today, I'd air up the tires to resist pinch flats.

    Suspension was non-existent or ludicrous. Suspension was in the arms, legs, neck, back, and ass.

    Vision could be impaired by vibration. We'd take hits so hard that loose helmets and glasses could shift position on the cranium. Hilarious.

    It was important to know the trail very well, so as to anticipate the deep pockets, ruts, rills, ramps, and tombstones.

    Of course usually the action was not based upon recall.

    Typically, as it is today, you just took it on the fly, making adjustments in body positioning, and arm and leg piston retraction and extension, to enable the rigid 26" bike wheels to track over the obstacles, rather than conforming to the terrain as modern full suspension bikes do.

    There was a lot more on the line in those times.

    Hell yeah, as mentioned earlier, the trails were different, and so was the attitude. Things were as they were, so to speak. Trails weren't made for mountain bikes.

    We sort of arrived on the trails, maybe uninvited, yet certainly fulfilling an inevitable destiny.

    And we discovered trails that were overlooked by a few generations of hikers. We discovered game trails, log skids, gulches, washes, fall-lines, ridges, landslides; any place you could fit a bike, we'd be there.

    No Google Earth either.

    Some of that stuff was burly as ****!

    And the brakes were so lousy that many times the descents were unstoppable, and a rider was forced to a continuous involuntary commitment of unpredictable velocity.

    All this with your belly or chest on around saddle, thighs flared so they don't get too scratched up from the cantilever brakes at the extreme.

    Since there wasn't as much riding going on, the "trails" would often be filled with all kinds of loose materials such as of course rocks and sticks, moss chunks, clods, logs, hummocks of bunch grass, fern clumps, deep drifts of leaves, thorny vines, low branches, and occasional huge fallen logs, springs, bogs, mud pits, and quick sand.

    Almost all of the charismatic descents are extinct now due to the land management agency trail emasculating activity.

    We would celebrate sections of "buff" trail with hoots of joy to cover a quarter of a mile without resorting to trials riding.

    So yeah, trials was a thing.

    It was good enough to descend a trail without dabbing, let alone setting some sort of time record.

    If anything comes from this rant, it's that trials skills were a part of original 26" bike riding. Flow really didn't exist, per se, in my neck of the woods.

    I don't mind today's flow trails, but I do not seek them out.

    Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk

  69. #669
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Burns View Post
    I'm getting a lot of grey hair now. I'm 59!

    Riding in the 80-90's there was no discussion about wheel size. All the tires were pizza cutters by today's standards.

    Tubeless was not even on the horizon.

    Just to survive a weekend of gnarly riding would entail all kinds McGuivery.

    The style of riding was heavily influenced by the exacting requirements in equipment preparation and riding technique.

    Low air pressure was dangerous back then. If I wanted to shred down something, in direct contrast to today, I'd air up the tires to resist pinch flats.

    Suspension was non-existent or ludicrous. Suspension was in the arms, legs, neck, back, and ass.

    Vision could be impaired by vibration. We'd take hits so hard that loose helmets and glasses could shift position on the cranium. Hilarious.

    It was important to know the trail very well, so as to anticipate the deep pockets, ruts, rills, ramps, and tombstones.

    Of course usually the action was not based upon recall.

    Typically, as it is today, you just took it on the fly, making adjustments in body positioning, and arm and leg piston retraction and extension, to enable the rigid 26" bike wheels to track over the obstacles, rather than conforming to the terrain as modern full suspension bikes do.

    There was a lot more on the line in those times.

    Hell yeah, as mentioned earlier, the trails were different, and so was the attitude. Things were as they were, so to speak. Trails weren't made for mountain bikes.

    We sort of arrived on the trails, maybe uninvited, yet certainly fulfilling an inevitable destiny.

    And we discovered trails that were overlooked by a few generations of hikers. We discovered game trails, log skids, gulches, washes, fall-lines, ridges, landslides; any place you could fit a bike, we'd be there.

    No Google Earth either.

    Some of that stuff was burly as ****!

    And the brakes were so lousy that many times the descents were unstoppable, and a rider was forced to a continuous involuntary commitment of unpredictable velocity.

    All this with your belly or chest on around saddle, thighs flared so they don't get too scratched up from the cantilever brakes at the extreme.

    Since there wasn't as much riding going on, the "trails" would often be filled with all kinds of loose materials such as of course rocks and sticks, moss chunks, clods, logs, hummocks of bunch grass, fern clumps, deep drifts of leaves, thorny vines, low branches, and occasional huge fallen logs, springs, bogs, mud pits, and quick sand.

    Almost all of the charismatic descents are extinct now due to the land management agency trail emasculating activity.

    We would celebrate sections of "buff" trail with hoots of joy to cover a quarter of a mile without resorting to trials riding.

    So yeah, trials was a thing.

    It was good enough to descend a trail without dabbing, let alone setting some sort of time record.

    If anything comes from this rant, it's that trials skills were a part of original 26" bike riding. Flow really didn't exist, per se, in my neck of the woods.

    I don't mind today's flow trails, but I do not seek them out.

    Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk

    I've been hanging around reading the forums for better than a year now. Never have I read a post here that better describes my experiences. It clarifies my noob bewilderment reading about XC riding here and now.

    My trails don't look like the ones pictured in most posts. Twisty, rooty, climby, tight turny hiking trails that I see very few bike tracks on even in the dead of Summer.

    Both my bikes don't look like the ones pictured in anything except vintage whip posts. A couple of rigid bikes, one from the 80's, one from 2011 with them new fangled mechanical discs & retrofitted with a rigid fork. Both rebuilt & running smoothly without rebuilding suspensions annually. I have discovered the joys of lower tire pressure, though!

    I don't catch big air, instead I pick my way through uneven footing, trackstanding until the line becomes clear, then heading another 30 yards to the next minor obstacle. My lowest, and second lowest, gear ratio is the overwhelming favorite.

    In my two years of noobishness, I've had a few chances to ride a pump track about an hour's drive for me. Buddy, it was FUN! I can see how this flow thing could get addicting. But that's not the reality of my nearby trails, so I'll continue to rejoice in those mornings that I didn't have to dab a toe anywhere on my ride.

    I'm 66, and two lessons life taught me are: speed kills and skills outlast luck. I'll just poke along and practice to avoid broken bones at my age. It's nice to know that I'm really mountain biking, though, despite it not looking like anything here!

  70. #670
    Snow Dog
    Reputation: sXeXBMXer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    2,326
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Burns View Post
    I'm getting a lot of grey hair now. I'm 59!

    Riding in the 80-90's there was no discussion about wheel size. All the tires were pizza cutters by today's standards.

    Tubeless was not even on the horizon.

    Just to survive a weekend of gnarly riding would entail all kinds McGuivery.

    The style of riding was heavily influenced by the exacting requirements in equipment preparation and riding technique.

    Low air pressure was dangerous back then. If I wanted to shred down something, in direct contrast to today, I'd air up the tires to resist pinch flats.

    Suspension was non-existent or ludicrous. Suspension was in the arms, legs, neck, back, and ass.

    Vision could be impaired by vibration. We'd take hits so hard that loose helmets and glasses could shift position on the cranium. Hilarious.

    It was important to know the trail very well, so as to anticipate the deep pockets, ruts, rills, ramps, and tombstones.

    Of course usually the action was not based upon recall.

    Typically, as it is today, you just took it on the fly, making adjustments in body positioning, and arm and leg piston retraction and extension, to enable the rigid 26" bike wheels to track over the obstacles, rather than conforming to the terrain as modern full suspension bikes do.

    There was a lot more on the line in those times.

    Hell yeah, as mentioned earlier, the trails were different, and so was the attitude. Things were as they were, so to speak. Trails weren't made for mountain bikes.

    We sort of arrived on the trails, maybe uninvited, yet certainly fulfilling an inevitable destiny.

    And we discovered trails that were overlooked by a few generations of hikers. We discovered game trails, log skids, gulches, washes, fall-lines, ridges, landslides; any place you could fit a bike, we'd be there.

    No Google Earth either.

    Some of that stuff was burly as ****!

    And the brakes were so lousy that many times the descents were unstoppable, and a rider was forced to a continuous involuntary commitment of unpredictable velocity.

    All this with your belly or chest on around saddle, thighs flared so they don't get too scratched up from the cantilever brakes at the extreme.

    Since there wasn't as much riding going on, the "trails" would often be filled with all kinds of loose materials such as of course rocks and sticks, moss chunks, clods, logs, hummocks of bunch grass, fern clumps, deep drifts of leaves, thorny vines, low branches, and occasional huge fallen logs, springs, bogs, mud pits, and quick sand.

    Almost all of the charismatic descents are extinct now due to the land management agency trail emasculating activity.

    We would celebrate sections of "buff" trail with hoots of joy to cover a quarter of a mile without resorting to trials riding.

    So yeah, trials was a thing.

    It was good enough to descend a trail without dabbing, let alone setting some sort of time record.

    If anything comes from this rant, it's that trials skills were a part of original 26" bike riding. Flow really didn't exist, per se, in my neck of the woods.

    I don't mind today's flow trails, but I do not seek them out.

    Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk
    amen...and some of us were doing this all on BMX bikes as well...smaller tires, way different geo, harder to climb tech on for sure, but you rode what you had

    you just sort of got on and rode to where ever the trail took you

    my arms, legs back and ass are still my suspension today...though my post heart attack "fragile" heart won't allow me to ride as hard as I did back then

    I also have no problem with flow trails, but I don't like flow trails that were originally techy trails, and then became sanitized...part of the fun of the challenge for me is/was to ride in places where people said that my bike "shouldn't be ale to go"
    " ...the moonlit swamp Krampus is a king among bikes." - geraldooka

    15 Surly Krampus
    LET IT SNOW!

  71. #671
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Burns View Post
    I'm getting a lot of grey hair now. I'm 59!

    Riding in the 80-90's there was no discussion about wheel size. All the tires were pizza cutters by today's standards.

    Tubeless was not even on the horizon.

    Just to survive a weekend of gnarly riding would entail all kinds McGuivery.

    The style of riding was heavily influenced by the exacting requirements in equipment preparation and riding technique...
    Nice post. That brings me back to those old days. Besides courting death on occasion on an ancient Univega I also took my road bike a Peugeot Ventoux thru the glens in the area. I'd drop a few psi on the Michelins and rip thru the flatter sections. Those early days were fun and crazy at teh same time. We rode on them junkers!

  72. #672
    Out spokin'
    Reputation: Sparticus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Posts
    9,302

    Yup, good post, Jack

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Burns View Post
    I'm getting a lot of grey hair now. I'm 59!

    Riding in the 80-90's there was no discussion about wheel size. All the tires were pizza cutters by today's standards.

    Tubeless was not even on the horizon.

    Just to survive a weekend of gnarly riding would entail all kinds McGuivery.

    The style of riding was heavily influenced by the exacting requirements in equipment preparation and riding technique.

    Low air pressure was dangerous back then. If I wanted to shred down something, in direct contrast to today, I'd air up the tires to resist pinch flats.

    Suspension was non-existent or ludicrous. Suspension was in the arms, legs, neck, back, and ass.

    Vision could be impaired by vibration. We'd take hits so hard that loose helmets and glasses could shift position on the cranium. Hilarious.

    It was important to know the trail very well, so as to anticipate the deep pockets, ruts, rills, ramps, and tombstones.

    Of course usually the action was not based upon recall.

    Typically, as it is today, you just took it on the fly, making adjustments in body positioning, and arm and leg piston retraction and extension, to enable the rigid 26" bike wheels to track over the obstacles, rather than conforming to the terrain as modern full suspension bikes do.

    There was a lot more on the line in those times.

    Hell yeah, as mentioned earlier, the trails were different, and so was the attitude. Things were as they were, so to speak. Trails weren't made for mountain bikes.

    We sort of arrived on the trails, maybe uninvited, yet certainly fulfilling an inevitable destiny.

    And we discovered trails that were overlooked by a few generations of hikers. We discovered game trails, log skids, gulches, washes, fall-lines, ridges, landslides; any place you could fit a bike, we'd be there.

    No Google Earth either.

    Some of that stuff was burly as ****!

    And the brakes were so lousy that many times the descents were unstoppable, and a rider was forced to a continuous involuntary commitment of unpredictable velocity.

    All this with your belly or chest on around saddle, thighs flared so they don't get too scratched up from the cantilever brakes at the extreme.

    Since there wasn't as much riding going on, the "trails" would often be filled with all kinds of loose materials such as of course rocks and sticks, moss chunks, clods, logs, hummocks of bunch grass, fern clumps, deep drifts of leaves, thorny vines, low branches, and occasional huge fallen logs, springs, bogs, mud pits, and quick sand.

    Almost all of the charismatic descents are extinct now due to the land management agency trail emasculating activity.

    We would celebrate sections of "buff" trail with hoots of joy to cover a quarter of a mile without resorting to trials riding.

    So yeah, trials was a thing.

    It was good enough to descend a trail without dabbing, let alone setting some sort of time record.

    If anything comes from this rant, it's that trials skills were a part of original 26" bike riding. Flow really didn't exist, per se, in my neck of the woods.

    I don't mind today's flow trails, but I do not seek them out.
    “You go to war with the army you have.”

    We rode the bikes we had. We had a blast. Part of the fun and adventure was the discovery of it all. Beyond just riding the bike. Exploring the backcountry was thrilling. True adventure.

    I became a Medicare recipient a few months ago and I recall the camaraderie of the early days. The ‘80s. I started riding mountain bikes when I was 32. Even though there were few of us back then, mountain biking was a social activity inasmuch as one rider would practically cheer when he met another rider on a trail. We’d meet & greet. We were oddities, rarities. We sought one another out. We felt like the pioneers that we were.

    Back to the point of this thread, as time goes on, armies do get better. So do bikes. Antique 26ers make great mantle pieces. As for hoots & hollers, give me one of today’s wonder machines including sophisticated suspension and a party post. Even at this advanced age, I still rip.
    =sParty
    disciplesofdirt.org

    We don't quit riding because we get old.
    We get old because we quit riding.

  73. #673
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    7,518
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparticus View Post
    We rode the bikes we had. We had a blast. Part of the fun and adventure was the discovery of it all. Beyond just riding the bike. Exploring the backcountry was thrilling. True adventure.

    I became a Medicare recipient a few months ago and I recall the camaraderie of the early days. The ‘80s. I started riding mountain bikes when I was 32. Even though there were few of us back then, mountain biking was a social activity inasmuch as one rider would practically cheer when he met another rider on a trail. We’d meet & greet. We were oddities, rarities. We sought one another out. We felt like the pioneers that we were.
    =sParty
    Nice. I remember being able to tell who had been out on the trails recently by looking at tire tracks.
    Sinister Bikes
    Wraith Bicycles
    Sunday River Mtn Bike Park
    NEMBA
    Wachusett Brewing Co.

  74. #674
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    2,614
    Quote Originally Posted by slapheadmofo View Post
    Nice. I remember being able to tell who had been out on the trails recently by looking at tire tracks.

    Yes! I'm with ya!!

  75. #675
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    3

    Here's a fun thinG!

    26? What's the point??!!-screen-shot-2019-02-10-11.47.10-am.jpg

Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567

Similar Threads

  1. Park City Point to Point spot for sale - $200
    By VerkerBee in forum Endurance XC Racing
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-23-2017, 07:13 AM
  2. park city point to point info. needed
    By butryon in forum Utah
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-13-2013, 03:35 PM
  3. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 02-16-2013, 09:57 AM
  4. Point to Point Mountain Bike Race Logistics
    By playpunk in forum XC Racing and Training
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-01-2011, 06:55 PM
  5. Park City Point to Point entry available for transfer!
    By jabezecny in forum Endurance XC Racing
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-26-2011, 11:13 AM

Members who have read this thread: 496

Posting Permissions

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

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2019 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.