Here we are, rolling into 2020 and we're not even riding hoverbikes yet. Disappointing, I know, but there's plenty of slightly more realistic new tech and gear to look forward to (or maybe dread, depending on your point of view) in the coming year. If I was forced to write down my predictions for what we'll see more of in 2020, which is exactly what this is, I'd put my Canadian pesos on more integration for bikes and components, a lot more aluminum, a handful of slightly larger suspension forks, and further e-bike development that will hopefully mean my eyes won't bleed every time I see one.
Does your crystal ball match mine, or is there no future in my career as a psychic?
More IntegrationIntegration is usually thought of as an eleven-letter dirty word by us mountain bikers, sometimes for valid reasons, but it can also be a smart way to make more reliable, simpler components that also weigh less. A win-win-win, right? Well, kinda; if it's stronger, lighter, and more better, it's probably going to cost more, at least for the time being.
Integration gone too far? Maybe for now, but Magura's hidden brake lines combo'd SRAM AXS shifting makes for an ultra-clean cockpit.
While it's still unconfirmed (but also not undenied) that we'll see RockShox launch
wirelessly-controlled, AXS-ified suspension in 2020, I'll be keeping an eye on the World Cup cross-country circuit. You know, just in case. I'm guessing it won't be a ground-reading suspension system that responds to the terrain like
Fox's Live Valve, but rather a way to control the fork and shock's compression modes wirelessly. If the AXS shifting and dropper post are any indication, AXS suspension should be highly customizable too.
Want your fork to firm up by 70-percent and your shock to completely lock-out with the push of one button? Or maybe you'd rather your the fork stays wide open and the shock goes to 50-percent firm?
SRAM's wireless AXS drivetrain offers customized control of the shifting and dropper post, and the next step would be from them to extend that to their suspension. Maybe.
Or maybe you want your suspension to automatically firm-up when you raise your eVerb seatpost or shift to your largest cogs? Most of the technology to do that has been around for a while, but putting it all together in a reliable package that doesn't weigh as much as a Tandy 1000 computer is a more recent development. Controlling the drivetrain, dropper post, and suspension together with a single wireless system sounds like science fiction, but SRAM can do exactly that, and I expect to see working prototypes of it in 2020. What's probably still a ways off, however, is a significantly less expensive AXS drivetrain; that'd be a big surprise for me.
They'll be more component integration in the future, too, especially when it comes to the front of our bikes. Wireless control will make for cleaner cockpits, but so will more one-piece handlebar and stem combinations.
It's expensive and isn't adjustable, but just look at it.
An obvious example would be
Syncros' one-piece, carbon fiber handlebar and stem combos that first showed up for cross-country use, exactly where you'd expect them to. But now there's even a direct-mount version for the downhill crowd that's said to be insanely strong while weighing a chunk less than a traditional bar and stem that depend on a handful of steel bolts to keep everything together. That seems a bit archaic, no? And without said bolts and threads for riders to deal with, there's less chance of user-error causing any issues. Probably. Downsides include no roll adjustment, of course, and the small fact that they cost SO MUCH MONEY.
I hope we'll see less expensive one-piece 'bar and stem combos in the near future.
More holes and more bolts for more storage solutions.
Expect more integration when it comes to frames and how to carry tools and supplies. Last year we saw Trek release a bunch of mountain bikes with a big hatch in the downtube to carry stuff, much like Specialized's SWAT-hole (I guess you can't patent holes in tubes?), because it makes too much sense not to make that big and otherwise hollow downtube carry your mid-ride philly cheesesteak. For the same reason, we might end up seeing holes in other brands' carbon frames, and other clever ways to strap or bolt things all over your frame that a bunch of engineers spent countless hours shaving 37-grams from compared to the previous version... Only for you to go and strap a tube and a set of rusty hex keys to it. Yeah, more of that in 2020.
Chance of this actually happening: 80%
Expect to see more coil-sprung suspension on trail and enduro bikes.
More Coil SpringsUpsides to coil springs include more traction, more consistent damping, and way more trailhead cred. Unfortunately for your bro score, most full-suspension bikes come equipped with air-sprung suspension because it can be adjusted to suit most riders, air obviously weighs just a bit less than steel, and let's not forget that air-sprung shocks can do some neat stuff like offer easily adjustable ramp-up and more tuning possibilities. There's also the little fact that the large majority of bikes are designed to work with an air spring's inherent ramp-up; with a linear coil, they're likely to hit the end of the stroke more often than a 15-year-old Levy whose parents just got dial-up internet.
Thankfully, there are some really smart people out there, a few of which came up with
Sprindex's adjustable-rate coil spring system. It's so simple that I don't know how someone hadn't already thought of a similar idea. All you need to do is rotate the Sprindex collar by hand to add or subtract as much as 30 to 60 lb/in to the spring rate, and it works by locking out a short section of the coil, effectively make it shorter, and therefore less willing to flex. It also consists of only a few extra parts, so it's dead-simple to boot.
If you like coils, relatively lightweight shocks like X-Fusion's new H3C and clever solutions like Sprindex's adjustable-rate collar are worth checking out.
While not a new idea, but just as simple and useful, progressive-rate coil springs can be used to combat that aforementioned lack of ramp-up. Basically, a section of the spring is designed so that the coils come into contact with each other, which then raises the spring rate.
Cane Creek's Vault coils do this, as do
MRP's Progressive Springs, and I wouldn't be surprised to see the big boys of suspension spring a surprise (ugh, I'm sorry) with some new coil-sprung options.
All that should mean that we'll see more coil-sprung suspension than ever, especially for the trail bike crowds.
Chance of this actually happening: 70%
Stiffer, Heavier ForksI remember when the Boxxer had 32mm stanchion tubes because it was around the same time that I had a sweet eyebrow ring. Both seem questionable these days, especially as things keep getting bigger, stiffer, and "more precise" with every product cycle. Fox's rumoured new fork (which we assume is called the 3
, uses upper tubes that are 2mm larger in diameter than their current 36,
made a sneak appearance on the Enduro World Circuit last season and you'd be a fool for thinking that their competition won't do something similar soon.
If RockShox does come out with a bigger fork as well, the main question in my mind is if it should be called the Totem or not?
Can you tell that the new 32 is 20-grams heavier than the old one? Me neither. Can you tell that it's 20-percent stiffer? Likely.
Likewise, DVO, X-Fusion, and a few others probably have similar up-sizing plans in the works for their enduro-focused forks, but we might also see beefier fork chassis in the cross-country and trail bike world as well. After all,
Fox's updated 32 cross-country race fork weighs 20-grams MORE than the previous version but is claimed to also be 20-percent stiffer in the steering department.
I'm all for a completely unnoticeable amount of grams being added in the name of double-digit gains in rigidity, but that's just me. One day we might even get CSUs that never creak and groan.
Chance of this actually happening: 50%
More Short Travel BikesModern cars are intended to isolate you from the road, providing smooth, safe, and quiet transportation that also lets drivers be in more comfort while going faster. And most of them are boring as hell. But ditch the gooey suspension, heaps of sound deadening, and all the frills and gimmicks and a drive to the corner store can turn into something to remember. I've always argued that a similar theory can be applied to mountain bikes, just so long as the all-important geometry is dialed, and that's hopefully what we see more of in 2020.
Less travel can be more fun, especially now that bike brands know that doesn't have to mean it's a pure race bike.
Norco's new 125mm-travel Optic won our Mountain Bike of the Year award for doing exactly that, and rigs like the
Tallboy,
SB100, and the Top Fuel are closely matched with smart geo and suspension. Bikes like those, along with a handful of others, let many riders get more out of their rides, despite them requiring more effort, care, and skill when things get sketchy.
Chance of this actually happening: 90%
The Olympics counts for all the beans, so expect riders and their sponsors to go all-out for gold.
Fresh Cross-Country TechThere's this little race coming up this year called ''the Olympics'' that a lot of people get really excited about, and there's a good chance that we'll see some wild new cross-country tech as a result. Companies and countries will be putting a ton of effort, time, and money into making sure their athletes have the best chance of being successful in Tokyo, and history says that should mean lighter, more advanced bikes and components than ever before.
Chance of this actually happening: 100%
eMTB Advancements and AttitudesHave you guys seen that bonkers Specialized e-road bike that hides its battery and motor so well that the damn thing could nearly pass as for normal machine? Sure, there've been motors and batteries completely hidden inside seat tubes and bottom brackets for years, but
the Turbo Creo SL road bike is the next level of integration (ahhhh, that word again!) that has allowed for a relatively lightweight, traditional-looking rocketship that can blend in with the stone age, non-motorized machines still plodding around out there.
I'm not sure how this Bianchi get out the door without someone saying "Hey, maybe we shouldn't make the ugliest e-bike of all-time?" I am clearly not the target demographic here.
Will the same thing happen to eMTBs? I f*cking hope so. Have you seen all of some the abominations out there? It's like some of these brands had a competition to find out who could design the ugliest way to attach a battery and motor to a bicycle.
I suspect we'll see a handful of much sleeker, more refined off-road e-bikes in the near future, including some with much smaller, less powerful batteries intended to provide less boost with less weight and size. eMTB-lite, which is a bit like jumbo shrimp, I guess. At the same time, more user-adjustability will figure in, allowing riders to choose different batteries, further customizable torque and power settings, and who knows what else. E-bike hot-rodding is a real thing, which sounds like nothing but trouble.
The bikes improving is great and all, but let's hope we see attitudes improve as well. It's fine if eMTBs aren't your thing - they're not my thing, either - but I also don't care if it is your thing. You shouldn't care, either, just as long as said eMTBs aren't making things difficult for others. After all, I know plenty of people who do all sorts of questionable things on their non-motorized bikes.
#ridewhateveryouwant2020Chance of this actually happening: 30%
More AluminumYou don't need to be Nostradamus to figure this one out. We've seen more and more riders shun carbon fiber frames and components for their heavier, less expensive aluminum counterparts over the last few years, and that trend will continue for 2020 and beyond.
Aluminum usually offers more bang for the buck than carbon fiber.
If I were in charge of a bike company, I'd concentrate on nice aluminum frames and making sure my geometry and suspension are on-point. Then, I'd hang some decent but not too pricey components on it, saving coin where it makes sense, before finishing it off with reliable tires and graphics that say, ''I make good financial decisions but also want to look pro AF.'' The $2,899 USD Canyon Spectral AL 6.0 and $2,999 USD Ibis Ripmo AF that
RC just reviewed for the Field Test are great examples of bikes that won't hold 95-percent of us back but also won't drain 95-percent of your bank account. Way more of this in 2020, please.
Chance of this actually happening: 90%
So, where do you stand on those predictions: Are you hoping that I'm not far off, or is my forecast completely out to lunch?
“Nah I let my subscription run out, so just 11 speed now.”
If I convince myself that I have 20 inch wheels, will I then also go faster?
@aljoburr : This kind of depends of whether you've been messing with the system clock. If you've set it to 2010 or so, you should be able to do so with the click of a button. If it is set to 2020 you'll probably have to swipe or even talk to it. Did you set it to 1990 though, you'll have to use the command line. Did you make a typo (who even writes correctly without autocorrect these days) and entered 1890, you'll have switch to morse. Still go silly with the typos though or you'll have to kindly ask it to switch from IX speed to X. SRAM will make a huge leap backwards then. Your top level XC groupo will suddenly run a triple ring up front and a 7sp (no DH) cassette in the rear. Oh boy, I'll stop my geek fantasies right here.
Seems like the dealers here tell people how to hack before they leave the showroom.
can you imagine pay-per-break!
An Olympic xc gold medallist lost his chance on winning another gold medal due to some geeks hacked into the bike's operating system & messed it up.The medallist reported to suddenly have 22speed instead of only 12 originally set up by the team,and an increase of 80mm of travel on suspension system.Fortunately for him,the culprit didn't manage to slacken the head angle to 86°.
I can even start hours long arguments with myself that devolve into petty name calling! I'm so excited for 2020!
Will you just wake up & forget you have a black hat!
No there has not!
Sincerely, Fabian Cancellara
WTF?
Absolutely love Nicolai, but come on, at least a less than ideal mount under the downtube?
I refuse to wear a hydropack ever again. Love Nicolai/Geometron's , except that issue.
I just bought an aluminum bike with better spec components after 5 years on a carbon bike. I like the carbon and keeping the weight down is nice. I also trust carbon to be strong given how well the frame has held up to some serious abuse, but I replaced everything on the carbon trail bike except the BB. I was patient about it so got good deals but still, it adds up and the overall cost of that bike was easily $2k more than the initial price. So this time I went with aluminum and a spec that I didn't think I would replace a single part on (until they break or wear out), because I'm riding for fun and the extra 1-2 pounds from the frame matter not at all to me.
forums.mtbr.com/all-mountain/playing-warranty-game-marin-xm-7-send-me-your-opinions-1125461.html
Didn't have to wait long.
And the posters all agree 6 years is a fine lifespan for alloy and op should be happy with a 15% discount from Marin.
Hmm.
In that forum... dude breaks a 6 year old aluminum bike... not totally expected but possible, out of their warranty specs and weird. Have known many aluminum frames to last far far longer. Just look at some of the classic whistler bike check videos pinkbike does every year. But honestly, I'd feel more unsafe on a 6 year old carbon frame. All the unseen damage would freak me out.
I just happened on that thread today and though I would link it next time alloy vs carbon came up in pinkbike comments.
Turns out I didn't have to wait long.
Since my return to mtb 6 years ago I built up a carbon frame. At that time I realized that alloy is harsh to me.
I have since built up 5 carbon bikes run carbon bars saddle cranks and rims.
Out of all that I only cracked a rear rim. And that was my fault smashing it to in to a curb with really low psi.
But ride whatever makes you happy.
But if he offered a 150mm trail fork with carbon lowers and crown steerer I'd buy it.
Obviously carbon isn't suitable for stanchions unlike alloy or carbon being suitable for frames.
So your example is dubious at best.
Don't prefer it myself I find it harsh.
Just pointing out that it can fail too.
Everything eventually brakes. The thing us i would rather have something that is waaay more sustainable to produce, and way cheaper.
Alot of things could go into it rider weights being one.
Where I ride is completely different I would assume then where you ride in Canada.
I'm 140lbs and my trails require alot of pedaling. They are flat with quick bursts
Of technical climbing and decents.
I'm happy with what I have I've spent alot of time and money to get it where it's at.
So I will conclude: I am 140lbs and ride trails that require alot of pedaling so a few pounds is felt alot more then someone riding double blacks in the Canadian Rockies.
Propain.
They have your standard entry/mid/pro tiers of build but these are just suggested build options. You can swap and change all parts as you go through the order.
I think this is brilliant as many people might have to pay for a higher-tier spec of bike (from other brands) purely to get one or two parts only available in that tier and the rest they don't care about.
My ability/skill level (or, more to the point, lack thereof) means that there's absolutely no justification for going above the base specs (at least on the more 'generous' brands like YT etc). However, if i improved dramatically and i was in the market for a new bike with perhaps a better suspension spec, i'd still be happy with the base spec of other componentry such as bars, stems, wheels etc.
With most brands, you'd have to pay a significant price increase to get the better suspension because going up a tier also increases the spec of all the oter componentry.
I was browsing the Propain website a little while back on behalf of a friend who was looking for a new bike. You could have gone base spec on almost everything which was around £2000, but could have added Fox Factory fork and shock for only a few hundred more.
I think it would be amazing if more of the direct-to-consumer brands started offering this level of customisation.
Chances of actually happening 110%
Get bigger wheels because they roll over everything better, let you run shorter travel with the same level of comfort, and are more efficient.
Get shorter travel because it is more engaging to ride and typically more efficient.
It's strange that the XC pros aren't riding 150 mm travel bikes then, sense there are only benefits to doing so and absolutely no downsides. They must be in on it too.
I do agree with you that modern long travel bikes climb pretty amazing, and if your goal is to get to the top pretty quick and pretty efficiently, they do the job very well. Not nearly everyone does giant stuff, in incredibly rough terrain though. I, for instance, started cycling way before people were jumping huge stuff and riding off cliffs. When that started happening, I knew that wasn't at all for me, that type of riding is not why I started riding MTB's 30 years ago. I love going far, I love riding flowy trails, I love going fast on rough trails. I have never had an interest in going off a jump or drop taller than me and as I get older that just sounds sillier for me to try and do.
So do I need 150 or 170 mm of travel to do the type of riding that I have done for 30 years. Nope, it is fun in the rough fast stuff, but so is a shorter travel bike, the shorter travel bike is just as fun, but at a slightly reduced speed in that condition and slightly more fun in nearly every other situation that I am likely to encounter.
That may have been the case years ago but that has changed quite a bit, especially in xc marathon, xco is a little more groomed. You say 90% of riders live for the decents, but I think you are only taking into account the people you know or are on Pinkbike. Most riders probably haven't even heard of Pinkbike if they have, it is that place with bike classifieds.
Many people just like riding bikes, I will go ride technical singletrack up and down, I will go for a 50 mile ride on logging roads, I wish riding road didn't feel like a death wish, because I would love to do that more again.
Anyway, for most, in most places less than 140mm of travel is plenty for 99% if their riding. You thinking otherwise doesn't change that.
This site mostly serves up content for the people that mostly go riding for the huge features, Park laps and the more extreme end of the market. There is a bit of coverage for the adventure, XC, and others but definitely not the focus.
Big bikes are fun, I know, I've ridden a bunch of them, they are great. That doesn't mean they are the only type of bike needed.
Long travel lets you run smaller, more engaging, wheels at the same level of comfort, and let you pick from a larger selection of lines/trails/etc so are thus much more engaging. And fun/engaging > "efficiency" for most non-racers.
120mm and bigger bikes are getting lighter, but the perception persists that just that extra 2cm of suspension is inefficient when climbing or sprinting, even though there are lockouts still on many XC bikes, making the extra 20mm unnoticable when locked out, and even though there will be a gain in traction in almost all situations from that extra travel if it's not locked out.
But who knows, since some UCI XCO races start and finish on pavement and others have been neutered with gravel and wood, so maybe the couple watts saved going uphill is worth it since they don't have to worry about the downs and flats at all.
In my experience, these aren't life changing differences, but subtle ones. You can have fun on any decent mountain bike, but a short travel 29er will help you go faster than a short travel 650b without giving up any intimacy with your trail.
"It isn't a line with "liveliness" & short travel on one end and "comfort" & more travel on the other." - there most certainly is a line with liveliness at one end, that's a big part of Levy's whole damn argument for short-travel.
"gives you just as much trail feedback ... and rolls over stuff slightly better." - Those two things are in opposition. If it's rolling over easier, then it's not giving as much feedback. It's been shown that it takes less energy to roll a 29er up over something than a smaller wheel. If there is less energy change in the system, there is less to feel for feedback.
You can't have both sides of it. Big wheels roll smoother and carry more momentum, so by definition they also give less feedback and are harder to accelerate. (This means starting, stopping, and turning. Those are all changes in velocity and all take acceleration.) I'm not saying no feedback, but definitely less. If not less, then the argument that they roll over stuff easier is false.
Shorter travel bikes do contribute to a more lively ride, but what i meant to say is its not one dimensional. There are many variables to a "lively" ride, and you can't just take into account a single variable.
On slower, pumpy, very tight bermed trails that are like a pump track 650b wheels will probably perform better. In practice on most trails, at least in my experience, you get that same intimate, close, pumpable and popable experience on a short travel 29er as you get on a 650b, except you go a little bit faster, have a little bit more grip, and for me a little bit more fun.
"There are many variables to a "lively" ride, and you can't just take into account a single variable." - I'm not. just trying to get the trade-off acknowledged.
And you can't claim that "a short travel 29er will help you go faster than a short travel 650b without giving up any intimacy with your trail" - "any" being the keyword. There IS something given up! If they go faster, smoother, rollier, whatever, then there is a trade-off. Maybe you don't care or mind or it's less noticable on your trails and in your experience, but there IS a difference.
The word "intimate" is very subjective, but in a double blind (very difficult to hide the wheels from the vision of the rider, that would be quite the trick) few are going to report that the 29er (once again, with good geo) is too stable, wallow-y or anchored to pump, pop, weave, etc.
You mention that double-blind-tests would be difficult, but then just make the assumption that most people would pick one over the other. That doesn't flow...
"For practical, actual riding, almost no one (perhaps excluding short riders, hard to get good geo on a XS 29er) would report a 29er as being less "in touch" with the trail." - so is it geo or wheels that make the big difference? You mentioned both...
It's 1000 well spent because because SLX is generally better and the dropper and brakes are considerably better.
In Canada, I can't even find the SLX groupset with the 4 pot brakes. The next best thing is the SLX groupset with 2 pots (not including bottom bracket) for $850 delivered + $360 for a oneup dropper with lever.
So $1210 Canadian - $600 for the take-offs sold. Layout is probably 600. But the SLX build is 1300 cad more.
Kind of a similar boat, but I'd need to decide if saving 600 dollars CAD is worth spending the time building the bike from scratch myself, plus the time finding buyers for all the take-off parts. (and then not having the 4 pot brakes, of course. Were I to find them, they seem to be much more expensive - so that takes an additional $200 off, makes the savings more like $400.)
I'm not sure that it's worth the hassle - which is probably the same calculus IBIS has done.
Edit: It wouldn't shock me if they're making next to nothing (or nothing) on the NX builds, and they're counting on the profits from the other builds to financially justify offering the NX build at such a reasonable price.
rover.ebay.com/rover/0/0/0?mpre=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ebay.com%2Fulk%2Fitm%2F333327689075
I don't understand the sketch with eBay its PayPal basically you are fully protected.
I buy 95% of my stuff there.
75% possible.
The model NEEDS. TO. CHANGE. I expect brands like GG, YT, etc. to become bigger and bigger players as long as Trek, Specialized, Santa Cruz, Yeti, etc. keep forcing consumers to pay $1000-$2000 for comparable builds just because the bike is passing through a bike shop on its way to you. There's no quality difference between traditional brands and direct-to-consumer brands now (in general), no matter what a cranky bike shop owner tells you.
Customer gets to try before spending $4k+ and shop locks in customer because they charge for demos, but refund it all with a bike purchase.
(sarcasm)
I mean, it's not exactly an "essential new wheel size", frame material or substantially new technology
However, right now, conventional drivetrains are actually working pretty well because we've been refining them a long time. They're efficient, quite light, shift well, we don't really drop chains any more etc. A gear box would have to be quite good to be better than a modern 12speed drivetrain and they're just not there yet. Might need another decade or two.
Until more people see a huge flaw with the derailleur drivetrain, gearboxes won't become huge. I really wanted to love the gearbox on bikes, but they are harder to pedal. There's more weight and more drag. Coming down, the Zerode Taniwha was pretty amazing, I just couldn't get used to letting pressure off the pedals to shift while climbing.
Yup. Just like a parallel linkage fork should work better than a telescopic fork in theory, but so much $ and time has been put into telescopic forks that they work really well for what they are. That and most parallel linkage forks are just not a s pleasant to look at.
@woofer2609 The fork analogy is right and for sure we need to get to a place where you can shift under load with gearboxes.
Because of where we are now conventional drivetrains and telescoping forks will be the standard for the forseeable future, we've put a lot of time and effort into developing really good systems and they work really well actually. I think we can expect that linkage forks and gearboxes will overtake eventually though.
As for linkage forks, same story kind of. I've seen quite a few German A linkage forks back in the days, people were racing those USE forks (also for 4X racing), then it just went all silent. Just because Pinkbike is now paying attention to those Trust forks doesn't mean it is the hot shit likely to take over the world. Linkage forks have been around for a good while and well, they didn't take over the world so I see no reason why Trust would be the one that would. Actually, what is new (to me) are those frames with linkage front suspension like that Structure bike. That one makes more sense to me and at least it isn't a concept that's been around for a good while and has proven to not make it. So yeah, it might make it. We'll see.
Funny thing is, it takes loads of early adopters to make it worthwhile for manufacturers to develop new stuff. And to me, being an early adopter seems a stupid thing to do. You may fund the improved product but what you're getting is the early iteration that was expensive and flawed. Back in the days it may have made sense as there wasn't a viable existing alternative so you could at least have a blast on the first Klunkers even if they broke frequently. Or more recently, early dropper seatposts weren't reliable either but the concept was interesting enough for people to accept the flaws. But as it is now, you can just have a proper blast on a conventional mountainbike with a derailleur and telescopic fork and it is just going to work. And as you are enjoying yourself, new tech either materializes or it doesn't. Once it does and you like it, you can buy it. If it doesn't, then so what? On the fly adjustable tire pressure, suspension spring rate... I can imagine would all be amazing stuff to have. Yet at the same time I having enough of a blast on my bike as it is that I can't be arsed to invest in something like that either. Not too soon. I invite the early adopters to go and get it, post it on Facebook and Instagram and tell everyone it really is the shit. Once the price comes down, reliability is up there and my current stuff is broken then yeah, I might consider it.
TL;DR: I prefer to be at the tail end of technological progress. Don't wait for me.
Hopefully Pinion and the like keep improving their stuff. They might gather some more market share slowly. Meanwhile Shimano and Sram will no doubt be exploring gearboxes. We'll get to a point in a decade or two where the conventional bicycle drivetrain can't really get much better - we'll have as many gears and as much range as is reasonably possible, they will shift as well as the idea of using a chain and a cassette allows, they'll be as silent and as sturdy as the concept allows and at that point, to continue to progress, we'll have to move toward something else. That's perhaps when major $ will be put into coming up with a really good gearbox.
Linkage forks I care a lot less about honestly, I think despite their issues telescoping forks work as well as we need them to.
Many aluminum framed bikes are a similar weight to the same model in carbon. Aluminum is a great material for bike frames. Weight saved on unsprung rotational mass is far better bang for the buck (think butted spokes and lightweight rims and maybe tires if they are burly enough)
I for one would like to see the standardized derailleur hanger SRAM proposed come to fruition.
Finally, howzabout someone redesigning their suspension on All Mountain bikes to best work with a 26t NW chainring so we can go back to 10-36t cassettes that are WAY cheaper, and a half pound lighter? Wait, that makes too much sense, so will probably never happen.
For a lark, I went back to a 2X system, running a 22 and 32t crankset (2015 Kona Process 153 27.5").
Honestly, the peddling was not noticeably worse at all with the 22t ring, in fact it was better, if anything.
My chainline was much better instead of being cross chained with a 30t 1X on my 42t rear cog most of the time for the ups.
As for smaller cogs being less efficient, I agree, they are. How much so is up to debate, and at what point you start to notice it is also up for debate. A cross chained bike is also inefficient. A 26t front ring would still have a rather large diameter, but a rear 10t cog does create some pretty kinky chains due to a tight radius.
Interesting stuff for sure!
Pedaling should be pretty good with a smaller chainring. But on some designs the pedal kickback starts to get pretty noticable when pedalling on rough ground.
I weight 100 kg, so even on a 14 kg bike, together I'm still heavier than a 70kg rider on a 20 kg eBike. So why would the eBike supposedly need specific components to handle the stresses of being an eBike? Could it be because doubling the rider's power (even a decent rider should be able to pump out 200-250 watts pretty continuously, and even the weakest eBikes are in that range of power-assist) means the bike is going to be smashing into things twice as hard and having to handle twice the power to the ground? So that means the alleged negligible increase in trail impact from eBikes is bullshit. If it wasn't, then eBikes wouldn't need all this over-built shit.
Spend a dollar per gram to save weight, on a bike you likely already lack the skills and muscle to repeatedly bunny hop and heave around with ease all day... then increase the bikes weight by 6% or more by strapping your belongings to it, rather than increase your body weight by 1% by wearing your belongings.
The crux of bunnyhopping and muscling a bike is the frontal outstretched arm lift motion, which most riders would struggle to do with a 15lb weight in each hand
Furthermore, Its so much easier to take a full size multi tool out of your pocket than to fiddle with digging a tiny shitty expensics multi tool out of some muddy orface on your bike.
I've landed on my water pack a 'time or two' over those same decades. If you're lucky enough to land on it it usually helps. 71* headangle plus long stem offered up the slight opportunity to flip all the way, but I ften used my head to land on.
I dont think a crank bros m19 agaisnt my big fleshy thigh is going to cause any real injury to me, if im slamming down i surely have much bigger concerns than a pewny multi tool.
I also have been saved by my backpack and its contense rather than injured by it in crashes. Not a concern to me so long as i dont have a sheathless machete strapped to it.
i choose comfort too. the comfort of having more than 16oz of water, the comfort of having a place to stuff an extra layer, food, a place to stow my helmet pads glasses. the comfort of having something between my spine and a pile of rocks when i tuck and roll.
adding 10% of a bikes weight back after spending 1000's to hit a desirably low weight threshold is generally daft. im glad you can bunny hop, congradulations, whatever works for you dude.
Obviously, I carry a small pack on long rides when I need more water or gear. I'm not suicidal. But even if I can't put it all on my frame, 3 pounds of water and gear off my back is still 3 pounds of water and gear off my back. And an ounce of weight saved on my bike build is still an ounce of weight saved if I put a water bottle on it. In my experience, I don't notice the extra weight on my frame while riding as much as I notice the extra weight on my back when carrying it.
Plus as a bonus, that extra 3 lbs is probably about a 15-20% increase in unsprung mass, which directly equates to about a 15-20% improvement in the sprung to unpsrung mass ratio.
But you know what, you're right. Clearly my experiences are flawed and my opinion is invalid seeing as they aren't the same as yours. How daft of me to think that I might be entitled to a personal opinion.
its suprising to me that you feel the weight less on your bike then on your bike. i agree about the oz saved is an oz saved. i guess for our own reasons we have our own ideas of how to best package that weight. im not saying your daft or that your opinion is invalid, although i disagree.
They know you are buying your bike online and based on YouTube, Instagram, and pinkbike, so they are there to help you when your dumb ass stripes your cranks.
So if your thinking about a linkage fork that's going to change the market - think twice, invest once.
Contrast this with the marketing blitz that is everything, all the time and focused on you spending money on a retro geo 27/29er with all this crap that is really nothing more than liscense plate ego,ffs.
I gotta say Levy was making a joke and the downcountry thing took off like it wasn't already a thing.
What's next, bike company gonna sell you. I'd rather ride the bike I have than work to pay for a bike that is in the garage.
Just a drop of realism to consider before gulping the cool aid of newerer shit , trail head cred, nice one corporate logo gene splice.
The norco ride aligned tuning thing is harly more than a gimmick. Regardless of the suggested setup good setup will be individually tailored. Tuning based on skills stated on paper are notoriously overstated. Also pressures on paper are irrelevant because of the variance in guage readings.
Sag, damping, tire pressure, as well as bike size, bar width etc need to be set related to the individual rider at the time and the terrain.
Figuring out a tune starts with baselining, then changing one variable at a time. Ie Whacking chainring in chunk - add 5 psi & 1 click rebound to maintain rebound rate. Fork bottoms hard on regular impact - add i click hsc.
Ride height ideal but fork diving- add 1 click lsc to fork. Fork diflecting off roots reduce hsc 1 click.
Setup is kinda like chasing your tail untill you have different setups basically known for different situations.
Reccomended settings are always just starting points. Sag is not a pressure, it is a distsnce.
with there current set up. Chances are? = 100%
the forests and terrain has been the same for millions of years. So why does this industry try to see everyone on the latest fad( with no other proven results, other than " a different feel" just to turn back, and take it off the shelves.
So get your top dollar ready for the next big thing this season!
I would be all over a new Totem!
And yes, RockShox Totem XC WC.
Longlive totem!!
Oh my god I had to stop here and comment before I could keep reading.
They don't have the same steerer. Check out the steerer tube wall thickness on some different forks. A Fox 36 180mm has massive walls at the steerer to crown interface compared to a Fox 32 StepCast 100mm. And a straight steerer version would have even thicker walls to maintain stiffness, though at the expense of more weight (because of the thick walls).
More Aluminium
I would like more manufacturers (looking at you, Scott) to offer the higher end build kits they reserve for their carbon frames on their aluminium models.
15 year old hit the end of the stroke frequently. Lot of cycles.
I have still regretted selling it many times. It just looked so good!
I wish I could unread that.
Did you have a favourite "Star"?
My 1999 Marin Wolfridge FSR had this feature.
Chances of this happening: 0%
I've personally seen only one broken carbon frame and zero brokene components, but a handful of broken alloy frame and another handful of "snapped" (broken just as catastrophically as you fear carbon bars would fail) alloy bars. And this is with at least an even local distribution of alloy to plastic, and perhaps more plastic lately.
1. I'm not so worried about how a carbon frame stands up to JRA big impacts like jumps, casings g-outs, coming up short, etc. That's basically what all those tests were for.... until the smashing the frame against the concrete which, actually isn't the same as a fully built up and body loaded frame impacting a rock at speed.
2. I'm more worried about real life crash impacts... like sharp rocks to the side of a top or down tube with speed and body weight... multiple times through a few years.
3. During those tests... the aluminum frame starts to bend at lower impacts (not much lower mind you)... and keeps going because it's intact, but to me it's broken at the first bend point and if I'm riding it, I can clearly see it and ride it home with no injuries. While the carbon frame starts making noises from around the same point (or less) all the way through to catastrophic failure. To me, it's broken at those first noises. But you'd never know it's compromised until you do that a few more times and it then one time it will just catastrophically fail and send you to the hospital.
I'm good with Aluminum. I crash and toss my bike too much... and like to other commented... I don't want to have to worry about punctured carbon or failures that I can't see every-time I do.
This!
Plus, an alloy frame maybe cheaper to replace. Depending on brand of course.
You think an alloy frame would have survived the weird impact that broken Minnaar's carbon V10 a couple seasons ago? Alloy absolutely would have broken, maybe (maybe) "folded" instead of "split" in half, also likely been severely dented even from a lesser impact that wouldn't have bothered the carbon.
Maybe you consider a folded in half alloy frame better than a split in half carbon frame, but they're both "broken".
You say you toss your bike a lot. Perhaps you don't realize how thin the walls of an alloy tube are in the middle. A pointy rock that takes a chunk out of a carbon downtube is just as likely to poke a hole through an alloy tube.
Chances of this happening - 0%
To Race beyond healthy limits, and they’d still be behind a dual crown fork. Fox40 weighs 2.8kg which is impressive if you look at the size and stiffness of it. Just make lighter dual crowns. Make a 180 DC fork at 2.5kg. My Lyrik at 180 is really beginng for mercy when put into DH territory
Also depends on what stiffness you're talking about. Large/heavy legs help mostly with fore/aft stiffness (while RS argues this shouldn't be just maxed out,and instead tuned for the situation), while large axles _and_ double crowns help with torsional stiffness, and double crowns alone help with absolute strength by transferring load to the frame and taking some load off the steerer.
Lower A2C since A2C is always limited by how thick crown is and where’s the top of the tire.
Totally available.
www.universalcycles.com/shopping/product_details.php?id=65957&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIjqTv7P355gIVBR-tBh2RGwNFEAQYAyABEgI2qPD_BwE
If you and the 3 other people that want those are willing to pay $1000 per tire I bet you could convince Maxxis to make them.
More underrated brand to be reviewed = 0%
Chances of that happening: %20
I think he's talking the confusingly named 20x110 boost standard.
A SRAM dub reference.
But decimals and inches get along just fine.