What are trends you've seen come full circle?- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 63 of 63
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velorangutan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    359

    What are trends you've seen come full circle?

    The cycling industry is full of marketing tricks. I geek out on bicycles. I always have and love seeing new stuff come to market.

    Looking at old bike reviews 5-10 years old, Many things reviewers praised on a bike are negative now. Many things that were negative are now in fashion.

    Fork offsets used to be 39mm. Then everyone had to have longer 50+mm offsets. Now we're back near 40mm being better.

    It was once all about shorter wheelbases. Now bikes are a foot longer...

    We were all obsessed over tire weight and rolling resistance. Now we run Assagis without much thought.

    Specialized convinced us that the Horst link was the grail of suspension designs. Now they don't even use it on some models.

    A headangle of 68 was once found on Enduro bikes. Now it's considered twitchy and nervous.

    Chain growth on FS bikes was a huge no no. Now all the bikes have it built in as 'anti squat'.

  2. #2
    Bipolar roller
    Reputation: singletrackmack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    1,157
    Long chain-stays. Originally on the first mtbs, but with short front ends. Once thought that the long CS made bikes handle like a bus, we now know that longer chainstays mixed with a long front end make for much more balanced bike with much better handling in tight corners, chunk, mud, tech climbing and pretty much every riding situation. Unlike short chain-stays mixed with long front ends which makes a bike handle like a barge, shopping cart, wheel barrow or like riding a swing gate.

    I am still having a hard time believing how much better my 450mm CS length bike handles tight single tracks and fast corners than my 417mm CS bike. I never would have even considered something with longer than 420mm CS when I bought my last new bike in 2005. A lot of advancement has happened in the last 15 years and bikes are so much better because of simple things like this.


    “Until recently, the shortest possible chainstays were the rage. And for some, they still are. Whether it’s because they’re being developed using a dartboard decision-making process or the result of actual engineering, short chainstays are going the way of 26" wheels. More brands are beginning to lengthen the rear centre to better position rider mass between the wheels.”
    Get out of the gutter and onto the mountain top.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mack_turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    11,116
    [stupid worthless server double post]

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mack_turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    11,116
    I have a hardtail with "track end" style dropouts, so I can lengthen the chainstay length if I wanted. I keep em short. I'd rather rip my eyeballs out with a spork than ride my bike with chainstays longer than 430mm, but that's just one variable in the equation of how a bike fits and handles under each rider on a specific kind of terrain. a different bike in a different location might handle better with, among other variations, longer chainstays.

    the trend for super short chainstays, when applied to all bikes, was not a good idea. but if the pendulum swings back and marketing hype tells everyone that every bike should have massively long chainstays, we'll see a lot of riders suffering under bikes with bad proportions in some applications.

    when people start talking about geometry variations and trends, they often leave out the regional preferences and type of bike. the kind of stuff that works best in Squamish is not necessarily suited for Florida, Texas, Ohio, or Connecticut. variations that work well for FS bikes don't necessarily work the same way on hardtails. singlespeed bikes require a different riding style than bikes with massive 1x drivetrains.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Posts
    329
    I wasn't around when they first came out but I remember working at a shop 10+ years ago looking at OLD oval chain rings in packages thinking how gimmicky they were. Was surprised to see oval rings making a come back.

    Coil shocks were the thing way back when, then air came along and coil disappeared for a little while, now coil is back in.

    All I got

  6. #6
    poser Administrator
    Reputation: rockcrusher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    10,084
    Quote Originally Posted by bdreynolds7 View Post
    I wasn't around when they first came out but I remember working at a shop 10+ years ago looking at OLD oval chain rings in packages thinking how gimmicky they were. Was surprised to see oval rings making a come back.

    Coil shocks were the thing way back when, then air came along and coil disappeared for a little while, now coil is back in.

    All I got
    Ovals were around in the 80's by shimano and have definitely come full circle. Though it could be argued that they didn't drop away just into the niche for awhile until the science caught up.
    MTBR Posting Guidelines
    calories>electrons

  7. #7
    slow
    Reputation: sgltrak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    6,533
    Wide bars
    Oval chainrings (Biopace, etc)
    Droppers (HiteRite, Interloc Racing Design remote)
    Slack head angles
    Carrying tube, tools, etc on bike instead of in a pack
    Hip packs
    Fatter tires (Fisher Fattrax, Specialized Hardpack)
    Neon colors

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mack_turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    11,116
    I was hoping to preempt the troll posts, but:
    oval rings are not a resurgence of Biopace. stop saying that shit.
    Hite Rite was not a dropper post.

    so far as I can seem most of mountain biking has been a linear progression:
    no one is going back to tubes, rim brakes, bar ends, multiple chainrings, narrow handlebars, long stems, QR skewers, short top tubes, steep head tube angles, rigid seatposts, etc. some of those things work for some people and will hang on, but no one is intensionally swinging back in that direction.

  9. #9
    Up In Smoke
    Reputation: Train Wreck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    2,694
    Fanny packs

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: J.B. Weld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    13,628
    1x drivetrains
    fixed gear bikes
    ss bikes
    flannel shirts
    I brake for stinkbugs

  11. #11
    Out spokin'
    Reputation: Sparticus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Posts
    10,493
    Bar ends.
    disciplesofdirt.org

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

  12. #12
    poser Administrator
    Reputation: rockcrusher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    10,084
    Quote Originally Posted by mack_turtle View Post
    I was hoping to preempt the troll posts, but:
    oval rings are not a resurgence of Biopace. stop saying that shit.
    Hite Rite was not a dropper post.
    I think ovals are an evolution of biopace. The idea even back then was to even out the flat spot in the power curve, just the science wasn't there to assess how much you needed to oval to gain over that flat spot.

    There was a remote from IRD for the hite rite that did make it a dropper post. Especially if you had the 4" hite rite, and the original dropper post from Maverick required that you grab a lever under your saddle to actuate it which wasn't far off from reaching down and grabbing your seatpost QR as you approached a down like we did back in the day. I could actuate the hite rite in motion with the QR without stopping, sometimes. However the hite rite went away with the push of mountain biking away from having fun on your bike and instead the serious drive towards NORBA/UCI racing as the reason for mountain biking to exist. Thankfully marketing has returned to the mountain bike as a fun recreational activity and not just a sport. That has finally come full circle.
    MTBR Posting Guidelines
    calories>electrons

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mack_turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    11,116
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparticus View Post
    Bar ends.
    sorry, those are not coming back.

  14. #14
    Out spokin'
    Reputation: Sparticus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Posts
    10,493
    Quote Originally Posted by mack_turtle View Post
    sorry, those are not coming back.
    But they went full circle, mack. They weren’t there, then they were, then they weren’t again.
    disciplesofdirt.org

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

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mack_turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    11,116
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparticus View Post
    But they went full circle, mack. They weren’t there, then they were, then they weren’t again.
    I see that now. reverse circle?

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    2,401
    Quote Originally Posted by mack_turtle View Post
    I have a hardtail with "track end" style dropouts, so I can lengthen them if I wanted. I keep em short. I'd rather rip my eyeballs out with a spork than ride my bike with chainstays longer than 430mm, but that's just one variable in the equation of how a bike fits and handles under each rider on a specific kind of terrain. a different bike in a different location might handle better with, among other variations, longer chainstays.

    when people start talking about geometry variations and trends, they often leave out the regional preferences and type of bike. the kind of stuff that works best in Squamish is not necessarily suited for Florida, Texas, Ohio, or Connecticut. variations that work well for FS bikes don't necessarily work the same way on hardtails. singlespeed bikes require a different riding style than bikes with massive 1x drivetrains.
    This is me as well, I'm short and prefer 29ers. But I like short in the rear to maneuver tight areas and longer in the front so a mid bike shift in bodyweight keeps it stable.

  17. #17
    Up In Smoke
    Reputation: Train Wreck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    2,694
    Fenders seem to come and go, maybe that's seasonal though

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jeremy3220's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    2,667
    Quote Originally Posted by singletrackmack View Post
    Long chain-stays. Originally on the first mtbs, but with short front ends. Once thought that the long CS made bikes handle like a bus, we now know that longer chainstays mixed with a long front end make for much more balanced bike with much better handling in tight corners, chunk, mud, tech climbing and pretty much every riding situation. Unlike short chain-stays mixed with long front ends which makes a bike handle like a barge, shopping cart, wheel barrow or like riding a swing gate.

    I am still having a hard time believing how much better my 450mm CS length bike handles tight single tracks and fast corners than my 417mm CS bike. I never would have even considered something with longer than 420mm CS when I bought my last new bike in 2005. A lot of advancement has happened in the last 15 years and bikes are so much better because of simple things like this.


    “Until recently, the shortest possible chainstays were the rage. And for some, they still are. Whether it’s because they’re being developed using a dartboard decision-making process or the result of actual engineering, short chainstays are going the way of 26" wheels. More brands are beginning to lengthen the rear centre to better position rider mass between the wheels.”
    Yep, I initially thought short chainstays were a good way to keep the wheelbase in check on modern slack bikes with long reaches. In reality, the imbalance it causes offsets any gains from the shorter rear. It feels like you're riding on the rear wheel and pivoting around it rather than being centered. This feels very awkward.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    3,601
    I see these things going back and forth based on trends, they aren’t bike design related though. The funny thing is rather than just admit you follow trends people have to come up with dumb reasons why one is better than the other.

    Water bottles and hydration packs

    Flat pedals and clipless pedals

    Baggy clothes and Lycra

    Small sunglasses and large sunglasses

    High cuff socks and low cuff socks

  20. #20
    ccm
    ccm is offline
    aka Taprider
    Reputation: ccm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    815
    Oval rings were around in the 1970s with peaks ~3 o'clock and 9 o'clock
    Biopace in the late 1980s were not oval, kind of rounded off four sided, and with the peaks being ~ 12 o'clock and 6 o'clock, instead of the current oval ~3 o'clock and 9 o'clock

    Pre late 1980s, mtn bikes had slack and relaxed head angles, then they got steeper and more aggressive with fighter plane vs cargo plane handling. Now head angles are back to slack, but aggressive now means the opposite.

    ps: in the non-bike world I read that short shorts for males are making a comeback

  21. #21
    Candlestick Maker
    Reputation: baker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,100
    I like the rebranding of fanny packs as hip packs. They sucked the first time around.

    As an obsessive climber, I actually loved bar ends. Since all trails have become flow trails with 6 foot wide paths, wide bars have effectively replaced the need. ;-) Maybe after the trees grow back, we will come full circle with bar ends.

    I'm hoping toe clips will come back, just for the lolz
    baker

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    261
    30lb plus trail bikes being acceptable.

  23. #23
    slow
    Reputation: sgltrak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    6,533
    Wide rims. 25mm internal width was normal in the late 80's (Araya RM25, for example), but then around the time Keith Bontrager rolled down the first MA40 road rims to 26" size, everything was going narrower.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    259
    Quote Originally Posted by mack_turtle View Post
    I was hoping to preempt the troll posts, but:
    oval rings are not a resurgence of Biopace. stop saying that shit.
    Hite Rite was not a dropper post.

    so far as I can seem most of mountain biking has been a linear progression:
    no one is going back to tubes, rim brakes, bar ends, multiple chainrings, narrow handlebars, long stems, QR skewers, short top tubes, steep head tube angles, rigid seatposts, etc. some of those things work for some people and will hang on, but no one is intensionally swinging back in that direction.
    Pretty much this. Sure, tires got fat (plus) and then went back, but not even close to all the way back. You can arbitrarily pick some measurement that went back and forth, but the bikes as a whole handle MUCH better than they used to. My personal experience goes back to the early 90s, don't know much before that time.

  25. #25
    CEO Product Failure
    Reputation: bingemtbr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    1,392
    Oakleys. I have a set of M-frames (circa 91?) with multiple lenses which could easily be mistaken as current models almost 30 yrs later.

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation: WHALENARD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    4,823
    Beer. Gold/opaque low abv ambers and pilsners are back in and better than ever.
    Beards and mustaches. Being a douche.

    Sent from my moto g(6) forge using Tapatalk
    It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.

  27. #27
    well mannered lout
    Reputation: MOJO K's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,446
    Not recently, but riser bars did it.
    Well my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle.

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velorangutan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    359
    Helmet visors. It's not cool to wear the visor on a road bike though. But I think it always made the most sense on a road bike being more exposed to the sun.What are trends you've seen come full circle?-nav.jpg

  29. #29
    Up In Smoke
    Reputation: Train Wreck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    2,694
    ^Not very aero though...

  30. #30
    slow
    Reputation: sgltrak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    6,533
    Having ridden MTB and worked in bike shops from the mid 1980s through the NORBA / weight weenie periods of the 90s, I've seen lots of things come and go and sold lots of "new and improved" bike stuff. Many things in cycling have been around before in one form or another as far back as the late 1800s (oval / elliptical chain rings, soft tail rear suspension designs, etc.). Some things stick around or evolve while others disappear.

    What I ride now is closer to my first mountain bike in 1985 than the bikes I rode in the '90s.

    My first mountain bike (1985)
    Head angle: 68 degrees
    Chain stay length: 473 mm
    Handlebar width: 705 mm
    Stem length: 50 mm
    Tires: 26 x 2.2
    Rim internal width: 26 mm
    Pedals: Flat
    Seatpost: Quick release adjustable

    My 6th mountain bike (1992)
    Head angle: 72 degrees
    Chain stay length: 425 mm
    Handlebar width: 590 mm
    Stem length: 150 mm
    Tires: 26 x 1.9
    Rim internal width: 17 mm
    Pedals: Clipless
    Seatpost: Fixed height

  31. #31
    slow
    Reputation: sgltrak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    6,533
    A few other things that were not necessarily trends, but have been done in one form or another before and have come back:
    Electronic shifting (Browing Electronic Accushift Transmission)
    Hydraulic brakes (Magura rim brakes)
    Disc brakes

  32. #32
    No known cure
    Reputation: Vader's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    3,575
    Neon
    Skin walls
    Single rings, short stems and long, low slack geo is mainstream now.
    Ripping trails and tipping ales

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    261
    Quote Originally Posted by sgltrak View Post
    Hydraulic brakes (Magura rim brakes)
    Disc brakes
    When did they disappear in order to come back?

  34. #34
    slow
    Reputation: sgltrak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    6,533
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Howard View Post
    When did they disappear in order to come back?
    True, they can not come back if they have not been absent. It would be more appropriate to say that they have gained popularity in recent years.

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation: J.B. Weld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    13,628
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Howard View Post
    When did they disappear in order to come back?

    They were popular on 70's era cheap road bikes before mtb's were conjured up.

    What are trends you've seen come full circle?-jcpenney.jpg
    I brake for stinkbugs

  36. #36
    slow
    Reputation: sgltrak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    6,533
    Quote Originally Posted by J.B. Weld View Post
    They were popular on 70's era cheap road bikes before mtb's were conjured up.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	jcpenney.jpg 
Views:	45 
Size:	94.5 KB 
ID:	1344337
    My younger brother bought that exact bike from JC Penney when he was in middle school. He thought that disc brake was the coolest thing. It hardly slowed the bike.

  37. #37
    beater
    Reputation: evasive's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,674
    Tire levers. It seemed like everyone I knew took pride in never needing them or never using them. Now I see them mentioned all the time in tire reviews, etc. I imagine that’s due to the ubiquity of tubeless-ready rims and tires and tighter fits.

  38. #38
    Candlestick Maker
    Reputation: baker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,100
    Quote Originally Posted by evasive View Post
    Tire levers. It seemed like everyone I knew took pride in never needing them or never using them. Now I see them mentioned all the time in tire reviews, etc. I imagine that’s due to the ubiquity of tubeless-ready rims and tires and tighter fits.
    In my experience, tubeless ready rims and tires have more consistent fit that rarely needs lever. Old school rim and tires were hit and miss for me. I pretty much have always carried levers in my pack, even when I wore those neon fanny packs back in the late 80's. ;-)
    baker

  39. #39
    Bipolar roller
    Reputation: singletrackmack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    1,157
    Quote Originally Posted by mack_turtle View Post
    I’d rather rip my eyeballs out with a spork than ride my bike with chainstays longer than 430mm...
    Quote Originally Posted by Cerberus75 View Post
    This is me as well, I'm short and prefer 29ers. But I like short in the rear to maneuver tight areas and longer in the front so a mid bike shift in bodyweight keeps it stable.
    Well, luckily for those wanting well balanced mtbs with excellent handling on tight twisty single-track, chunk, hard corners and at speed, the bike industry does not pay any attention to what randos on internet forums prefer. If they did, we would be stuck with 71 degree head angles, 27.5” wheels and narrow tires and rims. Instead, using feedback from those who race and industry professionals, trend is now toward a bike that doesn’t create imbalance in the handling, which requires big rider weight shifts to stay in control.

    I know Gary Fisher was the one who started the short rear end, long front trend way back in 1998, which just shows how outdated that concept is. My 130mm full sus Gary Fisher from 2004 has a 470 reach with a 417mm chain-stay. It now feels like I am the captain of a barge when I ride that bike.

    Here is an excerpt from a bike shoot out review from just week or two ago speaking to CS length. I have been reading about this trend for about 3 or 4 years now and thank the lord it is finally catching on. Unfortunately, there are still people out there stuck in that early 2000, unbalanced geometry mindset. Luckily for me, I picked up on that crappy geo in 2004 (thought it was the best thing ever back then) and by now it is as much of a joke to me as URT suspension was back in ‘04, so I have no issues moving on, unlike some who for some reason think that it is modern concept.


    “The perfect chainstay length – it’s not how long or short, it’s how balanced!
    The average chainstay length of the bikes in this test is 438 mm (distance from bottom bracket to rear axle) and the average front centre is 800.8 mm (bottom bracket to front axle) giving an average front to rear ratio of 1.82. It’s interesting to note that the bikes with longer chainstays in relation to the front centre, like the Nukeproof Mega, Propain Tyee and Trek Slash (1.79, 1.81 and 1.80 respectively) proved the easiest bikes to handle for most riders, whereas bikes with a longer front centre in relation to the chainstays, such as the Privateer 161 and Giant Reign (1.86 and 1.87 respectively), required a more demanding riding style to weight the front wheel through turns. As bike geometry evolves, experience is showing us that as bikes grow longer, it’s important to increase chainstay length proportionally too. We found the bikes with chainstays of around 445 mm combined with a roomy but not extreme reach of around 470 mm (for a size L bike) are the most intuitive handling bikes for most 180–185cm tall riders. Therefore, it’s no surprise that the winning bikes, the Nukeproof Mega and Propain Tyee CF, have longer chainstays at 450 mm and 445 mm and a more moderate reach (470 and 471 mm).”

    https://enduro-mtb.com/en/best-budge...l-bike-review/

    Quote Originally Posted by jeremy3220 View Post
    Yep, I initially thought short chainstays were a good way to keep the wheelbase in check on modern slack bikes with long reaches. In reality, the imbalance it causes offsets any gains from the shorter rear. It feels like you're riding on the rear wheel and pivoting around it rather than being centered. This feels very awkward.
    Yup, that is exactly what’s going on there. Very awkward, especially after riding a bike with well thought out geo (not dart board decision making) that is balanced and handles tight-corners, chunk and speed easily without having to shift your weight all over the place just to stay in control.
    Get out of the gutter and onto the mountain top.

  40. #40
    Bipolar roller
    Reputation: singletrackmack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    1,157
    Quote Originally Posted by sgltrak View Post
    Wide rims. 25mm internal width was normal in the late 80's (Araya RM25, for example), but then around the time Keith Bontrager rolled down the first MA40 road rims to 26" size, everything was going narrower.
    Also, non-DH casing 2.5” wide tires. They started to be a thing in the very early 90’s, until Keith Bontrager ruined this with that heavy focus on making wheels super light and narrow. With that becoming so popular in the early 90’s, 2.5” wide tires never had a chance to gain traction (pun intended).
    Get out of the gutter and onto the mountain top.

  41. #41
    One ring to mash them all
    Reputation: the one ring's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    1,645
    My 1988 Stumpjumper is 10 speed. My 2018 Nimble 9 is 10 speed.

    "I did a full 360."
    "…it has long been said: oft evil will shall evil mar."
    — Tolkien

    Real eyes realize real lies.

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mack_turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    11,116
    Quote Originally Posted by singletrackmack View Post

    Here is an excerpt from a bike shoot out review from just week or two ago speaking to CS length. I have been reading about this trend for about 3 or 4 years now and thank the lord it is finally catching on. Unfortunately, there are still people out there stuck in that early 2000, unbalanced geometry mindset.
    I saw you bring this up in another thread, as if you found some magic bullet nugget of wisdom that can clobber everyone with some profound gnostic gospel of bike truth that cannot be compromised. it has holes. it's good advice for someone trying to build an enduro racing bike, especially if they are tall. cool.

    this is from a magazine that focuses on enduro racing. that is the furthest thing from my experience in mountain biking, so it's not applicable to me or a lot of other people. nothing on that website looks like terrain that I ride or bikes that I would want to buy. the advice therein is useful to people who want a long-travel bike for that kind of riding, but that might not apply well to me riding uphill chunky rock gardens in wilderness on a singlespeed hardtail. like i said, it's what works for me and my riding and it's not applicable to everyone. that's why it's nice that there are a variety of bikes available on the market. not everything needs to be a cookie-cutter enduro bro LLS "shred sled" for people in full face helmets going mach5 down a mountain.

    this has always is the problem with forums and magazines: people assume that what works for them on their trails in their region for how they get their kicks applies to everyone else' experience. it doesn't. there are many variable that make one bike better for a given rider than another, including personal experience. I stated my personal preference based on experience riding several different bikes and I am told that my personal preference is "wrong." GTFO with that.

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    23
    Droppers- We use to just stop and use our quick release seat post clamp to lower it.
    The new ones seem better but oh so heavy.

    Cut off jeans for shorts, oh wait that was a cute girl I saw yesterday on my ride but I was glad they were back.

  44. #44
    Bipolar roller
    Reputation: singletrackmack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    1,157
    Quote Originally Posted by mack_turtle View Post
    I saw you bring this up in another thread, as if you found some magic bullet nugget of wisdom that can clobber everyone with some profound gnostic gospel of bike truth that cannot be compromised. it has holes. it's good advice for someone trying to build an enduro racing bike, especially if they are tall. cool.

    this is from a magazine that focuses on enduro racing. that is the furthest thing from my experience in mountain biking, so it's not applicable to me or a lot of other people. nothing on that website looks like terrain that I ride or bikes that I would want to buy. the advice therein is useful to people who want a long-travel bike for that kind of riding, but that might not apply well to me riding uphill chunky rock gardens in wilderness on a singlespeed hardtail. like i said, it's what works for me and my riding and it's not applicable to everyone. that's why it's nice that there are a variety of bikes available on the market. not everything needs to be a cookie-cutter enduro bro LLS "shred sled" for people in full face helmets going mach5 down a mountain.

    this has always is the problem with forums and magazines: people assume that what works for them on their trails in their region for how they get their kicks applies to everyone else' experience. it doesn't. there are many variable that make one bike better for a given rider than another, including personal experience. I stated my personal preference based on experience riding several different bikes and I am told that my personal preference is "wrong." GTFO with that.
    I realize there will always personal preference. There are still riders who want a steep head angle with the thought that slacker HA will make a bike steering sluggish, or that want smaller, lighter wheels with the thought that that is how to make a bike more nimble or, in your case, a short rear end with the thought that is the way to make a bike handle tight trails and corners well and that’s great, but this thread is not about personal preferences of forum users, it is about industry trends.

    If you have been paying even the slightest attention to the improvements in geo at the end of the last decade, you would have seen that longer chainstays is a common trend, regardless if you’re looking at enduro, trail or xc bike. I only included that article because it just came out last week and is the most current one I have read regarding getting bikes to be more balanced for better handling and control across all types of trail riding.

    Here is some information on general mtb geo from MBR, last year (not just enduro)

    “Chain-stay length...

    Or, more accurately, the rear centre. This is the horizontal measurement between the centre of the rear wheel and the centre of the BB. Short back ends aren’t necessarily a good thing because they make a bike loop out more easily on climbs and, contrary to popular belief, don’t really help it to corner. Short chainstays can make a bike easier to get the front end up, which is both a good and bad thing depending on what you want to do.

    It’s a complicated issue, but together with the front centre, the chainstay length determines where you are on the bike (central, further back, further forward). There’s no right or wrong here, but greater length can help a bike to feel more stable descending, and also help keep the front end down when climbing. As a rough guide, 430mm-450mm is the norm on 29ers, 425mm-435mm on 27.5in bikes.”

    https://www.mbr.co.uk/news/mountain-...eometry-326498


    This from bikeradar, two years ago. Again, not an enduro focus...

    “The horizontal distance from the centre of the bottom bracket to the rear axle (aka chainstay length).

    Because the front-centre is usually significantly longer than the rear-centre, mountain bikes tend to have a naturally rearward weight distribution. This can be countered by the rider consciously putting pressure on the bar, but it can be uncomfortable. The ratio of rear centre to front centre length defines the front-to-rear weight distribution before this pressure is applied to the bar.

    Longer rear-centres therefore make it easier (less tiring) to achieve a more balanced weight distribution, which benefits front wheel traction in flat corners. On steep descents, the weight distribution becomes more front-biased anyway due to braking, so a long rear-centre becomes less advantageous.

    However, the longer the rear-centre, the more the rider’s weight must be lifted (with the bottom bracket) to lift the front wheel. A shorter rear-centre therefore reduces the effort to manual, but increases the effort required to properly weight the front wheel through the bar.“

    https://www.bikeradar.com/features/t...-and-handling/


    From nsmb...

    “Until recently, the shortest possible chainstays were the rage. And for some, they still are. Whether it’s because they’re being developed using a dartboard decision-making process or the result of actual engineering, short chainstays are going the way of 26" wheels. More brands are beginning to lengthen the rear centre to better position rider mass between the wheels.”


    Here is what the best of the best think. From last year...

    “The reason I want to be more centred is because, regardless of how tight the corner is, I’ll be able to ride it with a lot more confidence being in the middle of the bike, same goes for tech sections, mud etc. There won’t be this pushing and pulling trying to centre myself.” – Greg Minnaar


    This is just a few off the top of my head. I haven’t seen anything recent regarding the benefits of short-chainstays, other than adds disguised as articles to sell a bike with short chainstays or ones that conflicting information and/or reference bike models that are no longer made or were redesigned with longer chainstays the model year after. Maybe you could share some recent articles on the benefits of short chainstays?


    If not, then here is another fun one I am sure you will appreciate, but don’t worry, if you still like late 90’s, early 2000 geometry, gravel bikes are becoming very popular and are more road bike oriented with the short rear ends, steep head angles and skinny rims and tires which should keep those wanting old school mtb geo happy.


    “I’ll extend an olive branch here, and concede that 425mm chainstays can be fun in certain circumstances, like if you’re building a dirt jump bike, or you’re 5’4″, or you suck at riding, or some combination of the three. But if you’re riding somewhere above walking pace, and are at or above global average height, and we’re talking about a full suspension for trail riding, 425 chainstays suck.

    For the most part, bikes suck less than they used to. Suspension, tires, brakes, and (for the most part) geometry have all converged around some quality numbers that make sense for most riders. Chainstay length, however, is still determined with a dart board, or by monkeys with typewriters.

    Your front center/rear center ratio determines your weight balance on the bike. Changing one number directly affects how the other number feels when you’re on the bike. You should probably change both numbers at the same time. This could be the next REVOLUTION!!! in geometry:

    XS/SM: 425mm

    MED: 430mm

    LG: 435mm

    XL: 445mm

    XXL: Whatever Greg Minnaar is running this week”

    https://teamrobotkillsyourface.com/2...ys-still-suck/
    Get out of the gutter and onto the mountain top.

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mack_turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    11,116
    wow. I like short chainstays on my bike. so suck it.

    Greg Minnaar is a a downhill racer. his experience is useful, but not for my riding experience. I don't live anywhere near mountains. my bike is a medium and my chainstays are 425-430mm, depending on the gear I am experimenting with.

  46. #46
    Armature speller
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    3,494
    9 speed drivetrains

  47. #47
    Hoolie Ghoulie on Strava.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    3,056
    When I started Mt Biking in the 1980's I was slow (Nishiki Colorado). Then in the 90's And the 00's I was pretty fast. Now in the 20's I am slow again. I still feel like I am winning every time I ride though.
    Buy American, save lives. (Tough for cyclists)

  48. #48
    Your bike sucks
    Reputation: Carl Mega's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,928
    Quote Originally Posted by mack_turtle View Post
    wow. I like short chainstays on my bike. so suck it..
    Seriously. I read 1/2 that CnP of other people's yawnfest takes. It was exhausting. Insufferable.
    Working to stomp out redundancy, I repeat, working to stomp out redundancy.

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Hurricane Jeff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,608
    To clarify your comment on the Hite Ritem, Maverick, dropper post. It was not Maverick with the original dropper post but rather myself that come up with the idea when I owned Hurricane components.
    How the story goes( I give the condensed version)
    I used to use the Hite Rite back in the 80's and early 90's, love it, but they became harder to come by and I stopped using one some where in the mid 90's.
    In 1999, I thought how cool would it be to start using a HR again, although frames had changed from using a brazed on seat collar to the aluminum collars that 99% of bikes use today. The brazed on collar was required because it kept the saddle pointed straight when you undid the QR, an aluminum collar would rotate, so that was a small problem to overcome. We designed a collar that would not rotate when opened.
    We had it working perfectly. I called Joe Breeze( one of the inventors of the HR and also a early mtb pioneer) and told him my idea. He liked it and said that since he was not interested in marketing the HR that he would them them to me at $5 a piece.
    About a week later, he called me back and said that he talked to his partner, Josh Angell, and they came up with although they agreed to sell them, I had to buy the whole lot, about 25,000 units, at $5 each. Since there was no way we could come to agreement, I put the project on hold.
    In 2001, we figured, " why not have a telescoping seatpost?" We got an old RockShox suspension seatpost and modified it to work as a dropper with a pull knob on the front to raise and lower it. We tried it out, worked great, although in only had about 50mm of drop.
    Later on that year, we developed or own dropper design, using a mechanical spring, no air, no hydralics. We also developed a remote lever. We called it the "Elevator Shaft"
    At the 2002 Sea Otter Expo, although it was still in prototype stage, we had one on a bike in our booth(not being shown) but was noticed by some including Zapata Espinosa from Mountain Bike Mag, he asked a few questions and I reluctantly get him some answers. Also, a guy from Montana that was listening in, come up to me after Zap left and said that he was interested and to keep him posted. I believe that guy from Montana started Gravity Dropper a few years later.
    When I did finally start to show the Elevator Shaft, I was hit by a ton of criticism like, "I'm fixing a problem that doesn't exist, " its to heavy" "too complicated" "too costly" "I just want to ride my bike and not have to think about my seatpost"....etc, etc.
    But we continued on with the product, producing a very small batch of them (10)

    A few weeks later, my wife, who was now a few months pregnant, brought up the question "how is this all going to work?, your'e gone a lot ( machine shop and events) and she, ( bookkeeping, accounting, and marketing}"
    We decided to sell the business and within a week we had 2 offers.
    We sold to a company that was a vendor of ours. He decided that when he bought the company that he as going to drop making the Elevator Shaft post, our other rigid seatposts, cranks and stems. He was only interested in the Fork Up thru axle adapters.

    To sum it up, it was Hurricane that had the first(known) dropper seatpost. My only regret is that I should have gotten a patent or kept this product outside of including it in the sale.

    Anyway, that's the real story although it doesn't show in the history books of how the current dropper seatpost got its start.
    EXODUX Jeff

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation: tahoebeau's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    386
    Carbon wheels. And possibly, carbon wheels with carbon spokes. Although, they were not very common originally and not sure how common they are now, but somebody’s bringing it back.

    What are trends you've seen come full circle?-7e573466-9e02-438c-ad43-cf5e04a1953d.jpg

    What are trends you've seen come full circle?-12c847b3-f3cb-457b-944c-60232fc07a73.jpg

  51. #51
    mtbr member
    Reputation: tahoebeau's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    386
    Linkage forks!







    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails What are trends you've seen come full circle?-5a2cf91b-c547-43a1-a27e-dd94d9fe9e85.jpg  

    What are trends you've seen come full circle?-3cfe5dd3-d601-4911-9fe7-91a680f2d31c.jpg  

    What are trends you've seen come full circle?-52b26f47-3b02-4954-a4f3-2dc51c060ec0.jpg  

    What are trends you've seen come full circle?-37cc6f74-1efc-4474-b7c6-197e328b17d6.jpg  


  52. #52
    Self Appointed Judge&Jury
    Reputation: DIRTJUNKIE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Posts
    35,093
    Quote Originally Posted by NordieBoy View Post
    9 speed drivetrains
    Damn, and here I just finally ditched mine.
    Quote Originally Posted by mileslong View Post
    I passionately remove rocks and corners and other stuff I find too hard to ride.

  53. #53
    mtbr member
    Reputation: tahoebeau's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    386
    Quote Originally Posted by mack_turtle View Post
    wow. I like short chainstays on my bike. so suck it.
    You seem angry. You should be proud of the fact you ride a bike with a harder to control, squirrelly rear ends based off old mtb geometry. And while that’s impressive that you like and ride old geometry, as pointed out by others, what does that have to do with industry trends?


    Quote Originally Posted by mack_turtle View Post
    Greg Minnaar is a a downhill racer. his experience is useful, but not for my riding experience. I don't live anywhere near mountains.
    I like how you chose to ignore all the other references to how the industry trends are going to longer rear centers for all types of riding disciplines and just focus on one reference regarding a discipline you don’t ride.

    The fact you don’t ride mountains explains why don’t have a need for modern mtb geometry, so old mtb geometry works just fine there. As pointed about below, sounds like a gravel bike could be a better choice for you going forward as mountain bike trends improve each year with better and better geo aimed at improving control, stability and most importantly, handling at speed and in hard, tight twisty turns for those of us who actually do ride their bikes in the mountains or on demanding terrain. The longer cs also greatly improves balance on steep tech climbs in chunky rock gardens or twisty root steps. For those riding flat, much less demanding terrain at slower speeds, old geo or gravel bike geo will be just fine.
    Last edited by tahoebeau; 2 Weeks Ago at 08:26 AM.

  54. #54
    Candlestick Maker
    Reputation: baker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,100
    Quote Originally Posted by tahoebeau View Post
    Linkage forks!
    <useless comment>
    Regardless of how good the Lauf forks may work, I think they are so damn ugly.
    </useless comment>
    baker

  55. #55
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Hurricane Jeff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,608
    I had some spare time when I separated my AC last fall in a crash and finally made 3D printed gravel fork that I had been thinking about for a while. While it is unrideable and certainly needs a few things changed, it works really well.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails What are trends you've seen come full circle?-img_1775.jpg  

    What are trends you've seen come full circle?-img_1776.jpg  

    What are trends you've seen come full circle?-img_1773.jpg  

    EXODUX Jeff

  56. #56
    Self Appointed Judge&Jury
    Reputation: DIRTJUNKIE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Posts
    35,093
    Quote Originally Posted by baker View Post
    <useless comment>
    Regardless of how good the Lauf forks may work, I think they are so damn ugly.
    </useless comment>
    Lol
    And heavier.
    Quote Originally Posted by mileslong View Post
    I passionately remove rocks and corners and other stuff I find too hard to ride.

  57. #57
    No known cure
    Reputation: Vader's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    3,575
    Quote Originally Posted by Hurricane Jeff View Post
    I had some spare time when I separated my AC last fall in a crash and finally made 3D printed gravel fork that I had been thinking about for a while. While it is unrideable and certainly needs a few things changed, it works really well.
    Too cool!
    Ripping trails and tipping ales

  58. #58
    Snow Dog
    Reputation: str8edgMTBMXer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    3,252
    Quote Originally Posted by hoolie View Post
    When I started Mt Biking in the 1980's I was slow (Nishiki Colorado). Then in the 90's And the 00's I was pretty fast. Now in the 20's I am slow again. I still feel like I am winning every time I ride though.
    church...

    best full circle ever.

    I also feel like I wrecked more in the 80's while learning, then I got decent in the 90's. Took 20 something years off due to life, and now I wreck more.... does that mean that stupid also comes full circle?
    Go Practice. Figure it out - Fleas

    15 Surly Krampus - King Amongst Bikes
    LET IT SNOW!

  59. #59
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jmmUT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,426
    Quote Originally Posted by Vader View Post
    Skin walls

    Came here to say that! We will all remember in a year or so that they dry and crack too easy and fast. But dang they always look cool.

  60. #60
    Bipolar roller
    Reputation: singletrackmack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    1,157
    Steel. Mtbs started with steel then there was a time in the 2000 when steel frames, especially full suspension steel frames were completely out of style. Now, there are plenty of companies making frames from steel and many making full sus steel bikes as well. Too bad we will not be seeing anymore True Temper frames though.
    Get out of the gutter and onto the mountain top.

  61. #61
    Your bike sucks
    Reputation: Carl Mega's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,928
    Quote Originally Posted by tahoebeau View Post
    I like how you chose to ignore all the other references
    "references" lol. "I don't always argue my glib view of bike geometry but when I do, I pick a thread on an unrelated topic."
    Working to stomp out redundancy, I repeat, working to stomp out redundancy.

  62. #62
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mack_turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    11,116
    I still don't understand how we can be such uncompromising ninnies about one another's personal preferences. frame materials, wheel sizes, types of pedals, minutiae of frame geometry... "pick one and be a fascist about it" is the order of the day. there's no end to the hyperbole applied to what someone wants to ride. I stated my preference for shorter chainstays because it was implied that longer ones are inherently inferior and I must be some kind of inferior person because I have a preference. God forbid I state a preference for one aspect of how my own bike is designed that contradicts what the current trends are and chose to buy a bicycle that is not a Grim Donut because that's what I enjoy riding.

    next you're going to tell me is that I am wrong to put banana slices on my pizza. it's my pizza, I do what I want with it!

  63. #63
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mack_turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    11,116
    Quote Originally Posted by tahoebeau View Post
    You seem angry. You should be proud of the fact you ride a bike with a harder to control, squirrelly rear ends based off old mtb geometry.
    if that's how you want to view it, I'lll take that as a compliment. thanks! I do take pride in the fact that I keep up with people who are "overbiked" in places that I am already "underbiked." it works for me and I don't have to apologize to people if they have to buy a bike that covers up their lack of skill to ride at the same level. if they're having fun, that's fantastic and I don't care. just don't look down on people who are enjoying themselves and doing it with relative grace.

Similar Threads

  1. You've (We've) Come A Long Way Baby
    By Soloracer in forum Fat bikes
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 04-27-2014, 08:23 AM
  2. Just when you think you've seen it all
    By Ted_R in forum Texas
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-10-2012, 05:19 PM
  3. I've come full circle.....
    By wasea04 in forum Titus
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 02-26-2012, 01:33 AM
  4. Searle Pass, Colorado Trail. (I've come full circle.)
    By anthonys in forum Riding Passion
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 08-03-2007, 06:13 AM
  5. I've come full circle
    By MM_Freak in forum Riding Passion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 05-28-2006, 05:59 AM

Members who have read this thread: 206

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 2020 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.