Scientists split the atom way back in 1917, but Shimano hasn't figured out an effective bite-point adjustment. SRAM apparently killed the front derailleur but has allowed narrow-wide pulley wheels to live another day. People complain about expensive new gear and then go out on their dual-suspension, tubeless tire-equipped mountain bike that can run for months with only minimal maintenance. You can be a competitive vaper (no joke), but there are only seven World Cup rounds. People stop believing in Santa Claus but keep believing in the gearbox.
What a world.Why doesn't that little Phillips screw on a Shimano brake do something?Shimano has house-sized machines that can crush massive chunks of metal down into the best crankarms out there, and they make brakes that could be used to slow down the earth's rotation, but the Japanese giant still hasn't figured out how to include an effective bite-point adjustment system. Go ahead, turn that little Phillips screw all the way in; now turn it all the way out.
Actually, you may as well take it right out and throw it away because it has about as much effect as a child's Asprin would on Whitney Houston in the 1990s.
Shimano has had some issues of late with their highest-end brakes, but their stoppers are generally thought of as some of the most reliable and powerful out there. Pretty much every other brake company has figured out some sort of bite-point adjustment system but Shimano. I'm sure that the Japanese engineers over there have a few reasons for this, and I'm also sure someone from Shimano will tell me all about them, but I don't really care - Shimano could obviously do it, and they should.
Why does SRAM use narrow-wide pulley wheels?SRAM developed their first single-ring drivetrain, XX1, to the point of near-perfection before releasing it in 2012, and all of their follow-up efforts have performed just as well. In fact, it's fair to say that these groups, from XX1 to GX, have had a massive impact on the sport, at least from a gear-centric perspective. One thing that I never could figure out, however, were the narrow-wide pulley wheels that SRAM has used on all of their X-Horizon derailleurs up until releasing Eagle. I say this because one of my only complaints (that I've made in countless bike reviews) with all of SRAM's current single-ring groups comes down to how the derailleur's upper pulley wheel constantly comes out of time with the chain - the wide teeth are then timed to mate with the inner plates of the chain, and the narrow teeth with the outer. The result is a rough feeling being transmitted through the pedals, and it takes having to shift the chain all the way down to the ten-tooth cog and then back up to a large one to right things.
It seems to be more common on some bikes than others, and I've been told that chain length can be a factor, but it's a quirk that I come across with nearly every test bike that has a SRAM drivetrain. The people at SRAM are a hell of a lot smarter than me, so I'm surprised that they continued with the narrow-wide pulley wheels for so long, but it's looking like that's coming to an end: their new Eagle twelve-speed drivetrain employs an upper pulley wheel with uniform teeth, and I wouldn't be surprised to see all of their single-ring drivetrains go this route.
I would have thought than an enterprising aftermarket company would have come up their own pulley wheels featuring standard width teeth, but that hasn't happened. Levy's Pulleys, anyone? Maybe not.
Why so much hate for new stuff?Alright, I get it, you just bought a new bike last year and now it's apparently out of date, which will no doubt curb its resale value. And none of your wheels from 2013 are the same diameter as those from 2014, none of the 2014 wheels are the same size as the ones from 2015, and 2015's wheels are different than what's being shown for 2016. Oh yeah, some of the hub widths are different as well. Also, from wheels to suspension to drivetrain, it just feels good to be on the latest gear... and now you're not.
None of that actually matters, though.
Your bike's value nearly bottomed out after you rode it a few times, regardless of whatever size wheels it rolls on or what's replaced it in the catalog since you bought it. Besides, most riders seem to keep their bikes for four or five years, which is long enough that it might as well have 20" wheels by the time you trade it for a PS4 on the Pinkbike buy and sell. And speaking of wheels and the eye-rolling hate that seems to go along with the subject, all they are are options. You pick the size that best suits your needs, be it the same 26'' hoops that you've always used, or a set of 29+ wheels and tires that make more sense for you and your terrain. One thing I do understand, however, is so many readers being sick and tired of hearing about "new" wheel sizes and the marketing oil slick that goes along with them - no new piece of equipment is as important as the rider.
I guess what I don't understand is how someone can shit on a well thought out product, calling it either stupid or saying that it isn't needed, and then go out for a ride on their 2008 Giant or Specialized (insert any brand here) that, at one point in time, was cutting edge. Hey, buddy, it's not like you're out there on a steel beach cruiser that you've converted with an old five-speed derailleur and wider tires, so get off that high horse. You may not want anything to do with XTR Di2, Eagle, the latest suspension, or a different wheel size, but don't forget that your 2008 Stumpjumper or Reign is still awesome because it
was the latest and greatest when it first came out. And let's not forget that you're getting a hell of a lot more bike for your money than you ever did eight years ago.
If you look online, you can still find all sort of parts for 26'' wheels and older drivetrains that will keep your trusty bike running for many years to come, most of them much less expensive now that newer things are available. So keep riding your trusty steed, but know that when you do decide to get a new bike five or ten years from now, it's going to be one hell of a machine thanks to all the stuff you're calling crap today.
Why do people think the gearbox is the answer?The answer to what, our now reliable, efficient, and relatively affordable drivetrains that work really, really well?
Yes, the idea of a sealed drivetrain that's taken off of the bike's moving suspension bits and placed in a low, centralized location on the front triangle would make some sense, and the potential is certainly there for something, but there are plenty of reason why the latest ten, eleven and twelve-speed drivetrains shouldn't be replaced by a big, heavy metal box full of gears. A funny thing happened over the last five years: derailleur drivetrains got really, really good. I'm talking about the system as a whole, from lighter weight chain guides that don't rub or bend, smartly designed derailleur hangers, and even easy to service freehubs that seem to last for seasons of abuse before needing some love. Evolution is a wonderful thing, but it also weeds out the weak, and gearboxes are like the stillborn antelope in the herd.
Don't believe me? Chains don't fall at the mere sight of a bump like they used to, and current drivetrains are more efficient and lighter than a gearbox could ever dream of being. And the biggest factor has to be that, after decades of development, Shimano and SRAM aren't about to ditch derailleurs anytime soon.
I think that most consumers want to purchase what they see being used by professional riders, be it racers on the World Cup circuit or freeriders in the latest movie. When was the last time you saw a gearbox bike take a major win in a race? The old Honda team and gearbox bike certainly made an impact, but they also exited the sport after only a few years. Yes, there's a good chance that Gwin would be just as quick on a gearbox bike, but he is also looking for the lightest and most efficient tool for the job, and that happens to be a traditional (although highly specialized) drivetrain. The same goes for the rest of the field, and I'd be willing to bet that a gearbox bike won't win again anytime soon.
I'm sure there are going to be a few hundred comments on this article from the gearbox gang calling me an idiot, and that's fine. We
recently tested Cavalerie's gearbox bike, the Anakin, and found that it had too much drag in the system, so much continually rotating mass inside the 'box that the slowing wheel gently pushed the rider's weight forward in the air, and you can't shift under the slightest of pedaling loads. And if that wasn't enough,
a recent Pinkbike Poll with 9,607 replies found that just 611 people feel that they need to constantly adjust their derailleur-based system, 3,398 say that they're happy, but there's some room for improvement, and a whopping 5,598 replied that they rarely ever have any issues.
No, a derailleur-based drivetrain isn't always going to be perfect; stuff can wear out or break just as anything else can, especially if it isn't looked after. But the answer isn't to bolt an inefficient, heavy, finicky shifting metal box to the bottom of our bikes. Gearboxes are the answer to a problem that current drivetrains have, for the most part, already solved.
Why aren't there more World Cup rounds?I know the answer to this one - money - but still, it just seems silly that our premier race series consists of only six or seven events, and sometimes even less than that. Pretty much every other top tier sporting series that races around the world features more events, be it motor powered or human powered, but we often have to wait a month or more between World Cups, a gap in action that can make it all feel more like a bunch of random events than a true series. I know, I know,
putting on a World Cup race is a bit more complicated than organizing a local beer-fueled so-called race for twenty of your friends, and that the host has to pay the UCI a chunk of money while also signing a byzantine contract that covers everything from marketing and multimedia rights, sponsor visibility, to how many transgender-friendly outhouses are on site. But even so, as someone who loves to watch racing of any kind, I've always thought that our World Cup season should be fifteen or twenty rounds long.
Would it cost teams a lot more money to have their riders spend even more time in Europe? Probably, but the series could be laid out smartly to make things as logistically painless and inexpensive as possible. Many European resort towns are quite close to each other, for example, so the whole circus could spend a weekend at one mountain before moving down the road to the next, or even back to back weekends at the same mountain but racing on different courses. Sure, events in other parts of the world would be spaced out more, but Europe has always been the real home of World Cup racing anyways, so the majority of the races would still take place in countries like Italy and France, among others nearby.
But what about the racers - won't that be too much racing for them? You only need to look at the massive road racing calendar to see that the World Cup cross-country crew is easily capable of tackling much more than they are now, and if Supercross racers can make it through a series that's nearly twenty events long, so can the downhillers. Injuries would come into play, of course, but there are many more rounds to make up (or lose even more) points.
In the end, it's time, money and logistics that will keep the World Cup calendar from ever being much longer than it is now, but a guy can dream, can't he?
But... Creating a new axle standard every 2 years is bullshit. Creating a headset standard between 1 1/8 and 1.5 is bullshit. Even the creation of 27.5 was bullshit. Yes there is a performance advantage.... but was it worth such a massive switch in standards? all the riders who were fast on 26 are now fast on 27.5 so what next? a motor?
Another thing is a resell value - well, I DO NOT care. Really. I would happily ride my 26 bike till it breaks. However, I am pissed off when I cannot buy a decent tire or rim for it. All new refined tire models come in 27.5 or 29, all new rim models come in 27.5 and 29. And even if they come in 26, your national distributor will probably not bother buying them. So what I really hate is the marketing pressure on me - sell it quickly or you will not be able to use it properly - this is really the message for me.
And a little digression, few days ago I was on an MTB training. The instructor rides Anakin (and loves it), hates 27.5 wheels and is a real ripper.
More world cuo rounds though... it´s ridiculous that they don´t do more, and that calendars are closed more than a year in advance, it shows no willingness to make more events even if it was possible.
Why does everything need to be standardized? If bike manufacturers were limited to single bb, wheel size, axles, etc, it would limit their ability to make better products. No other industry is so completely fixated on standards. Why should this the case with bikes?
You're essentially saying that standards are more importance than performance. That's a dumb argument.
If manufacturers didnt have to cater for multiple axle, BB, headset etc sizes, can you imagine how much manufacturing costs would drop?
Of course you cant, because you're too busy dishing out for boost 147 because of 2.9% stiffness increase.
Anyway im going keep picking and choosing what i feel is going to improve my riding experiences and going from 142 to 148 aint gonna make me faster but a dropper post will. GET IT!!
If we can still find parts to fix threaded stems and paddle shifters on road bikes, I think we'll be able to keep our bikes running pretty much indefinitely.
HA!! where's the thumbs up like button?
it's really boils down to the same reason the computer, phone and so many other industries "upgrade" out the waaazoo.... too many sucka's out there want the latest and greatest.
If the demand is high enough they WILL make you what you want.. But the demand has to be high, with customers ready to spend hard earned dollars on "old technology". Most customers spending big dollars will buy the newest products on the market. Would you pay new car price for a 5 year old model?
I'm on a 26er. It was a brand new 2015 model. I love it. I couldn't tell the difference between 27.5 and 26".
I just really hope the aftermarkets pick up the 26" and 20mm stuff with quality replacement parts.
The problem with them is there prone to punctures, because to keep the weight down they made them single ply !
No, because you can't have one frame that will work for a 29er Trail bike and a 26er FR bike, even if you could adjust the angles. Even with the advent of 'All Mountain' bikes, there is no bike that does everything well. XC bikes will still climb faster and DH will still descend faster and hold up to the abuse better to an AM bike.
Besides, it's not really the tools, it's the carpenter. Technology helps, but the pilot is key to success.
Can you buy a > 25mm inner width rim for 26 which weights 600g ?
Can you buy a maxxis ardent 2.4 EXO in Poland ? No (but you can in Germany, so OK)
Can you buy maxxis aggressor in 26 ? Nope
Can you buy a DD or WT Minion in 26 ? Nope
Can you buy Minion SS in 26 ? Nope
Can you buy Michelin Wild Grip 2.4 in 26 ? Nope, only skinny version.
and so on
Is this absolutely needed ? No, but I would like to try it and I cannot without spending > $2k on a new bike.
Keep in mind that we have 2016, so it is only ~2 years of 26 being dead.
Now we get to the definition of decent. What is decent ? Is it something that is ok, or something that compares ok to "current" offerings ? Is horse a decent mean transport because it was the best in 1800 ?
Anyway, this discussion is quite pointless, because ALL we can do is to SHUT UP AND RIDE.
But Mr. Levy asked why we are pissed off, so this is the answer. No one can convince me that I should not be pissed of when someone pisses me off, you get that ? This is my only right as a customer of bike industry
@Apache1: Bike companies didn't discontinue 26" wheels as part of some industry-wide conspiracy to make your bike obsolete and steal your hard earned money. They did it because people stopped buying them. Ask anyone in the industry. Most people were absolutely shocked that it happened, and a lot of companies got screwed (the Yeti Sb-66 and Evil Uprising are great examples of awesome bikes that nobody wanted because they had the wrong wheel size). The market drove that change.
The other factor in the decline of the 26" wheel: 27.5" wheels have a few benefits, and almost no downside.
I'm sorry for everyone who is pissed the industry walked away from 26" wheels. But get over it.
You're missing a painfully obvious point: nobody is buying 26" bike stuff anymore! Bike companies are just that: companies. They aren't going to keep producing things that nobody wants to buy. Products that don't sell get discontinued. That's what happened to 26" bikes. People stopped buying them, and companies stopped making them. So many people see an industry-wide conspiracy, but its just simple economics.
In the meantime, you can still get parts for 26" bikes really cheap. Keep riding your bike. And when you eventually need to upgrade to something new, you'll be amazed about how much better things have gotten.
What you describe would essentially be a 29er with swappable dropouts and really long/wide chainstays. It would ride like shit with smaller wheels, and wouldn't benefit from any of the advantages of the new axle standards.
Building a bike is a compromise. Any bike that could do all that, wouldn't be very good at anything.
So 25mm vs >25mm is analgous to riding a horse instead of a car?
So EXO vs DD is analgous to riding a horse instead of a car?
Basically your definition of "a decent tire and rim combo" is literally the newest and best products available for DH and enduro. That's just unrealistic considering there's are virtually no high end 26" bikes being made currently, and pretty much by definition the people still riding 26" bikes spend comparatively little on bike stuff (otherwise.... you'd have bought a new bike by now).
I've already tried those innovations and dont see all the supposed perks anywhere. Bigger wheels don't make riding more fun (fun is all that matters for me), not at all. And you can believe me, I don't belong to the hardline fundamentalist church of 26ordie, and if I saw the fun factor increasing I would upgrade to something new tomorrow, but that aint happening.
But better rim-tire is a better ride and this is much more noticeable than changing the wheel size from 26 to 27.5. Or it was possible to tell that until they stopped making new 26 tires. So yes, the innovation is happening, but not all innovations are really innovations. 27.5 was a smart move, because this is a visible change. Much more than for example stiffness of the frame, so it is much easier to convince customer - bigger:better, simple. So in effect of course newer bikes ride much better then older bikes. But this is not because 27.5 wheels and metric sized shocks, no.
I had just come off a 2009 Pitch and it was very close to modern enduro bikes in geometry and was everybit as fast as my current bike so yes I would jump back on an older bike and enjoy myself just as I do now.
The world is a big, scary place. Shitty things are going on all the time. There are lots of completely valid reasons to get angry. The bike industry making mountain bikes with wheels that are 1.5" larger than what everyone had grown accustomed to isn't one of them.
You think its a marketing conspiracy. Others think its just overwhelming consumer demand. It doesn't really matter. At the end of the day, if the marketing hype that surrounds any new innovation in bikes makes you that mad, maybe you should steer clear of websites that are devoted to that exact topic. Life is too short to be pissed off at shit that doesn't really matter.
The question was "why is there so much hate for new stuff", as if anybody who doesn't jump on the bandwagon is some tin hate wearing curmudgeon, which simply isnt the case.
Nobody has a problem with innovation, what they do have a problem with is being constantly bombarded with new innovations to a point where you think; If the companies releasing this stuff had done the correct amount of RnD in the first place, they would have skipped 142 and 157 axle standards and gone straight to boost, but they were so obsessed with bringing their new standard to market that the consumer is left out of pocket.
As a consumer you do have the right to call bullshit on this stuff, the world might be a big scary place but that doesn't give everyone in it a pass.
Innovation requires experimentation and trying new things. It's so great that mountain biking keeps growing. We have cross country, trail, downhill, free ride, park, slope style, downhill, trials, skate park. While it's possible to ride all those different disciplines on the same bike, it's much better to have bikes designed for the job you want them to do. One wheel size, one set of brakes, one seat post, and one drive train won't suit all riders and styles the same. Buy the bike (or bikes) that work for you and ride them as much as time allows.
www.facebook.com/22inchbmx
www.intownwebdesign.com/discussion/22-inch-bmx-roundup.html
Quit crying. Embrace what you have. Stop moaning about the industry.
You can still get Ardents, Minions, Flows,carbon rims, procore, all that shit for 26". There is nothing to complain about. My 26er has better kit on it now than when it came out, and I still ride it.
If you can't deal with not having the latest tech, then you've swallowed the industry hype just as wholeheartedly as the people who bought 650b and plus bikes.
"oh my god my bike is extinct, there is no parts"
"oh look at all these 27.5 bikes on the wall"
"they don't sell a single 26" wheeled bike anymore"
"maybe its time to start shopping"
I spoke with Maxxis on the subject a little while ago before buying my 26" wheeled Process 167 - and they said that they will make quality 26" tires for as long as the industry demands it. What we as 26" customers need to do is call up the mfgrs and demand it, and shop somewhere that does support it.
I'm not worried about it going away - just a little annoyed. I've ridden both and the difference in my opinion is not night and day.
For me, I just ride... I don't really care as long as it rolls
If the LBS made 26er parts readily available, they would sell fewer 27.5" bikes this is a fact.
You are correct their agenda is to make money, and the LBS easily makes more money selling bikes than they do tires. If the LBS pushes fewer 26er parts, manufacturers will move fewer 26er parts, in turn slowing production and evolution of 26er parts. I don't blame the end user, I blame those in industry who are becoming greedy.
@DARKSTAR63 Exactly, and that is 100% why I said that. If you support 26", do it. Don't just talk about it.
In my closet hangs new: 1x 26x2.5 Minion DHF 3C DH Maxx Grip, 1x 26x2.3 High Roller II 3C TR EXO Maxx Terra, 1x 26x2.4 Minion DHF 3C TR EXO Maxx Terra. Brand new Process 167 this spring.
@PedalShopLLC I personally think everyone is scared to get "stuck" with 26er stuff, therefore everyone is running with their hands in the air as fast as possible to the latest trend. Buyers or product and producers of product alike. This is a weird weird industry, sport and hobby.
There is so little difference between 26 and 27.5, that it seems ridiculous to completely ditch 26" all together. And I think THAT is what people are up in arms about.
With all the new trends it seems odd to forget where we came from - when it infact isn't that different.
Addition by subtraction. Or something.
I'd love to go 26x2.6" tires and stick it to these f@gs pushing the 27.5 etc etc etc game. I have the room for it front and rear. Looks like Surly is one of the only ones making a mid-fat 26" tire at 26x2.75" Wonder how much i'd have to shave the knobs to get that baby on and working well??? hahhaha
Minion SS just released in 26" www.maxxis.com/catalog/tire-500-121-minion-ss
Now quitcher bitchen and go buy one!
26" isn't dead…. It just isn't the new fad.
And i'm okay with my "old" 2015 Process 167, that slays the up and downhill.
No wonder you think losing in resale value because of a mostly useless new standard isn't an issue. And don't tell me you're impartial in this.
As to free bikes: if anything, being free of all or some of the cost consideration leaves someone more free to choose their ride solely based on performance. I can't see how this would possibly hurt the credibility of someone's opinion on which technology is higher-performing. I can, however, think of several reasons why someone who IS considering cost can get a polluted opinion very quickly.
I run a "come to your house" tune-up thing on the side to fund my biking habit, and talk to 5 or 6 new people every week about this stuff. You know how many people I have met that are as angry about the wheel size and changing standards in person? ZERO. I've met a lot of people who ride them and love them, and a lot of people who have old standards that wish they had the cash to shell out for the new standards, but none of the people I meet are as violent and aggressive as the comments I read every day on this site.
Every time I see blows exchanged about how the bike industry is screwing everyone and how the PinkBike staff is biased and this or that or the other, all I understand is that there are a lot of people here who are pissed that they can't afford everything that they want. They're all biased by their own life experiences, and when someone brings new understanding to the table, they shoot it down because they can't or won't be included.
Props to the PinkBike staff for putting up with us, the unrelenting and ultimately insatiable crowd that we are.
I and I'm sure a good number of others are in the group of "can afford it, but phucken why spend the money?"
* Whether or not PB caters (or panders) to the industry is besides the point when you consider that advertisers will show up SIMPLY AS A RESULT OF LOT'S OF TRAFFIC.
* Perhaps the anger is the result of feeling like there is no news source that is representative of the reader?
* Don't confuse the demographic you serve in your business, which appears to be more than willing to spend money whether or not they actually need it, with a majority.
* Don't forget, if you ever knew, that ANY capitalist industry (and there are alternatives BTW) prefers conspicuous consumers! Are you sure that isn't the demographic you serve?
Anger is never a preferred state. If you sense anger around here, it's not because peeps "just want to be angry". There's a reason!
But I think you are super naive about journalism.
And being critical has nothing to do with can/can't afford. I can afford several new bikes a year, but I don't want to buy into stuff that's just a fad and does not have real value to me. I'm really happy to pay for innovation that makes my riding even more fun.
@zsandstrom great post. Most people I meet on the trail have no clue about the standards BS, want it/love it, or are mildly annoyed by it. The PB staff are basically just working stiffs like the rest of us. Nobody is handing them stacks of cash under the table to promote things that suck, and I hate seeing people write comments as if they were a bunch of corrupt shills. Put yourself in their shoes, and think how it would feel to have people shitting on your work and calling out your character every day. It's a bad look to assume the worst in people, and if you see corruption and compromise in everything they do, maybe take a harder look at how you'd act in their situation. You probably see it in yourself too.
Do I agree with racists? Obviously not, being black in America. But that does not negate the face that THEY THINK THEY HAVE LEGITIMATE REASON. Anger will exists in a populace whether or not the reasons are legitimate, but there is always a reason.
So you get an E for effort, but an F overall since you are trying to dismiss any and all that disagree via a flawed logical mechanism.
The next logical question is did you "go there" since you have some deep and not understood need to quell the cognitive dissonance of your position? That irrational need to buy all the latest 5h1t regardless of if you'll use it too 100% or even 40% of it's potential?
Seriously, I don't mind having a chat, but don't try to dismiss me and others with something that would smell like BS in high school logic class.
I'm just saying plenty of people willingly stay mad about all kinds of erroneous shit. It's like a form of entertainment even - people love talk radio, cable news, etc despite (or because of) the fact that it fires them up. It keeps them coming back, and they learn to see the thing they're pissed off about in all aspects of life. I know TONS of people who are constantly angry about things. Bikes, pop music, anime, politics, race, religion, etc. I personally used to hate and get mad about mainstream rap. Then I realized I was acting like a surly backpacker a*shole and learned to chill out about it.
Idk why you're making it personal. I don't see anything in my comment that appears insulting or directed at you. Just making a point that some people LOVE staying angry about stuff.
It's not about me trying to justify buying new shit - I own a clapped out XC 26", a sub-$1500 29er, and a bikesdirect CX bike. I'm content with what I own and ride it as hard as I'm able, and that's why I don't get pissed about standards. Even if I could get the latest and greatest, I wouldn't be pushing it to the limit, so who cares? 99.9% of riders on this site fall into this category - if they don't, they're probably sponsored and get deals on new shit anyway. Someday I'll get a new bike and it'll be sick. The fact that 27.5 boost wheels exist doesn't affect my ability to ride at all. Same goes for everyone here. Which, again, is why I say it's a bullshit, fictional narrative, and it's stupid to be mad about it.
Please stop equating upset cyclists with racists.
Considering nobody else starting at Vanguards post has specifically said "I'm mad" about "this wheel" or "that hub", might you be making assumptions about why some may be upset? Above I said....
"Perhaps the anger is the result of feeling like there is no news source that is representative of the reader?"
With that in mind, I AM POSITIVE that nobody thinks everything brand new coming from the industry is shite. Instead, people are upset BECAUSE THEY FEEL THERE IS NO IMPARTIAL VIEW FROM MTB MEDIA.
For the longest time, it was the place of news media to be impartial and probative. It doesn't appear to be that way anymore. Instead, it feels like mtb news media has become a mouth piece of various interests. Couple that with the poor support of product over time (brakes and suspension components that can't be rebuilt after a number of years) and I believe the irritation is rational.
1. 1 pound of weight removed from the end of the swingarm and moved right to the center of mass of the bike.
2. Dishless wheel with narrow hub spacing, allowing for narrower Q factor, thus more rock clearance
Btchn on new stuff? Because it contributes to financing of cutting edge MTB photography on this site.
Mnah, You lost half of your audience by criticizing Shimano brakes anyways...
Minnaar's mechanic uses a drill to spin the BB bearings to "almost worn out". Good luck convincing these guys to accept a 10-15 % efficiency loss
10-15% loss in pedaling efficiency, but what is the increase in suspension efficiency ? Have anyone measured it ? NO. So if you do not do an experiment and properly measure it, you know nothing. This is a basis for physics for few hundred years and it is really a proven method.
Gwin won a WC with 0% pedaling efficiency, remember it!
I'll say what a few others have here, whilst at the moment gearbox bikes are pointless given how good current drivetrains are, it would be nice if more companies weighed in on the R&D as I still believe that gearboxes have potential for longevity, efficiency in mud (where my current setup tends to struggle) and improving suspension with investment. I don't think its fair to write them off so soon.
"you don't see idler pulley on race-winning bikes"... yet. Wait for a Commencal rider to cross the finish line without a crash and there will be one.
@mattwragg - we are talking efficiency loss in pedalling, but there is efficiency loss with each bump when you have 1 pound of weight attached to the end of the swingarm. I am not speaking some Ti screws for rear brake, removing 10g of unsprung mass, bollocks, I am talking taking away 250g for rear mech, 150g for the cassette and some pennies from the hub.
@OlavA - if that was the issue, any other than mental, no one would race on Hollowtech2 cranksets and go for smoother spinning ISIS BB-cranks interfaces instead. I would put the cuse you describe into the same basket with Peaty running 3 aluminium bolts to his rear brake rotor on World Champs in Canberra
I am not buying this racing argument at all since top XC racers go for marginally but still less efficient single ring setups (chainline), use RS-1 forks and most of them still fail to use a dropper post for improved control and regeneration on descents. Finally not everyone in top 10 is on tubular tyres and not everyone rides a 29er.
DH racers use bikes that are easily 2 pounds heavier than those dudes running pimp my-murdered-out-black carbon sled with green decals. Try to tell them about 400g DH tube.
And actually there's still Gwin, who won a WC even without the drivetrain? So I wouldn't point out, as Ikubica already mentioned, the better suspension efficiency when there's no drivetrain influence.
Also I think there's much room for development left in gearbox sector. The derailleur kept evolving for how long until the systems began to be more or less 'hassle-free' in the mtb sector?
Speaking of King: Syndicate mechanics tear of the double seal of King hubs and replace grease with a thin oil so they obtain a less draggin spin. Don't sure if it works tho...
My next bike if I could afford it would be the new Zerode carbon gearbox enduro sexy af.
1. The drivetrain doesn't catch a ton of mud and it's much easier to clean.
2. It's much less likely to get damaged.
From a Gwin's or any other pro rider's perspective:
1. Doesn't matter because it's their mechanic who will clean their bike.
2. Doesn't matter because the sponsor pays for it.
So talking about a gearbox from Aaron Gwin's perspective is like saying that air conditioning in a car is useless because every car that has ever won a Nascar race was lacking it.
Conventional drivetrains have also had substantial amounts of money invested in development. Throw that development into a gearbox and watch the weight go down fast, with efficiency increased. Its the natural progression of product development, which moves faster when more effort is involved (duh). Phenolic gears, drl in a box, etc etc. Lots of ways to go about solving the problems. Don't forget a conventional system is composed of lots of bearings, springs, pivots, etc. and has benefited from great efforts to evolve it to where it is today. how many years? And what do we have? A slimmer system with narrow wide and an electrical shifting option. Still prone to pivots loosening. Still prone to free-hub drag. Still prone to contamination of the mechanism via foreign objects or damage from crashes. etc etc.
Why do you think Honda wanted to develop a gearbox bike when they had a blank canvas. The same honda that races F1, MotoX, Supermoto, etc etc..... The teams of engineers with zero bike industry reach-arounds developing a world beating bike wanted a gearbox... go figure eh... And guess what, they won races, on this system that according to PB would be a huge disadvantage... lol.
Being able to shift in the middle of a huge rock garden? Yes please
The two noteworthy runs by Gwin and Neko Mullaly without chains highlight this fact. Obviously, they weren't pedaling at any efficiency level...
But it is feasible they had better suspension action due to not having a chain and derailleur interaction with the suspension. (you can test this by turning off the clutch on shimano derailleurs).
Unsprung weight and a stronger wheel are two more benefits.
As for the efficiency loss go, moving the weight from the rear of the bike to the middle makes out for the efficiency loss and then some.
Honda was like second coming of Jesus, so is Öhlins these days setting the flag at the top of suspension Everest. We may get electronicaly controlled valving for XC (Öhlins now went mental with it for motorcycles) but you can mark my words: no breakthrough in managing fluid dynamics, using valves and shims will happen in your life time. Öhlins is here, this is the end.
So it is with the classic drivetrain for DH bikes. It is over, X0 DH hasn't brought anything new but clutch, with X01DH being a joke. I have no clue what they plan to do with Saint but gearbox is a natural thing to do for Shimano. Release a cable operated one, then make electronic version
A servo actuated saint gearbox would be amazing. Really only need 6ish gears. imagine two buttons on each side for up and down, simple and clean wiring.
Even when going down the gearbox route they ended up with a deraileur and that says a lot i think. It's not so much the deraileur system that is flawed, it just needs to be moved.
i1.wp.com/fahrradzukunft.de/bilder/20/wirkungsgradmessungen-an-nabenschaltungen-3/05-big.png
But more seriously thats pretty much the point, 10%, 15% loss on pedaling in DH but 50% gain on weight distribution might yield higher win rates.
Sure, for XC, the pedaling efficiency is more important.
1) reducing unsprung weight,
2) a narrower rear end
3) putting your gearing in a box so it doesn't break / bend and weathers better.
A mech in a box does all of these.
I interestingly enough the Speedhub has quite high efficiency. It was stated that it had done 2000km. The pinion was quite new so I can imagine efficiency would improve slightly.
@Highclimber Gates belt drives still need a tensioner if the pivot and front chainring are at different locations. The only way around it would be to design a linkage with zero chain growth through the full travel. That's probably very tricky to do and you would end up with inferior suspension to having a tensioner and its effect on the suspension.
Legit question, I don't follow that at all and seeing that the other calendar example is about EPO and hidden motors, maybe requesting more physical effort isn't a good idea...
A friend of mine is a partner in a Belgian motocross magazine/website (mxmag.be) and runs a competitive motocross team that attends MXGP rounds. Over the years I've heard no mention of substance abuse, but a lot of mention of how bloody hard the riders train.
All that said, they'll be one scrot doing it and getting away with it, but it doesn't matter, because fitness doesn't win races by itself and excellent cardio health is no substitute for muscle memory, strength, flexibility, mental acuity, determination, talent, experience and speed.
As, primarily, a motocross fan who enjoys downhill (rather than the other way around), I can't understand why there's so few races! Or so few timed runs. If more physical effort, a longer season, leads to cheating, then I pity the rider that gets caught first because the backlash from the fans would be incredible. I just can't imagine the downhill guys having such little integrity they'd resort to illegal methods...
Apart from the ten million plus 26" bikes still in use..
Also, the fastest time down near my local DH track is set by a guy on a 2001 Stumpy (showing its not the bike but the rider.... no not me before u ask!)
youtu.be/D0uSTtDWbI8
Put your wheel back in the bike and check out your new bite point. You may have to adjust the size of the feeler gauges/spacer to get it exactly the way you like it. In other words it may be more or less than .020".
Make sure to top off your reservoir, no need to bleed.
Not my brilliant idea, but I read it somewhere and it works great!
Use of the word ‘retard’ in a derogatory manner = down vote.
No points for you.
What you're doing is pushing the pistons out a little bit further than they were, essentially making a larger volume for the entire system.
You "may" need to top off the reservoir if the pistons are pushed out a lot. I've always topped off, just because.
In short, creating something completely new, that improves on a previous design but is not compatible with anything prior is not innovation. Creating something that improves on a previous design but STILL WORKS WITH THAT DESIGN...now THAT'S innovation!
Secondly - I am glad Rob / Zerode is finally getting some press / credit. I am still riding a Keewee he helped design back in the late 90's and it's still a great bike.
A couple of my LBS's don't even carry 26" tires anymore, and what makes the whole 27.5" size ridiculous,
is it's only about an inch taller than 26", and the wheels fall into the same fricken holes 26" wheels do.
29" wheels are REALLY different than 26(and even 27.5)", thus they're totally legitimate.
Long travel bikes even employ 29" wheels now days, so you end up getting the best of both worlds.
Having fallen for the 27.5" craze only to be completely let down however, IMO they're not what the manufacturers,
AND BIKE RAGS/WEBSITES claim them to be. I get them on DH bikes, simply because being taller(even though they're just barely), they end up rolling faster.
Then we have 'Boost'. Talk about complete HORSESHIT. Tell me WHY they just didn't go with 12x150mm again?
And I saved the 'best'(worst) for last: so-called 'METRIC' shocks.
I like to think of myself having [at least] average intelligence and common sense, but I STILL don't get it. WHY did it take this 'change' to make shocks better again?
And it just so happens that, yes, YOU'LL HAVE TO BUY A NEW BIKE TO GET 'EM. Shocking, eh?
My opinion is this: The bike industry saw a HUGE increase in profits when the 29" craze took hold, but once everyone who had to have one, did, profits started to taper off.
It was logical that they chose-yet again- a different wheel size to try to spur a sales spike again, which is why we saw the 27.5". Giant even dedicated damn-near their whole fuggin line to it, and contrary to what the writer of this article said about 26" parts availability, stores/distributors do NOT carry 'massive' amounts of 26" [tires] stuff anymore. So much for 'customers dictating what stores carry', it's more like manufacturers and distributors decided to simply turn off the spigot to FORCE people to buy the latest craze- OR SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCES!
Now we have wider rims-and worse- NEW HUB SIZES, but I fear the King of 'em all is gonna be the WORTHLESS so-called 'Metric' shocks, and this is because you're gonna have to buy a new bike to get 'em, and while people out of touch with reality-such as apparently the writer of this article- will say that you'll still be able to get replacement shocks/parts for your current frame, those of us in THE REAL WORLD know better!
EVERYBODY(as in manufacturers and stores) benefit when customers are forced to buy NEW BIKES as opposed to simply MAINTAINING THEIR CURRENT ONE(S), and they've already shown that they're totally willing to make customers buy what they sell, vs. selling what customers want, so come 2017, the clock will be running extremely short on ALL of our current bikes.
That is unless we FINALLY stand up as a GROUP and say E-N-O-U-G-H>!
We can start NOW by refusing to buy bikes with Boost hubs, 'Plus' size wheels, and so-called 'metric' shocks.
Unfortunately, I don't see this happening.
Oh, and as far as WC DH races, yeah, I totally agree with that one. You can't have a championship series with just 6-7 races, and you can't tell us that a) it's cost prohibitive, when everybody in the biking industry is making money hand-over-fricken-fist. THEY CAN AFFORD IT. And, b) too dangerous for the riders. As the writer pointed out, the Supercross season is LONG-17 or so races, and damn-near all of them are only a week apart.
But WAIT...there's MORE! Just a week or so after the conclusion of the SX season, the 'Outdoors' season starts. This is of course the MX series which takes places on the nation's 'best' out-door MX tracks.
And these tracks are BRUTAL. They're not a bunch of jumps and monster whoops like SX tracks, but they are bumpy as hell, and HEAVILY rutted, which saps the energy out of you. And these races are 30mins PLUS I believe 3 laps, and there's TWO races per class, per weekend! This series has around 12 rounds, after which riders get a WHOPPING month(or thereabouts) break before the big Vegas SX race takes place in October, only to be followed by the start of the SX season the first week of January.
Obviously a lot of these guys get [multiple] injuries throughout the year, but that's part of it, and the series couldn't be more popular.
IMO, the WC DH series should be NO LESS than 12 rounds.
And another thing. The winner of the series should be the World Champion. Enough of this one-race 'World Championship'.
Not only is it confusing as all heck, but one race does NOT a champion make.
Personally I think engineers should build the best OEM bikes they can, standards be damned. I don't want a compromised design just so you can use a standard hub/crank/whatever, I want the best bike. I'd like to see some consolidation in the industry so we get companies who are large enough to build the whole damn bike as an integrated system instead of having to use standardized parts as a crutch.
1. Do you pay a ticket price to watch the WC DH events? Both live and on tv/interenet? I have been to supercross and it ain't free. They earn money from the gate. I watch it on FOXSports which has commercials and technically, I pay for in my cable package. WC DH is streamed pretty much commercial free on a free site. More events = more money.
2. continuing w/ money - the sport has way less money involved overall, so there are limitations for teams to fly all over the world for world cup events.
3. For the most part, you only buy motorcycles as complete bikes. Upgrades are built and designed by model. You are not buying a new frame or set of wheels that mush match your existing parts.
I can see both sides of all the arguments there and i'm sure there are many who think the same, I think it's just abit of a Pinkbike thing to complain about everything and therefore noone wants to voice the other side of the opinion in fear of being shat on...
A brilliant read!
1: it does do something, just not anything anyone wants. Run the screw through both extremes and note where the lever lands relative to the bar when the brake is locked. The screw will move it a good centimeter. Then adjust it to where you actually want it; and you're back at where it came from the factory
2: Gimmick. If n/w was good on the ring it must be good elsewhere.
3: People spend a lot, probably too much on, bikes and parts. Then something better comes along and it's obsolete. Is it really hard to understand why someone would be upset when they dropped close to a grand on a hub set they though (foolishly) was going to last the rest of their life, only to discover that it won't fit on their next frame? Ask someone about their Chris King hubs and they'll say "yeah it's expensive but they'll last forever." The truth is more like "they'll be obsolete before they wear out"
4: deralleur/chain systems are well into their evolution. Probably near the end in fact; there's really no where else for them to improve, which is why Sram is just cramming more gears on there (honestly who wanted 12 or even 11 gears vs more range on 10?). Gearboxes are the answer to quesitons deralleurs aren't asking: like why do I have better than $400 worth of wear parts on a XO1 drivetrain that I need to replace at least once a year, and why do I have a $300 derailleur hanging in the most vulnerable place possible on a bike, just waiting for the tiniest stick to destroy it and leave me walking out of the woods. I think people are satisfied with how finicky derailleurs are because we've gotten used to it, kind of like how people say BB7 cable brakes are simple, even though they require a lot more fiddling than most any hydraulic. I'm not saying gearboxes are the universal answer, I am saying that the calls for a lower-maintenance, less fragile drivetrain are reasonable.
5: Racing: I don't get it. In fact, professional sports in general: watching someone else do something rather than doing it yourself? I have a hard time imagining anything more boring.
I can see the case for N/W pulley wheel. The pulley wheel positions the chain laterally relative to the cassette. Your chain is N/W; using just narrow teeth on the pulley wheel would give up a little bit of precision. Thing is, Shimano produces very nicely shifting, precise RDs with uniform pulley wheels, so it seems like a bit of a wasted effort.
Re. those Chris King hubs - I don't think the case for those is that they last forever (although that's often being said). There's no functional reason to spend that amount of money of these, rather than the cheaper high-end offerings from the big guys. There is, however, an aesthetic set of reasons to do so - people appreciating the craftsmanship, the sound, the bling factor, whatever.
$300 derailleurs hanging in harms way? Short of DI2 (and perhaps the new 12sp XX1, what MTB RD is $300? You're replacing $400 in wearparts on your XO drivetrain every year? Damn, I wish I got to ride that much. I'm hitting trails about 4-5 days a week, and a cassette and chainring will last me at least 1 1/2 years (I do keep things fairly clean, since it's muddy around here - and I do replace chains). Yes, I'd love my drivetrain to require less maintenance, and I'd love it to be more bulletproof. But the current state is pretty damn tolerable; and there's real improvement even compared to just a few years ago (I got back to the sport in 2010 - what a leap from the mid 90s; but even in just the past 6 years, wow, there's a real difference in terms of getting better stuff at lower price points).
What I was saying about King or other 'high end' hubs is that people that spend a ton on them expecting to use them for a long time are understandably upset. For me the difference between a $60 shimano hub and a $400 king is that I don't worry about buying a new one every frame (and I can use the brake rotors I want).
ok, I exaggerated on the price of derailleurs it seems like most of the Sram lineup is north of $200 though, and it's always a slender thread. I've destroyed $200 worth of derailleur and hanger riding through tall yet oddly strong grass. And inevitably this happens 20 miles from home or the car. I've had 4-5 year stretches without problems, but I've had years when I went through 3 derailleurs.
$400/ year: $250 cassette and 2-3 chains (and of course now that I'm looking at numbers to back that up I see that lower price chains have come out in the last couple months; I feel like late last year, the cheapest Sram 11s chain was $50). Maybe I'm getting old and grumpy. I started riding in the late 80s when a chain was $7-8 and a top of the line cassette was $30.
Point is look at the maintenance/mile on a car vs a bike. I find it ridiculous. I suspect that we're kind of victims of the 'gotta have what the pros are riding' mentality; a pro needs a mtbf/mttr of one race; a couple hours at most, and can't tolerate any extra weight or friction. I think most of us could tolerate both in exchange for longer service intervals. I believe a well designed/executed gearbox could get to car-like service intervals - change the gearbox oil every 3000 miles, as opposed to new chain every 500, lube probably every 30. I'd be willing to live with a couple watts of drag and a few grams for that.
As for RDs - GX goes for under $100; X1 for about $130. It's not that you get what you pay for (because moving up to X01 or XX1 gets you only very marginal improvements in shifting; I think that's mostly a matter of gram shaving and bling factor at that point), but that you pay for what you get (as in, going for the premium/high end versions will cost you when something does happen).
Your point on maintenance intervals is well taken. If you look at where we've come from, then today's equipment is remarkably resilient. If you compare it to other sectors (like cars, or even motorcycles), then maybe not so much.
I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong...
I think the real trend in MTB parts in the next few years is going to be price revolt. Bikes got a lot better, and a lot more expensive really fast in the last 5 or so years, but the improvements seem to be slowing down (and a lot of them, like boost, seem like they're just grasping). Now that everyone makes a 27" enduro bike with similar geometry and features, how much longer can anyone charge a premium for it?
i used to be a huge gearbox nerd, but now i'm on the fence as to their future viability in high performance / race applications. as mike says, derailleur drivetrains are really good these days. in a bomber park bike, or an expedition backcountry or touring rig that favors durability and lack of maintenance over weight and efficiency, i think they make great sense.
And then there is more overhead cost per variant (development cost, logistics, tools) in this world of ever increasing new bullshit variants, that won't lead to growth of the overall market.
Eff boost, eff boost again, then eff 35mm bars, all newer bb standards, 1 billion chainring mounting standards, plus tires. Don't know what about new shock sizes, but I'd rather see it as an april fools' joke, I think.
It is all about the gain vs. the pain, and that relation has been absolutely spoiled since 2 or 3 years in a lot of cases. So Why the effin hate? That's why Levy. That's why.
Absolutely lovin my new agressive long travel 29er with dropper post, best allround bike ever from XC to DH even, but all the stuff above won't lead to such senstations...
I started thinking the number of links in my chain would matter, even or odd, but no no no that doesn't seem right. It goes wide tooth narrow tooth wide tooth narrow tooth, as do the cassette and chainring. So, wait. What? So I shift to a cog with an odd number of teeth to get it back on track, but shift back to an even-toothed cog before it gets out of sync?
Not even high right now.
I'm just gonna blame mud again.
Next issue is the gearbox design itself, its designed like a conventional car gearbox, which is fine in a car, but retarded on a bicycle, what you want is a CVT style gearbox, which, coincidentally is not very good in cars, but would be great on a bicycle, much lighter than current available options, has a potentially greater range, more compact and simpler.
last 6 bikes with sram 1x setup:
www.pinkbike.com/news/knolly-endorphin-review-2016.html
www.pinkbike.com/news/ibis-mojo-3-review.html
www.pinkbike.com/news/transition-patrol-carbon-1-review-2016.html
www.pinkbike.com/news/specialized-stumpjumper-expert-carbon-6fattie-review-2016.html
www.pinkbike.com/news/kona-process-167-review-2015.html
www.pinkbike.com/news/cannondale-habit-carbon-se-review.html
not one mentions any pulley problems
www.pinkbike.com/news/canyon-strive-cf-race-90-review.html
www.pinkbike.com/news/mondraker-foxy-carbon-xr-review-2015.html
www.pinkbike.com/news/salsa-bucksaw-review.html
www.pinkbike.com/news/sram-x01-dh-review-2014.html
www.pinkbike.com/news/antidote-lifeline-dh-review.html
www.pinkbike.com/news/ibis-mojo-hd3-review.html
www.pinkbike.com/news/knolly-warden-review.html
www.pinkbike.com/news/specialized-enduro-s-works-29-test-review.html
www.pinkbike.com/news/rocky-mountain-altitude-770-msl-rally-edition-review-2014.html
4/20 so far:
www.pinkbike.com/news/trek-slash-98-review-2014.html
www.pinkbike.com/news/xprezo-adhoc-review-2014.html
www.pinkbike.com/news/trek-slash-9-review-2014.html
www.pinkbike.com/news/sram-x01-drivetrain-review-2014.html
..but I supremely disagree with the cost argument. Bikes have gotten out of hand expensive. How many people here can say their bike(s) cost more than their car? I can. Which one is more reliable? I bought a 2k moto. Do you know how much more engineering is present in that than a bike? I probably won't have to do more than change the oil for a few years. My brand new bike will need a new bottom bracket after this weekend.
I've experienced a bizarre inconsistency in the rear (used both brakes from the box no need to cut the lines on my extra long frame) which was bearable, but now after only 10 rides my front brake has a sticky piston I can push iy back in with a tire lever but it will not come out on its own. It moves a little if I depress the free piston while pumping the lever, but it does not resolve the issue.
Anyone else had this problem?
Then you have some questions directed as us, the readers. One of the main things when asking questions is to not answer them yourself right away. Ask a question, then wait for the answer. Given the nature of written conversations (on a website in this case) it may take a while. But it still stands and you can only respond to the answers once they're given. Worst is probably what you did, give some bullshit answers to your questions (as if they were ours) and then call them bullshit. You even mentioned somewhere we might call you an idiot for some opinion you have. It is sure rude to call someone an idiot as much as it is rude to suggest that your conversation partner might call you that. It is not the way to set a nice tone, is it?
So let's imagine you just didn't do that. You asked and allowed us to answer. There we go:
Why would we want an internal gearbox? One answer you already gave is to have the mass more central and out of harms way. So even though it might be more expensive, you at least expect it to last a while. The parts that do wear are easier to maintain and cheaper to replace than the way it goes on a conventional drivetrain. It is at least nice to have the option. Compare this to geared bikes for commuting. Those who want high efficiency go for the derailleur system and accept they'll have to do more maintenance and cope with more wear in return. As an alternative you can have the gears inside the rear hub. It is less efficient and heavier but in return maintenance and wear are low. It seems like much mountainbike gear is marketed for pedaling efficiency with the racer in mind. Sure many are happy that way so it is great like it is for them. But I for one rather waste more energy out on the trail no matter how wet and cold the conditions are rather than to spend quite a bit longer cleaning and lubing my vulnerable drivetrain after my ride when I'm just as wet and cold but am also cooling down. It is a choice I know but I think it goes for many along with me who'd actually spend more time riding and less time cleaning and lubing after the ride. So it is nice to have the option at least. So SRAM and Shimano are not stepping up apparently. Doesn't this mean that Hayes/Answer/Manitou has a chance to become just as big? They've got brakes, suspension, finishing kit (stem bar etc) and they've only been sitting on that B1 PeteSpeed patent that could allow them to deliver a drivetrain. I'm not sure how much less efficient it is going to be compared to a conventional drivetrain actually. It is a derailleur in a box just like they had on the Honda. And Honda was winning races so it can't have been too bad. You too know that the excess drag while coasting on that Cavalerie bike could easily be remedied with a simple freehub, which was on offer.
For me personally (to answer the other question) I've grown adverse to the way quality stuff degrades and has to be replaced. Think lithium batteries for mobile electronics and electric mobility which last only a few years at most. And people have come to accept that. And if the battery isn't user replaceable, the device is often even discarded completely. I hate to see that happen in cycling. If my frame breaks, I have to spend money on a new one. It becomes extra bitter if components in perfectly good shape don't fit the new frame, especially if I see no increase in performance. Oh it takes 27.5" wheels? Sure I could ride that but I don't have the wheels, tyres and forks for that now. Oh it takes 142x12mm? I see the advantages but I only have 135x12 and even though it is fiddly it worked good enough. Oh, and these forks for 27.5" wheels won't accept my 20mm axle? See, you'll be discarding stuff in otherwise great condition. Sure I could sell it, but I'm not a shop. I don't want to bother with that. I just want to ride what I have until it breaks down. At that point, no one wants it. The worst thing of these changing standards to me is that you'll be less likely to invest in a quality product that will last you a while. You bought a Chris King headset thinking that after that you'd be done buying headsets and you'd just transfer it from frame to frame. Same with their hubs. Nowadays it is wiser to just get cheap components that will only last for that frame as it may not fit your next. So manufacturers of cheap throwaway stuff thrive and those of quality stuff who also back it up suffer. I definitely don't see as many CK headsets on the trail as back in the day. So yeah through the eyes of the engineers, the racers and the reviewers in the (web)magazines the increased performance (stiffness, weight, efficiency) may justify a new standard. But many of us are none of these and just like to go out for a blast, knowing that if you break a 9sp short cage rear mech you can get a new one to keep you going, not that you're going to need a new shifter, chain and cassette as well.
Apparently, no matter what I know, have done, do, and think, it is of no import whatsoever. He has proven with this article/op ed turd that PB is a mouth piece of the industry.
The problem is not Boost, the problem is Why only 148?? why don't they made it at least the same that old DH hubs? Oh, I get it, so they can release other standard a couple of years from now...
Nah why would it to an industry trying to milk every bit of money out of every customer. They sell you something that they say is the shit, but in two years it we be considered old rubish.
Sram derailleurs work work pretty damn good despite the n+w pulleys in my experiences. No complaints.
I love my 5 speed fat beach rig. ( can of worms that one).
Yeah well derailleurs been around for over 100 years so dont think its going anywhere soon.
I only get one beer night with the boys every month so if we had more world cups id be divorced.
Just waiting in Shimano to launch their 14spd system......
I thought he moved to YT ?
Not necessary to move forward, change isn't necessary, resist it, what we have (which has been optimized for decades) is better than this current stage of new application of what is the staple in most every other transportation sector therefore it shouldn't be persued. Forget the suspension aspect of have huge rear range to try and compensate for in suspension movement. That's for the bike engineers to figure out a compromise for.
Are they as good as good as they need to be, no. Do they have potential to perform at an equal level from an efficiency stand point while being much less vulnerable, more reliable, have less maintenance, decrease suspension sprung weight, and allow constant chainline, yes. Just because it's not there yet doesn't mean it shouldn't be persued.
I love change! Especially in bikes. They are so rad and cool! When ever something new comes out it is fun to see how much funner(diffrent) it makes the ride!
The progress of it all good or bad shapes the future and the future is bright.
Look at the piece of hardware in your hand that you are reading and responding to this blog.
My iPhone is far more powerful and superior than my 4 year old Dell.
No gear boxes.. Electro magnetic propulsion drives.....
But for now...What Eva I ride it puts a fire one my hear and smile on my face!
A Downhill race is 4 days long: track walk on Wednesday, practice Thursday, qualies Friday and finals on Saturday.
In Supercross, everything happens in one day. The athlete hops on the plane on Friday evening and is back home by Sunday afternoon.
So, until a world cup happens in just 1 or 2 days, saying "if they do it in Supercross, why not in downhill?" is a retarded way of thinking.
I've never heard of someone giving Usain Bolt shit because people run more during a marathon (I'm exaggerating but you get my point).
That being said, you are absolutely right that SX/MX is way more demanding physically, that was not the point I was trying to make.
My comment was pointing out the differences of the 2 sports in terms of logistics.
SX: 1 day (maybe 2 if you include press day) of racing in the middle of a major city, with an airport close by. Athlete leaves home on friday night, and is back sunday afternoon.
DH: 4 days of racing in a little shithole in the heart of the alps. No airports up there. So add to the 4 days the time it would take to go to the next venue, and the physical recovery time, and the athlete has 1 or 2 days of training left (assuming there are the required amenities there to train).
Now some smartass is going to say "but if everyone has that schedule, then the playing field stays level if none of them train between race weekends", but keep in mind that they hit the gym not only for performance purposes, but for injury prevention as well.
But once again, I agree, DH is for pussies compared to SX/MX.
I'm not saying I know it all, but I feel like a lot of people are touting gearboxes as the "it" solution and that we'll all be using them in a year or two are misinformed or disillusioned. But I could be wrong...
JUST AS LONG AS SOMEONE KEEPS AT IT!
We need a bike company like Honda that will develop an idea that is based on what they feel the future is (Think NR500). Perhaps Zerode is doing just that for us but I really can't say as I don't know their reasoning or corporate culture.
Yes? Me too.
But here's the thing: if the automotive industry is still kinda stuck at the current level of mechanical efficiency of a gearbox, what on earth makes you think that the mountain bike industry, which is more than one order of magnitude smaller than the automotive industry, is going to magically find the solution? The mechanical principles of a gearbox are governed by well-known fundamental laws of physics (go pick up a textbook in machine design for the basics, tribodynamics for the advanced stuff). They are not going to get magically sidestepped without colossal advances in materials science that would definitely win someone a Nobel Prize.
I too would love a gearbox that was as efficient as my current drive train. I've even sketched out some ideas for it. But at the end of the day, it's not going to happen with current technology, and bikes will definitely not be the first place you see the breakthroughs.
Turner 5Spot, Cir 2005 with Fox Float RC 32 fork and RP23 shock
Santa Cruz 5010 v2 2016 with Pike and Float Evol shock.
I've had 3 longer travel bikes in the mean time and one 29er. But for my main trail bike I kept the Turner until something decidedly better came along. So the 1x11 better than x9 3x9- yes, in every way. New XT brakes vs Juicy 7, check, new is better. Suspension- holy crap it is better. Frame geometry and ride quality is so much better now there is nothing to say. Just better. The wheels, now boosted with through axels and 30mm inner width vs Stans Arch qr. Again, no comparison. And don't forget dropper post vs qr seat post clamp.
Bottom line, I loved mountain biking in 1988 on my Cannondale Rigid, 1996 on my Light Speed Hard Tail, 2005 on the Turner and now on the 5010. There was never a single part of the old bike than was better than the new bike. And each time a new bike comes along it is so much better than the last by widening margins. I can't wait for my next bike some time in the 2020s. Keep it coming!!!
157 Boosty Boost super mega does seem silly. But if the engineers want a couple millimeters then just give them a couple millimeters. The new bikes are so much fun.
Its now pretty much a given that all bikes are going to have a 1× setup from new. The after market insisted on expanded rear clusters so the expander cogs came about from niche manufacturers. The big boys jumped on with stock standard 40/42 cassettes. Niche manufacturers are giving us 50 rear expanders. Big boys jumping On with larger stock cassettes. Big boys upping rear to 12 cogs now alowing bigger gearing with smooth shifting. Its getting toward maxing out number of cogs and ratios surely!?? .......is the logical progression ( atleast from the manufacturers point of view of continuing new products to continue new sales ) going to a gearbox????
Just a thought. And all this progression through the 1× drive has happened pretty quick too!
My 2014 felt had a mix of XT and Deore parts. The brakes, FDR, and cassette are deore rest is XT. The 2013 Lappierre I had ever so briefly for roughly the same price a year later had formula hubs, and the lowest price RF crank and sram chain and cassette. Could also be the different brands but the value was not there on the 2015 bike. A look at spec sheets suggests its continuing to go downhill, not in the good way on bikes around 4k CDN.
As for why gearboxes? Easy. Because they are better. If any major player had put as much into a gear box as has been put into derailleurs for the last 20 years the derailleurs would be a distant second at best. It won't happen over night but IG systems will replace derailleurs. Shimano already has the right configuration in its Alfine hub they just have to do as they just did with their e steps system and make an XT version of it.
Dealing with USAC and the UCI is so frustrating! They can never answer simple questions- yes, I know you're drug testing more cyclorcross racers than ever before and bleeding money on junior road racers in "fast track" programs but what are you doing to grow the sport I love?
Updates, if only there were updates!
Maybe they quickly swap out the tire stock depending which customer is walking in the door just to F with us, lol ...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0uSTtDWbI8
Will you help me?
www.kickstarter.com/formula-one-carbon-mtb-gearbox.
I think I can get it started with about $800k.
Just in case nobody caught it, that was indeed sarcasm.
Here is the answer to why so many people on the new stuff: Innovation by elimination.
26" wheels were CHOSEN to be replaced by the industry, not the rider( see Taipei trade show 2012)
They were the replaced by 27.5/650B, we were told that the new wheels were faster, that was a lie( see "one question, with the founder of Knolly bikes).
The rest of micro-standards fell like dominos after that. Make a tire .3 bigger, and then you need to increase the axle by 6mm, still need to make more money, change the size of the shock to make it easier to manufacture, but won't really help the shock perform better. Once that happens, it's time to change the axle size AGAIN.
I am at a point now where I only buy parts from smaller companies that care about the rider, no matter what size wheel or how old their bike is. I am now in the process of getting rid of SRAM components from my bike.
And that is exactly what I did this year: I rebuilt my 26" bike and bought a box full of tires to ride it into the sunset.
Urging or instigating other persons to riot, but shall not be deemed to mean the mere oral or written (1) advocacy of ideas or (2) expression of belief, not involving advocacy of any act or acts of violence or assertion of the rightness of, or the right to commit, any such act or acts.” 18 USC
Mike Levy now serving 5 to 10!
Gear boxes.. Meh. Can't say I'm a fan but if they're folks out there who love a sealed transmission then good for them.
Brakes and pulleys.. Never really fazed me. The bite point is a good thought though.
Longer WC calendar.. Yes please. Pros on the road race an 8 month calendar +-(at a world tour level), 9 weeks of which include the Giro, Tour and Vuelta. It would be pretty awesome to see a few more races on the MTB side of things.
Would love to get some answers from the manufacturers regarding the pulley and bite issues?
Thanks for the great write up!
1.Who is Jeffsy?
2.Who the hell is Chester?
3.How to combat moist chamois?
4.When is Boost leaving us for something wider?
5.Why do you hate e-bikes you lift bound squirt of asparagus pee?
www.pinkbike.com/video/8166
www.hovding.com
personally, id have a load of PPE over this anyday.. was js to follow up "johnnygrosso"s comment.. im not an advocate of said tech either way
Transition Patrol?
The all new Specialized Enduro will be here this summer.
It's going to make that transition look like a thing of the past.
It is also painful to get a seat post up the Jacksie on a landing :-)
Whoa! No more logic on the PB boards! That will not be tolerated!