What comes next in the world of mountain bike technology? That's a question I've found myself asking lately, since it seems like the frenetic pace of change in the mountain bike world has slowed down a little. It's hard to say if this adjustment period would have been as noticeable without the pandemic – supply chain shortages have delayed countless product launches - but either way, the vast majority of the bikes that have been released lately fall more into the 'incremental enhancement' category rather than receiving dramatic, wholesale revisions.
Personally, I'm not opposed to the more gradual updates. It might not be as exciting to see
another Santa Cruz released that looks a lot like all of the other models in the lineup, but if it's not broken, why fix it? Mountain bikes have evolved to a point where it's hard to imagine what type of change could come along that would be as dramatic as the introduction of disc brakes, suspension, or dropper posts. I suspect we're approaching an evolutionary plateau, a time when the focus shifts more towards refinement rather than reinvention.
Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of new products on the horizon, it's just that I don't think they'll alter the riding experience to the same extent as some of the larger advances of the past.
How Did We Get Here?Geometry has progressed dramatically over the last decade, and today's bikes are all the better for it. The steep and short 26"-wheeled bikes of yesteryear look like children's toys next to the longer and slacker options they've been replaced with, and the performance benefits that the updated geometry has brought is very noticeable, especially when descending.
However, there is a point at which bikes can't get any longer or slacker (Grim Donut excluded). Sure, someone could make a 100mm cross-country bike with a 62-degree head angle, and while I'd be really curious to give it a try, it's unlikely that would ever catch on. Bikes are still being released that are longer and slacker than their predecessors, but the changes aren't quite as drastic – lately it's been half-degree head angle changes here, a slightly longer reach there, which I'd say is an indicator that we're getting close to the limit. After all, climbing is still a large part of the mountain biking experience, and trying to pilot a big barge of a bike around a tight, technical climb isn't going to be everyone's cup of tea.
The wheel size debate has pretty much subsided too, with most companies settling on some combination of models with 29" or mixed-wheel setups, with a 29" wheel up front and a 27.5" rear wheel. That's caused some consternation amongst the 27.5" 4 Lyfe crowd, but I do think the mixed-wheel configuration makes a lot of sense on longer travel bikes. I was skeptical at first, and I still throw up in my mouth a little bit whenever someone says, "It's the best of both worlds," but after riding a decent number of mixed wheel options I've come to appreciate their handling on enduro and DH bikes, especially in steep terrain. It's also an option that can be offered relatively easily on a bike, since going to a smaller rear wheel is a whole lot simpler than going to a bigger one when it comes to frame clearance.
More Adjustments & Refinements Rather Than Dramatic OverhaulsTo that end, we're seeing more adjustability built into bikes – Specialized's Stumpjumper EVO is a prime example of how to make an incredibly adaptable bike, and the recently launched Trek Fuel EX seems to take a page out of that playbook. Giving riders the ability to steepen or slacken a bike's head angle by a meaningful amount, and to raise and lower the bottom bracket height is a great feature. Sure, plenty of riders won't ever deviate from the stock setting, but for those that want to tinker, or fine-tune their bike for a trip to a different riding zone it's a great option, and acts as a way to future-proof a frame's geometry.
As radical geometry chances subside, it's going to incentivize companies to look towards new features to help their new models stand out from the old. In-frame storage, anyone? Again, this isn't a bad thing - there's no rule that says the next model of a particular bike
has to be longer and slacker than the one before, even if that's pretty much always the case. Personally, I think it'd be refreshing to have a company say, "We nailed it with the geometry on this bike, so we're leaving it alone for the foreseeable future... and adding an aluminum version into the lineup."
What about e-bikes? That's a whole other can of worms, but it also happens to be where a lot of product development is taking place. That makes sense given how well modern mountain bikes work, and how much room for improvement there is in the battery / motor department on an eMTB. Love 'em or hate 'em, e-bikes are a part of the landscape now, and they're only going to become increasingly common, especially as more relatively light mid-power options are released.
Of course, as I'm writing this there's probably someone out there toiling away in their garage on the next best thing, a drivetrain that never needs to be adjusted, or tires that are impossible to flat. I'm all for innovation when it leads to improvements, no matter how big or small. Even if there aren't any massive upheavals to mountain bike design in the near future there are still more than enough areas with room for refinement.
A Buyer's Market Could Be On the WayA slower pace of change means that riders with bikes that are a few years old won't feel like they're missing out on something special every time a new model is announced. It's all too easy to start feeling that new bike envy, but it's a lot easier to keep those feelings at bay if the latest and greatest doesn't look like it's much different from what you currently own. Sure, a storage compartment in the downtube is handy, but for many riders that's not going to be enough incentive to rush out and upgrade.
In addition, a wave of newcomers entered the world of mountain biking over the last couple of years. While many will be in it for the long haul, others may not be as sold on the sport. What does that mean? Well, as supply chain issues subside and the used market starts to fill up with bikes from riders trying to offload their pandemic purchases, a buyer's market could be on the horizon. Despite all the doom and gloom in the financial world, it might be prime time to score a good deal on a bike that won't be outdated any time soon.
interpreted that's:
In 2017 bikes were cheaper, broke all the time, had crappy geometry and tiny wheels.
I'll take today's bikes thanks.
Also 'cheaper' is true yes, but it's also relative given inflation.
That's the only thing I miss from the old days.
Touted as a budget down hill fork at 100mm of travel!
On high end bikes would be Jsut as good on a mid level alu bike. Fair enough if you just love collecting new bits as a hobby, but if you think your 10o bike is making you a faster then someone on a 5k commnecal, yt,etc etc you just kidding yourself.
The thing is that you take a bike from today and ride it on the majority of old school XC trails and they will be such overkill. Trails have evolved along with the tech so it’s a bit like apples and oranges to judge an old bikes performance on todays trails.
Negative prop me for telling the truth, see if I care
What a bike!
It had super slack head angle, maybe even below 70°, short 10 cm stem, wide 2.25 tyres.. no dropper, but man, it was gorgeous.
That bike could shred. I could ride down to several stairs in complete control!
Agree. I’m lucky enough to be able to afford several bikes at the same time. And my favourite? Transition scout with 27.5 wheels and 430mm chainstays...
How did the tenet warranty treat you?
It’s the other way around actually. Certain influencers have actively driven me away from buying products from certain brands.
The issue is entry level companies entered the market with really competitive prices and now they have raised their prices so that the difference between them and traditional companies is much smaller which makes the sport less affordable than it was 5-10 years ago. And I say this as someone who has bought a less afordable direct order bike in 2022
I can't imagine terrain that would need more bike than that outside of Val di Sole
eventually Deore has to pressure SRAM into doing something. i... i hope.
or manufacturers biting the bullet and speccing microshift instead of sram SX for their 2k-3k builds.
but we live in bulk componentry rockshox/sram world
I have to admit… currently, I rarely ever feel trails in my region are overcrowded. Sometimes quite the opposite. 90% of the time I only encounter another person at a trail head or connector.
I think suspension design and components have a long way to go, but people don't get excited about that. Actually most people seem rely angry about suspension innovation.
I know we are only allowed to say bad things about transmission gear boxes, but if someone solves that issue, that could truly change a lot of stuff.
If things settle down, then it's time to bring back fat bikes now
There are edge cases, obviously. Like a handful of badly designed or manufactured frames or very heavy riders. But otherwise, they are fine.
Brakes on the other hand could use some improvement in the reliability sphere.
So, absolutely not a solved problem. Also true about shocks like the X2 that suffer from hysteresis.
1, standard spring kyb sss and kyb shock is good enough to be setup for factory riders, and price is inline with "top spec" mtb stuff. But big changes have to be done with valving.
2. The dhx2 gen 1 and current ccdb was a poor poppet twin tube design. Poppets create degressive curves, and it really only went that way to give an extetnally adjustable hsr, guess why? So fox didn't have to sell every size in soft medium and firm tunes. So you get a shit compression curve in exchange for not having to deal with revalving the rebound for drastically different rates or pressures. Done believe me it sucked? Well why don't you look at an ohlins? On road racers they use poppets, Their dirt ttx Don't use a rebound poppet, and lsr is in the traditional location on the shaft, if anything it's a hybrid of mono tube and twin tube. The new x2 is this way but shits it's guts all the time.
It's ironic that you are calling a ttx a float x when the new x2 changes to resemble a ttx.
Also have you ever tried closing the lsc and hsc on a grip 2 vvc, it has NO compression damping, it's so great so high end, 4 knobs, 2 don't do anything, rad cool sick.
Do you have your own dhx2 graphs or you just watch vosprung channel at you tube?
I have tested v1 dhx2 just after service at MTS performance dyno at velocities between 0 and 0,5 m/s at extremes of adjustments and what I had saw suprised me. Expected digressive curves like you mentioned, but it wasn't like that. Probably it's because poppets at dhx2 are equipped in a small shimstacks.
The only problem is as you are saying the yoke design. Which on some bikes damages shocks.
On the innovation front, I would love to see lighter tires with the durability of a DD casing.
On the economics front, I would also love to see all bike tire prices come down to more reasonable levels.
As far as what you'd like to see in the market, I couldn't agree more - a cheaper tire with a stiff, but light and durable, sidewall would be awesome. Specialized tires seem to be moving in this direction; they ride great, and they're very competitively priced.
Which has other benefits for me.
(note to self: this comments should also be filed under the topic "cranks")
My goal as a rider now is to ride my 120mm bike faster downhill than the majority of people riding their 160mm sleds downhill. It's been a fulfilling experience so far.
The big question is, with prices running away from us, what do bike and surfboard and skimboarding companies do to fill in the entry level gap better? And I don't think wavestorms and walmart bikes are the answer lol
Bring on the Microshift and deore bikes. enough with sram sx and 1k+ gaps between models.
Even so, the automotive shortage is still a thing with used cars selling for more than list prices. Your comparison is just not accurate or even valid.
Steel, standard electrical components, hoses, and plastic are really cheap, especially if weight is less important than cost. I have a $12,000 team bike and a $5,000 car. Car gets me long distances but damn is it a piece of shit compared to the marvel of engineering that is electronic shifting, carbon fiber, and factory suspension which is all criminally lightweight. You’re right, not a valid comparison at all.
$12k bike new, sure. But your car wasn’t $5k new was it? You can buy yesteryear’s super bikes for peanuts now too. I’ve seen guys driving $100k cars with $300 department store bikes hanging off the back. Again, let’s at least make it a fair comparison.
And this is a regular quality car, you can find cheaper cars. I mean a car! With an engine respecting actual laws is a piece of engineering compared to any bike. Without even considering the mass of raw materials and the machinery to drill them at that level of precision. And transport between plenty of factories for each pieces.
It looks crazy to me.
I'm not crazy about expensive bikes either and as Mike Kazimer pointed out, the technological slow-down will likely relieve pressure on prices for traditional analogue bikes as 10-year-old bikes become as good as brand new ones. Not only is that great for the consumer, but its great for sustainability too!
Big brands, started pushing their prices, due to market (aka peopl who buy), lack of availability, profit. Big companies grew, brougth the CEO...CFO...COO.... and mtb is just another business to make money.
Initially, it was about money (of course!), but it is my belief that companies wanted their products to be loved amd cherished by their customers.
That what Cannondale and GT did back in the 90s, flowed by Turner in the beigining of 2000s, Santacruz, Transition not so long ago.
All had something different, their suspension design, their geometry...
But as their patents felt, more brands can copy what their making, leaving the big brands left with the only thing they can provide:
MARKETING.
Sure, little improvements will be added (and copied), and that's part of the human nature.
MTB starting losing it spark for NEW things, starting to fade, and heading towards another "comodity".
For me, it's simple:
Is the new bike worth (fun/efficiency/other) the asking price?
Personally, don't think so.
My 2016, 29er trail bike is still rocking the trails, and sure the lastest toys are always shinier, but I don't feel the urge to spend such amount of money, when my present ride, works so good, and besides there are so many places I need to improve, like improving my house, my weekend house and garden, probably a new engine for my boat, and probably switching my old road bike for a newer one... and so many places to visit with family.
MTB is a weekend hobby.
Thank you for all those brands that stepped out and offer EXCELENT bikes, at an affordable price.
I mean, just lol.
The big companies are just screwing with us at this point.
But I agree, Spesh does take the piss a little with their sworks pricing.
Yeah I do, and no it’s not ridiculous. My bike cost more because of my car because that’s where I place value and I didn’t need to buy a performance vehicle. It’s not comparable in any way.
Geo probably does have a sweet spot/range that will contain MTBs. Adding adjustability is an evolution of that geo settling in a range, but it’s not revolutionary.
Suspension… sure some tweaks and changes, but suspension design has been similar on vehicles of all types for a long time now. Again here, the evolution was to provide adjustability. And to be honest, I’m not sure I can really tell the difference in ride and performance of a Fox Performance vs Factory… or a RS Select vs Ultimate.
Our feeble minds and group think now lead us to putting a battery on everything and calling that progress.
I remember when I got into biking I rode with a few guys who had really nice wheels, and presumably other bits and pieces, and every few years would just buy a new frame (only the frame) and transfer all the stuff they wanted over... They always had nice, relatively high end bikes (and that new bike excitement) for a comparatively low cost. With all the changing standards this is becoming harder and harder.
I understand progression (and like it to a degree as I have a great bike now) but I do wish that new standards would calm down a bit...
Bikes are so similar in many ways that manufacturers are likely to be under significant pressure to have something new and better to differentiate their bike from the rest, and I think this is what drives most of them rather than their bike being 0.1% 'better' for the customer.
A flip chip to allow 27.5" or 29" rear wheel without changing geo.
A shock flip chip for more or less progressive suspension curve.
A flip chip rear dropout to shorten or lengthen the chain stay length +/- 10mm
Flip head tube cups to lengthen/shorten reach +/- 10mm
High/Low BB flip Chip
A bike with this level of adjustability could be so future proof, and allow for so many different riding styles. But maybe that's not good for business, idk. But I hope adjustability continues to show up on new bikes.
Funnily enough, i would be all over a production version of a trail variant of the norco range alloy mule. huge adjustment.
It was quite eye opening how differently they affected the ride.
Perhaps something like this is the next big thing - ride a test mule bike to establish your preferred geometry, and then get the bike built up for you? Geometron does this in a very mechanical/elegant way, and low volume builders can custom build you something, but it's a low volume of the bikes sold that are truly customised to the end user. Perhaps this is where brands such as Atherton bikes could lead the way - it's very easy for them to adapt their geometry compared to the current model of purchasing a set carbon mould?
Also dual-crown compatible.
I don’t expect to need a new frame ever again ( unless I go insane and decide to go XC racing again).
I am expecting some manufacturers to have hard times ahead.
Capitalism isn't the answer to all the world's problems, but if there's money to be made in selling good bikes for less, someone is bound to do it.
I bought my Devinci on closeout about 4 years ago. I am, lately, looking for another bike. I cannot bring myself to spend the amount that even base model bikes are going for on closeout. I am not one of those who thinks that everything is expensive. In many cases, you get what you pay for. The issue here is that we all know that a frame costs a few hundred bucks to produce. Off shored production makes things cheaper. I can see why companies like Atlas and GG ask what they do as they are made in the States. The fact that we are being asked to pay $3k for a frame that is basically the same as the previous years "outdated" model, is hilariously sad.
I replace bikes as needed. New bikes are fun, but they’re the tool you need to go biking.
Too many bike owners forget that…..
Size specific chain-stay length, size specific BB height combined with the correct crank length also by size, different leverage curves for light vs. heavy people, 2 water bottles inside the triangle or even a bladder stored inside the frame, storage obviously, L & XL DC bikes with longer than 435mm CS lengths, these things all need significant improvement.
And that's before you even get to the e-bikes. Expect an absolute wave of lightweight, quiet, nearly invisible e-bikes, very quickly with near constant evolution.
also, mass product purchasing it keep price down a bit too, so the components would be a difficult specific improvement too. ..
the bottle cages, bladders, would be amazing! and leverage ratios - i think all companies can throw in a flip chip that would change angle of shock/ rear end to help with more or less progression.. that would be sweet.
This is mostly a good thing in my book, it means the out of the box thinking of some small manufacturers and tinkererers (Chris Porter for example) has finally become accepted and endorsed by mainstream brands. After decades of no advance in geometry, big steps forward were made in the short space of 5-6 years.
I'm also happy that many brands don't renew their models annually, most have 3 year circles. This makes sense in every possible way.
On innovation....only yesterday I watched a video of some guy testing Bosch's ABS system for e-bikes. While it certainly adds weight and complication, this thing seems to work. If it finds a way to regular bikes and becomes lighter/smaller it could be the next big innovation for MTB.
Gearboxes... I see the appeal but if I'm being honest, my 11sp GX derailleur is 6yrs old, has around 16.000km, and still works fine despite all the abuse it's been through. I can't ask for more than this really. Yes, I'd love a gearbox so I can carelessly blast through rockgardens, but not sure I'd like to pay for the complicated parts and gearbox specific frame. Transmission is good enough right now IMHO. Not so sure if 12sp was necessary though.
Tyres... yes, I'd love to see some innovation there, keeping the durability of 1200gr carcasses closer to 800-900gr. At the moment Schwalbe Supertrail is a good compromise, but if we could do better it would be very welcome.
Prices... my feeling is that right now they are NOT dictated by costs of developing, manufacturing and transporting product, but rather adjust to what people are willing to pay. And it seems that people have been happily buying 4000-4500€ bikes with NX during the last couple of years, so that's what we get. It sucks and I'm happy that I just build a new bike for a reasonable cost, but it means that my next bike will have to be bought used.
The next big MTB advancement maybe won't even be on the bike itself but maybe safety equipment or trail-related?
That said, a week ago I got chased up a local trail climb by some punk on a One Wheel. Rocks, roots, and a pretty steep grade, and I couldn't ditch that thing's headlight just a little ways behind me. At least he wasn't riding my ass, but there was no way in hell I was going to let that pass me.
Point is, once you start allowing motors and batteries you're going to get all kinds of new-fangled stuff out on the trails. Some of it may be bicycle-shaped like eBikes, but others not so much.
I think people have overly long memories. Making a comparison between today and 25 years ago, obviously, you are going to see some improvements.
I'm not sure that if you compared cutting edge bikes 5 years ago to today you'd see, massive improvements. Some of the more conservative manufacturers like Giant and Trek have taken a while to adopt geometry, but they are always behind the curve.
Suspension technology isn't meaningfully better, its just tweaks.
Brakes, nothing ground breaking.
Tyres? Just different variations on a theme.
Drive trains, more bells and whistles, but significantly better?
The last innovation was dropper posts. Those have been mainstream for 10 years.
www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/11/tech-innovation-silicon-valley-juicero
I think mtbs are becoming like smartphones. Mature technology, differences are mostly fashion and branding.
Take Santa Cruz. Great bikes to be sure, but people are buying them in the way they buy an Audi, because they have great paint and cache. Still a VW, same as a Skoda, or Seat, just a bit posher.
2) It's more than possible to be happy and content with what you have. If you're bored with the bike you have after 10 months, that's a you problem, not a bike industry problem.
Fast forward to today. We have several 2018+ bikes in the garage and I could hardly swap out parts across any of them. Threaded vs pressfit BB's. Different derailleur hangers. Real wheels spec'd with 3mm dish. Sound good to an engineer sitting in front of a CAD screen. Works like sh1t for the race mechanic trying to get someone back out riding quickly.
Yes the new bikes can roll over stuff that I would not have even looked at with 26" steely. But I think the new bikes could roll just as well using slightly more standardized designs.
When my post is up, firm up the shock damper (perhaps I can adjust to what degree). When the post is down, open shock. Being able to tailor it to my needs and have an override would be even better.
This quickly makes bikes better going downhill simply because frame designs and kinematics don’t have to account for climbing as much. It also makes bikes go uphill much better, even if it’s not an Uber boutique suspension like DentistIfinity 8000. “Best of Both Worlds” and it doesn’t require a bunch of BS Ai and sensors etc either. Fox should do this tomorrow since they own both dropper and shock.
That thing needs to compress and uncompress, but not too fast. There must be simpler designs that still work fine enough for the average Joe.
And after that: a simpler wide range drive train, that's protected from crashes - 10 gears or so should do!
Don't need innovation, I want simple things that I can maintain and afford!
HAHAHAHAHA.
"there's no rule that says the next model of a particular bike has to be longer and slacker than the one before"
Except there kinda is, since if it doesn't change, it gets panned right here on PB as being stale, or in need of "updating". See
www.pinkbike.com/news/18-bikes-that-could-see-an-update-in-2022.html & www.pinkbike.com/news/14-more-bikes-that-could-see-an-update-in-2022.html & www.pinkbike.com/news/13-bikes-that-could-see-an-update-in-2023.html
Just this year, y'all found 32 to 45 (not sure how many were repeated in the latest article) that "need updating", so yeah there kinda is a rule against not changing things, including geo. If there isn't a blatant "needs updating" written, doing things like pointing out that the geo was designed X years ago is implying that it's out of date.
2) Suspension components need to be more durable. I'm looking right at you, Fox X2.
3) Derailleurs need to sail off into the sunset. The next big iteration of e-bike architecture should prioritize this.
One young simple boy has publicly shown how terrribly ugly are nowadays derailuers. I didn't even go from 9sp to 11 or 12, but stayed at 10sp and used short-cage Saint because I can't stand the uglyness of those 'medium' or long cages.
You spent several thousands of your solaris for bike, where biggest sprocket and long derailuer form some weird chainway next to tiny 32t chainring.
.
My own prediction is specifically positioned clutch in high-pivot designs...
Example: after five years of running (and destroying a pile of) carbon rims, tire inserts, and lighter tires, this year I switched to alloy rims, DH tires, and standard tubeless on my trail bike. I've had fewer flats than in years past, and haven't had a single ride ended due to a catastrophic rim failure. As a bonus, my system weight is actually a bit lighter with the current setup. I'm back to the old ways, and am, for the time being, much happier with the results.
Anyone else had better luck ditching any of the current must-have tech? Is there anything that's been causing you headaches that you'd be happier without?
I’m not opposed to carbon rims, but the financial case doesn’t add up. By the time the price difference was amortized I’d be on a bike where the wheels aren’t compatible with the frame and/or drivetrain.
All Of This Has Happened Before And Will Happen Again.
Cue industry wide launch of 28.25inch wheels (no need to mullet as best of both worlds) and slightly better boost 151.5mm.
Insert dedicated tires and rims-some weight can come out of the wheel system if it’s designed around Cushcore or a similar product.
Droppers should be integrated into the seat tube. And please (PLEASE!) have only one or two standards for that.
Gearboxes promise a low maintenance, durable drivetrain but the shifting needs to improve. Weight also needs to come down and efficiency needs to go up.
That’s my wishlist.
We need a universal freehub. We had one for a long time, only for a few manufacturers to chase more gears and drivetrains that were weaker and much less reliable.
Microsoft Advent X is proof that less is more. Nobody needs 12 years, just a wide range. 10 speed 11-48 has been great for me for the last few years and very reliable. And leagues better than the Eagle GX it replaced.
A UFH would allow manufacturers to chase better quality cassettes again instead of additional ratios that aren't needed. It would be much more sustainable too. Less hubs, free hubs and cassettes wasted when people wanted to change components.
Sadly I think the days of universal anything are long gone in the name of profit.
I don't know if this is true, but it seems reasonable.
Buy a Scott?
Unless you’re under 10% bodyfat and your FTP is at or above 4w/kg saving a pound or two of frame weight just means-you’re still slow (full disclosure-I’m skinny enough but don’t put out that kind of power either).
BTW, that's the kind of race I can win too. lol
I have some friends that would absolutely destroy me when I was at my peak several years ago. But at least I get to say "Hi" to them at the starting line before they disappear, only to be fully changed by the time I finish.
Suspension will also continue to be refined. Maybe some more inertial valving magic that allows a firm platform on low speed compressions regardless of where the sag is set.
Tires could always be lighter, and while we're at it, since we are putting sealant and rim foam in there, how about just going to a tire mouse/low density foam similar to what's used on the Dakar Rally motorcycle? Good bye to any type of punctures or pinch flats until the out casing disintegrates.
Also not riding crazy technical stuff found on the North shore of Vancouver either. So maybe 62 HTA wouldn't make much difference.
Bmx has left hand drive options, for good reasons though.
Also I have to say there’s a tonne of innovation in emtbs. Maybe this is where the focus is now. Americans don’t want to hear it but in most of the world ebikes are new black, and they are getting so damn nice.
I’m running 11Speed GX cable I’ll never change & I’ll never stop riding my acoustic bike
It's geometry is "middle of the road" by today's standards, and is at home on a huge range of trails. I'll keep riding it until the bike market regains its sanity (probably several years away).
Why is not posible to offer the 36 and the Lyrik with 170mm and 180mm anymore? if you like this travel as a light rider you have to buy a fork with 300gr. extra weight.
On flat hometrails this sucks, more weight means less fun.
thank you marketing Bullsh!t...
And now that eBikes are so common, how long will it take before the eBike and non-eBike frames are identical and the non-electric version gets a gearbox or hybrid gearbox like the Classified 2-speed internally geared hub mounted either in the front triangle or the rear wheel instead? And once you start using eBike frames there's no need for wireless electronics, as the bikes are engineered to integrate the wires from the get go and come with the wires pre-installed.
There's also a ton of room for cheap single-speed, single-pivot steel park bikes that no company in the industry other than Starling seem interested in.
Once steering dampers get integrated into frames you'll likely see another wave of incompatibility on some level as well. There's probably a lot more stuff on the horizon that I'm missing, but these are what I see coming off the top of my head.
Is there though? With 170-180mm enduro/freeride bikes becoming both more capable and better pedaling, it seems like the dedicated dh/park market is getting smaller and smaller in general, much less for a specific niche that is particularly non-versatile.
I'm also not saying that any of the innovations I've cited are necessarily good or wanted, just that they are highly likely and at least on paper achieve many of the desires that seem super important to people on PB.
For most people, getting 80% of they want with some compromises is exactly why they buy a bike like a Canyon Torque, Propain Spindrift, Commencal Meta SX. You can have tons of fun with them in the bike park and hit some wild stuff, but also pedal them up things as well. That way, you don't need to buy multiple bikes and that saves more money than having very specific bikes filling niches, even if they're less expensive and that volume lets manufacturers lower prices a bit compared to the Starling.
I think the Starling is awesome, but to me that niche is basically only riders that only ride park, don't want to race, and value durability over other performance metrics.
I certainly think DH bikes will live on, but I don't think it's the lower end that will drive it.
Now, if someone manages to build one for $2500 all in, that would maybe open a new niche, but I think that right now anyone focusing on price is more likely to get a bike that covers more things than a single speed dh bike.
Have you read any of your own bike reviews? $10,000 bikes are the norm. Inflation is nearly double digits while wage rise is low single. No offense but wtf are you talking about?
2 years of abnormally high bike sales mean the market is saturated. Used bikes will flood the market. Shops will go from selling every bike they unbox within a day to sitting on inventory past when the bill is due.
Hopefully half the shops in NA don’t go under this time around.
www.pinkbike.com/buysell/3549576
Plus going steeper on seat angle was more about fitting longer travel on bigger wheels
But 26" bikes still exelerate faster & are lighter!
For everything else, 29 is faster. That’s why all the XC racers are on them.
I’m not a mullet fanboi, but I see the place for those too….
Not everyone is so drab in their preferences.
At least for me that might explain the lack of periods in the longest sentence ever written. @nozes:
GNARKANSAS!!!!! Spec built McTrails 4 Lyfe!
And yes I do like 26'ers .. most fun to ride by far. I'm OK with 650b's as well.
In a way, big & slack 29ers are vaccinations for bike speed and stability on >12% downhill - I understand the reluctance to buy in.