Looking Back on Ten Years of Mountain Bike Innovation
My career has spanned the history of the mountain bike and I can say without hesitation that this past decade has been one of the sport's most dynamic periods of change. Innovations and new standards seemed to pop up monthly, and the controversies they spawned were legion at times. Let's revisit some of them.
Strava
Founded October, 2009, by Mark Gainey and Michael Horvath, the Strava smart phone app was predestined to revolutionize cycling. Think about it; cyclists are predominantly nerdy loners, preoccupied by our levels of fitness and skills, who often train in isolation and are competitive to the point of diagnosable neurosis. Furthermore, we are habitual liars anytime we discuss our performance and mileage with other cyclists.
Founded October, 2009, by Mark Gainey and Michael Horvath, the Strava smart phone app was predestined to revolutionize cycling. Think about it; cyclists are predominantly nerdy loners, preoccupied by our levels of fitness and skills, who often train in isolation and are competitive to the point of diagnosable neurosis. Furthermore, we are habitual liars anytime we discuss our performance and mileage with other cyclists.
Strava's unintentional consequences have had both positive and negative effects. On the negative side, riders have become much less willing to slow or move off the trail in consideration for others, and many who would never have lifted a finger to volunteer for trail work are busy grooming technical sections and straightening corners to claw time from their virtual competitors.
On the plus side, Strava has helped move technology forward. The wholesale shift by once-reluctant riders to larger wheels and dual suspension - especially dual-suspension in the cross-country ranks - can be attributed in part to irrefutable data from their own Strava results.
On the plus side, Strava has helped move technology forward. The wholesale shift by once-reluctant riders to larger wheels and dual suspension - especially dual-suspension in the cross-country ranks - can be attributed in part to irrefutable data from their own Strava results.
Death of 26-inch Wheels
"Twenty six ain't dead!" There was no reason to utter that phrase back in 2010. The 29er was marginalized as a means for cross-country riders to avoid switching over to dual suspension. The mountain bike's seminal wheel diameter could not be challenged as long as downhill racers and freeriders ruled the roost. Trouble was on the horizon, however, and the throne of the full face helmet would soon fall to the half-shell-and-trail-bike coat of arms. In less than ten years, the 26-inch wheel would be dead to the mountain bike community - survived only by a vestigial population, kept alive by circus performers at pump track and slopestyle venues.
Big wheels, it turns out, actually did roll faster, just like Wes Williams, Gary Fisher, and Chris Sugai said they did. Strava verified that truth, but in spite of the fact that avid trail riders were shouting about their advantages, the world was not quite ready for 29ers - especially in Europe, where many believed that North American brands like Trek and Specialized were shoving 29ers down their throats.
The ensuing battle between 26-inch traditionalists and 29-inch evangelists would soon escalate into an all-out war after bike designers ran into a wall attempting to squeeze more than 120-millimeters of rear-wheel travel from their 29er frames.
The ensuing battle between 26-inch traditionalists and 29-inch evangelists would soon escalate into an all-out war after bike designers ran into a wall attempting to squeeze more than 120-millimeters of rear-wheel travel from their 29er frames.
Slopestyle has become the final resting place for 26-inch wheels.
The answer was a mid-sized wheel - large enough to gain a more advantageous roll-over than puny 26-inch wheels, but just small enough to gain tire clearance for DH-width rubber and for wheel travel in the neighborhood of 150 millimeters. North American brands called the mid-sized wheel 27.5 inch. European bike makers insisted upon 650b and they ran with it. Three camps were now banging out insults on their keyboards, but 27.5 was the last nail in the coffin for 26-inch wheels.
Enduro is almost all 29er. Here, Shawn Neer helps Team USA earn the gold medal at the EWS Trophy of Nations...
...Downhill racers are still divided. Loic Bruni earned his third World Championship gold on a bike with a 29" front wheel and a 27.5" rear wheel.
One can argue that it was a compromise, but the wholesale adoption of the 27.5-inch standard also was an industrywide confession that larger wheels were better. Once the bitterness of that pill faded and designers optimized kinematics, geometry and fork offsets for larger wheels, 27.5 became the new 26 - and by the end of the decade, the 29er would be anointed as the next to wear the crown.
Pinion P1.18 Gearbox
It's hard to believe that ten years ago, most mountain bikes had three chainrings, ten cogs, a front derailleur, and shift levers on both sides of the handlebar. It's even harder to conceive that almost nobody was complaining about that. There was (and still is), however, a vocal band of anti-derailleur activists among us who prayed every day for a sealed gearbox transmission that could forever eliminate the mess and complication we call a derailleur drivetrain.
Salvation came in the form of two German automotive engineers who originally worked for Porsche. Michael Schmitz and Christoph Lermen
It's hard to believe that ten years ago, most mountain bikes had three chainrings, ten cogs, a front derailleur, and shift levers on both sides of the handlebar. It's even harder to conceive that almost nobody was complaining about that. There was (and still is), however, a vocal band of anti-derailleur activists among us who prayed every day for a sealed gearbox transmission that could forever eliminate the mess and complication we call a derailleur drivetrain.
Salvation came in the form of two German automotive engineers who originally worked for Porsche. Michael Schmitz and Christoph Lermen
Pinion's P1.18 transmission unwittingly provided the prototype mount e-bikes would later copy.
Pinion's P1.18 gearbox set a high bar for anyone who dared challenge the derailleur, and it still stands as the best gearbox made today. Pinion followed their 18-speed masterpiece with lighter and even more compact 12- and 9-speed versions, all of which have enjoyed some success in the high-end market place. Most truly innovative products come with a learning curve. Pinion's was its rotary shifting. Ultimately, its weight (2700g to 2200g), moderate drag penalty, and its justifiably high MSRP prevented the Pinion gearbox from displacing the longstanding alternative, so it exits this decade as a reminder that the best way to thin a crowd of enthusiastic fans is to ask them to pull out their wallets and make a substantial purchase.
Chain drives are hobbled by evenly spaced teeth. Pinion attains perfectly spaced gear steps by altering the tooth profiles of the gears. Pinon image
That said, Michael Schmitz and Christoph Lermen's transmission set the bar so high that anyone who does find the materials, financing and technology to best them will most certainly match the performance of the humble derailleur transmission. I hope it will be Pinion who accomplishes this miracle.
The Decade of Dave
Dave Weagle didn't invent anti-squat - race car and motorcycle designers already abided by those rules. Weagle was the Prometheus who brought this fire to the mountain bike. Weagle's successful string of design collaborations with the likes of Turner, Ibis, Pivot and Evil became a wake-up call for bike designers large and small to calculate anti-squat values into his or her suspension kinematics.
Roll back the clock ten years and the you'll discover that the most successful solutions to make a suspension bike pedal well were some sort of lever to lock it out. The modern trail bike was just gaining traction, but bike makers largely relied upon shock and fork suppliers to make them pedal well. Weagle taught us that the frame could do a better job.
Roll back the clock ten years and the you'll discover that the most successful solutions to make a suspension bike pedal well were some sort of lever to lock it out. The modern trail bike was just gaining traction, but bike makers largely relied upon shock and fork suppliers to make them pedal well. Weagle taught us that the frame could do a better job.
Dave Weagle Trust image
Weagle's successful demonstrations of how to trick the bike's rear suspension to counter the lagging mass of the rider became the key that unlocked the long-travel trail bike, which in turn, spurred the most rapid period of successful improvement in the history of the genre. If someone told me back then that I would be able to hop onto a 160-millimeter-travel bike with its rear suspension set soft enough to descend steep, techy trails - and still climb efficiently - I would have laughed. Today, when I roll out for my first ride on any test bike, I expect that level of performance and versatility. It is doubtful that the industry would have achieved this without Weagle's influence.
The Duke of rear suspension, Weagle closed out the decade with his Trust linkage fork. Trust image
Clutch-Type Rear Derailleurs
Shimano surprised the world by adding a one-way friction clutch to the chain-take-up cage pivot of its 2012 XTR Shadow Plus rear derailleur. The innovation - a tiny adjustable band brake, encircling a needle bearing clutch - came out of nowhere, but one ride was all it took to realize its potential to calm the slack side of the chain, which in turn, stabilized shifting performance. Shmano's invention was sorely needed.
One-by drivetrains were just beginning to blow up and with no front derailleur to guide the chain, designers were wrestling to lock down lightweight solutions to keep it in place over technical terrain. The bandage was a smaller, lighter version of the chainguides that downhillers used. The roller clutch, however, meted out just enough chain on the slack side to facilitate shifts, but not enough to allow the chain to escape from the bottom half of the chainring. After the clutch (and the next invention on this list), chain guides became optional equipment.
Unlike Shimano, SRAM was completely invested in the one-by concept, so it came as no surprise that the Chicago brain trust fired back with its own clutch design shortly thereafter. Before and after photographs of riders at speed bear witness to the dramatic improvement the addition of cage-pivot clutches made to chain control. Perhaps more welcome, however, is that bikes run much more quietly now.
Shimano surprised the world by adding a one-way friction clutch to the chain-take-up cage pivot of its 2012 XTR Shadow Plus rear derailleur. The innovation - a tiny adjustable band brake, encircling a needle bearing clutch - came out of nowhere, but one ride was all it took to realize its potential to calm the slack side of the chain, which in turn, stabilized shifting performance. Shmano's invention was sorely needed.
One-by drivetrains were just beginning to blow up and with no front derailleur to guide the chain, designers were wrestling to lock down lightweight solutions to keep it in place over technical terrain. The bandage was a smaller, lighter version of the chainguides that downhillers used. The roller clutch, however, meted out just enough chain on the slack side to facilitate shifts, but not enough to allow the chain to escape from the bottom half of the chainring. After the clutch (and the next invention on this list), chain guides became optional equipment.
Unlike Shimano, SRAM was completely invested in the one-by concept, so it came as no surprise that the Chicago brain trust fired back with its own clutch design shortly thereafter. Before and after photographs of riders at speed bear witness to the dramatic improvement the addition of cage-pivot clutches made to chain control. Perhaps more welcome, however, is that bikes run much more quietly now.
The gold anodized clutch lever above the XTR Shadow Plus cage pivot forever changed the rear derailleur. Shimano image
Shimano's first Shadow Plus clutch included a tiny wrench used to adjust the friction band.
Narrow-Wide Chainrings
Launched by SRAM 2012 the narrow-wide concept was originally patented in 1978 by Gehl, an industrial equipment manufacturer. It was SRAM's designers, however, who realized that a combination of the narrow-wide tooth profile and specially shaped tips on the sprocket teeth could be used to feed a writhing bicycle chain smoothly onto a chainring from a variety of angles – a technical coup that virtually eliminated the derailing issues which plagued mountain bike riders for over 30 years.
Launched by SRAM 2012 the narrow-wide concept was originally patented in 1978 by Gehl, an industrial equipment manufacturer. It was SRAM's designers, however, who realized that a combination of the narrow-wide tooth profile and specially shaped tips on the sprocket teeth could be used to feed a writhing bicycle chain smoothly onto a chainring from a variety of angles – a technical coup that virtually eliminated the derailing issues which plagued mountain bike riders for over 30 years.
SRAM will be cited most often for its decision to drop the front derailleur in favor of a wide-range one-by drivetrain - a bold move that was rewarded by their near dominance of the elite and enthusiast level trail bike marketplace. Arguably, the narrow-wide chainring, was SRAM's most important (and most duplicated) innovation. Before narrow-wide, tossed chains were considered to be part of the mountain bike experience. After its debut, the thought rarely, if ever, comes to mind. Remove narrow-wide from the wide-range one-by equation and you throw the drivetrain back to the chain-gadget stone age.
Shimano's 2015 XT M8000 release re-emphasized to mostly deaf ears, the need for a front derailleur to achieve more consistent gear steps. Irmo Keizer photo
Death of the Front Derailleur
SRAM's debut of the eleven speed XX1 one-by drivetrain should have been a guaranteed success. For years, conspicuous numbers of the sport's top athletes had been riding and espousing customized one-by drivetrains. Beyond weight reduction and simplifying the transmission to a single shifter, frame designers needed it to go away to progress the long-travel trail bike. The changer occupied the space they needed to fit aggressive tires on 29-inch wheels and to accommodate those wheels into an area already cramped by short chainstays. SRAM was ready, riders were ready, bike designers were ready, but the bike industry was not ready to ditch the front derailleur.
Stodgy executives (the ones who place orders and write checks) body-blocked the concept. Reportedly, key European brands flat out refused to purchase any drivetrain with a chainring smaller than 40 teeth. However well meaning, these are the dweebs who grew up on road bikes, pushing 54 x 48 tooth cranksets, who speak about Frank Berto in hushed tones, and sneak out 30 minutes early to ensure they'll be properly warmed up for the lunch ride. Challenge these Cosa Nostras of cycling with a new drivetrain concept and they'll pull out their abacus to argue proper gearing steps before tracing crossed lines on a tattered sanskrit papyrus to chart their constellation of shift selections, then they'll proclaim the danger of the satanic cross-over gears.
SRAM's 11-speed XX1 drivetrain sent the front derailleur to the gallows, and almost did the same to Shmano's slice of the trail bike market. The revival of GripShift? Not a chance. SRAM image
Accelerated by the fact that we'd prefer a dropper lever on the left side of the handlebar, riders quickly warmed up to XX1's reduced gear selection and visually smaller chainring. Within two years, the front derailleur was scratching for its life, with Shimano crying at its bedside. The Japanese giant redoubled its efforts to convey the enormity of our mistake and comically, bike makers (even vanguard brands who pretended to be all for 1x drivetrains) hedged their bets by continuing to design for front derailleurs in the bottom bracket region of their frames. It took until the end of the decade before frame designers were given the OK to straighten out the S-turn in the right chainstay, put the seat tube back in the middle, spread the swingarm bearings apart and widen the space for the rear tire. The front changer had to endure eight years of hospice before it was mercifully euthanized.
The Dropper Decade
Dropper posts predated 2010, but not as essential original equipment on mountain bikes. The new must-have for the trail riding experience earned its place on this list because it took nearly a decade to debug this simple mechanism. Most early droppers had some fatal flaw or limitation that owners learned to live with, so when RockShox burst onto the scene in 2010 with its hydraulically actuated Reverb, most believed that the savior had arrived. Fate, however, had other plans.
Reverbs developed a habit of sucking air into the oil column that was responsible for freezing the post in your desired location. Oil is incompressible. Air is not, so you can imagine the frustration when Reverbs occasionally became suspension seatposts. While RockShox struggled to engineer a permanent solution. a host of rivals made their appearance with outcomes that ranged from disastrous (Crankbrothers Kronolog) to pretty darn good (KS LEV). Reliability, however, was as spotty as suspension products were in the 1990s, with the possible exception of the mechanically-actuated Fox DOSS which, at 650 grams, could be used as a weapon to fend off rutting moose or grizzly bears.
Reverbs developed a habit of sucking air into the oil column that was responsible for freezing the post in your desired location. Oil is incompressible. Air is not, so you can imagine the frustration when Reverbs occasionally became suspension seatposts. While RockShox struggled to engineer a permanent solution. a host of rivals made their appearance with outcomes that ranged from disastrous (Crankbrothers Kronolog) to pretty darn good (KS LEV). Reliability, however, was as spotty as suspension products were in the 1990s, with the possible exception of the mechanically-actuated Fox DOSS which, at 650 grams, could be used as a weapon to fend off rutting moose or grizzly bears.
The first RockShox Reverb debuted in 2010.
After the big names fell short, boutique component makers stepped up to the plate with better results (Revive and OneUp come to mind), but it was Fox who stomped out the fire with the debut of their Transfer post, which earned a reputation as one of the most reliable droppers ever and the most preferred.
RockShox rallied back as the decade came to a close. First, with a redesigned Rerverb, followed by an impressive wireless-electronic version that is already earning high marks.
RockShox rallied back as the decade came to a close. First, with a redesigned Rerverb, followed by an impressive wireless-electronic version that is already earning high marks.
Fox's Transfer post was the light at the end of the decade's dark tunnel of droppers.
Fat bikes went mainstream: Norco's Ithaqua was one of many fielded by popular brands. Pat Mulrooney photo
Anti-Tech
Too much of a good thing can be poisonous. Imagine what the sport's newest members faced as the decade took shape. Everywhere you looked there was a technical controversy raging: wheel diameters, dropper designs, drivetrains, suspension patents, frame materials, handlebar widths and axle standards... That's a lot of decisions to make for someone who just wanted to ride a bike in the woods. Heck, it's a lot for a seasoned rider who may have been on the hunt to replace his or her aging Ellsworth Truth. The backlash spawned a low-tech revolution.
The vibe was, "If you're not serious about racing, who cares about a few extra pounds or the drag penalty of big tires, as long as we're having fun?" Hardtails returned to popularity. Cult manufactures like Chromag and Surly were booming. Garage builders were popping up everywhere, especially in the UK, blending old-school steel and titanium with new school concepts.
By 2013, fat bikes had become mainstream enough to crowd cross country-skiers for access to groomed trails and sanctioned National Championships would soon follow. Lessons learned from fat bikes
By 2013, fat bikes had become mainstream enough to crowd cross country-skiers for access to groomed trails and sanctioned National Championships would soon follow. Lessons learned from fat bikes
Pipedream's Moxie epitomizes the British new-school hardtail with steel pipes and SAF numbers.
Funny then, that the anti-tech movement would spawn new ideas that would ultimately transform the cutting edge of the sport. Wider rims, high-volume 2.5 and 2.6" tires, and crazy slack geometry came from creative minds who were once marginalized by the direction the sport had taken as it rushed towards 2020 and the kingdom of Enduro Bro.
Wide Rims
Mountain bike wheels in 2010 typically sported rims that were 26 millimeters wide, measured from the outside of the flanges. Wide rims, the kind that you'd special order for your DH bike, measured 28 millimeters outside to outside, with inner widths hovering around 23. The tubeless tire revolution was already in full swing and it was becoming apparent that narrow rims were the root of a number of evils that tubeless users faced.
Mountain bike wheels in 2010 typically sported rims that were 26 millimeters wide, measured from the outside of the flanges. Wide rims, the kind that you'd special order for your DH bike, measured 28 millimeters outside to outside, with inner widths hovering around 23. The tubeless tire revolution was already in full swing and it was becoming apparent that narrow rims were the root of a number of evils that tubeless users faced.
Syntace pioneered wide-format lightweight rim design back in 2012. The mid-sized MX 35 was considered outrageous, with an inner width of 28.4 millimeters. Syntace photo
Simple as it may seem, Derby and Syntace offered up a solution: widening the stance of the tire. Derby's 30-millimeter inner width carbon rims were laughably huge in 2012. Syntace offered aluminum rims with inner widths up to 34 millimeters. The concept, simple as
it was, handily solved the major issues attributed to tubeless: poor lateral stiffness, burping air, and difficulties with mounting and sealing tires. Wide rims also broke ground for future tire improvements, like altering the aspect ratio of height and width to accentuate cornering grip while enhancing straight-line rolling speed.
Old habits fight to the grave and initially, wide rims were not embraced by elite riders - still aren't in some quarters - but greater forces were at play. Aggressive trail riders learned that lower pressure, higher-volume tires generated more grip and by 2019, 30-millimeter inner-width rims became the minimum standard. Tires designed for that rim width are readily available, and the fact that naysayers in the racing community are presently arguing that a 28-millimeter inner-width is wide enough underscores how far we have come.
Old habits fight to the grave and initially, wide rims were not embraced by elite riders - still aren't in some quarters - but greater forces were at play. Aggressive trail riders learned that lower pressure, higher-volume tires generated more grip and by 2019, 30-millimeter inner-width rims became the minimum standard. Tires designed for that rim width are readily available, and the fact that naysayers in the racing community are presently arguing that a 28-millimeter inner-width is wide enough underscores how far we have come.
Ray Scruggs founded Derby rims in 2012, because he couldn't convince rim makers to build wide rims for trail bikes. They look normal now. Derby photo
Flat Pedals Only Won Sam Hill Medals
The Australian who coined the phrase, "Flat pedals win medals," certainly lived up to it, but nobody else did. Sam Hill began the decade with a gold medal at the Mount Sainte Anne Downhill World Championships in 2010, which topped off his career as a DH pro. In spite of commentator Rob Warner's cheerleading, only Gee Atherton, who opted for flats and borrowed shoes from a fan at the 2014 Cairns DH World Cup, would win a World Cup Downhill on flat pedals for the remainder of the decade. "Clipped in for the win" is the new reality for pro downhill competitors, but there may be a glimmer of hope for enduro.
The Australian who coined the phrase, "Flat pedals win medals," certainly lived up to it, but nobody else did. Sam Hill began the decade with a gold medal at the Mount Sainte Anne Downhill World Championships in 2010, which topped off his career as a DH pro. In spite of commentator Rob Warner's cheerleading, only Gee Atherton, who opted for flats and borrowed shoes from a fan at the 2014 Cairns DH World Cup, would win a World Cup Downhill on flat pedals for the remainder of the decade. "Clipped in for the win" is the new reality for pro downhill competitors, but there may be a glimmer of hope for enduro.
Sam Hill won three consecutive EWS titles on flat pedals. Kike Abelleira photo
Sam Hill won the overall title in his first full season of EWS competition on flat pedals, then three-peated, winning three consecutive titles to close out a decade that should leave his rivals in awe for years to come. It is doubtful that anyone will come forth from the dwindling crowd of flat pedal pros who will dominate downhill or enduro racing in the future, but Sam Hill has proven - without a doubt - that it could happen.
Air-Volume Spacers
Laugh if you want, but it took 20 years of air-sprung suspension development to figure out that a inserting measured plastic spacer into the air chamber could fine-tune its spring rate. Fox offered an air volume spacer kit for their Float RP23 shock in 2011, but the concept fell on deaf ears until wheel travel passed the 150-millimeter mark. Suddenly everyone was talking about small-bump compliance vs big hit bottom-out resistance. RockShox revisited the concept in 2014 with their "Bottomless Token" fork-spring spacer - and it took off.
Air springs may be easily adjusted with a hand pump, but only if you are tuning for one side of the spectrum. Before volume spacers became common, riders had two choices: pressurize your fork or shock until it didn't bottom, at the expense of a harsh ride in the first part of the stroke; or suffer the opposite - a supple ride off the initial stroke, with a tendency to bottom out.
After the Token became suspension currency, with the simplest of tools, riders could modify their spring curves to achieve satisfactory spring pressures at
Laugh if you want, but it took 20 years of air-sprung suspension development to figure out that a inserting measured plastic spacer into the air chamber could fine-tune its spring rate. Fox offered an air volume spacer kit for their Float RP23 shock in 2011, but the concept fell on deaf ears until wheel travel passed the 150-millimeter mark. Suddenly everyone was talking about small-bump compliance vs big hit bottom-out resistance. RockShox revisited the concept in 2014 with their "Bottomless Token" fork-spring spacer - and it took off.
Air springs may be easily adjusted with a hand pump, but only if you are tuning for one side of the spectrum. Before volume spacers became common, riders had two choices: pressurize your fork or shock until it didn't bottom, at the expense of a harsh ride in the first part of the stroke; or suffer the opposite - a supple ride off the initial stroke, with a tendency to bottom out.
After the Token became suspension currency, with the simplest of tools, riders could modify their spring curves to achieve satisfactory spring pressures at
Volume spacers are attached to the underside of the fork's top cap and either snap or screw together.
Air volume spacers for most shocks can be added inside the air-spring canister.
Jesse Melamed is no stranger to forest stages. Zermat EWS
The Enduro Effect
For a brief moment, EWS racing appeared to be where the world's trail riders would finally be given a competition format to showcase their skill-sets, their aggressive single-crown dual suspension machines, and preference for natural terrain. Add to that the fact that Strava had already divided local trail centers into segmented race courses and one can understand how enduro captured the imaginations of the sport's wannabe racers.
Of course that didn't happen. EWS racing was hijacked, first by ageing World Cup DH champions, and then by a larger body of gravity experienced pros who saw the enduro format as a second chance to move up the ladder to a podium spot. Within two years, the EWS, like its downhill and cross-country counterparts, distilled into a 100-rider travelling circus of paid professionals and hopeful hangers on - but that was inevitable. This story is about but the profound effect that enduro racing had upon the evolution of the trail bike.
DH has heavily influenced the EWS, and in turn, enduro has had a profound effect upon the basic trail bike.
Mountain bikes, even downhill racing bikes, evolved from cross country. Somewhere around the Intense M1, though, downhill split off and evolved into a gravity powered machine that couldn't be pedaled uphill, but let's forget about that for a second. Sadly, the trail bike's development was tied to its cross-country origins, so its performance was measured as such. Every gram counted, every pedal stroke measured for efficiency, and worse, its geometry had to facilitate arduous climbing. No surprise then that it took over 20 years for the trail bike's head tube angle to progress from 71 to 68 degrees, stem lengths to retract from 130 millimeters to 50, and suspension travel to squeeze out to 130 millimeters. Trail bikes were essentially cross-country designs grudgingly modified to go downhill. That's where we were in 2012.
2010 Santa Cruz Blur LT
2020 Santa Cruz Hightower
The near-instant assimilation of enduro by the downhill community reversed that equation. Enduro bikes (true enduro bikes) were downhill machines, modified to go uphill. Somewhere around the middle of this decade, the trailbike got a little too close and was magnetized by enduro. Boom! Permanently severed from its laborious XC evolution and spliced to the DH genome, it was free to adopt once-forbidden gravity-specific attributes. The do-it-all mountain bike was completely transformed in the latter half of the decade. The timid adventurist became a master of its environment. Enduro may have temporarily stolen the trail bike, but it returned it in much better shape.
Batteries on Bikes
Lapierre ei: Lapierre debuted "ei," an electronically controlled RockShox damper that was triggered by an accelerometer on the fork in 2012. The system registered impacts at the fork, then combined information from the cranks to determine whether the rider was pedaling or coasting, and adjusted the compression damping of the shock accordingly. All this occurred before the rear wheel contacted that same bump. Ei captured our attention, but didn't move the needle in the marketplace.
Lapierre collaborated with RockShox to develop a servo motor that operated the Monarch RT3's low-speed compression circuit.
Shimano Di2: Shimano opened up the can of worms with the much anticipated debut of Di2 XTR. Encouraged by the success of its electronic-shifting Dura-Ace and Ultegra Di2 ensembles among its road customers, Shimano set its sights on elite mountain bike riders and it was released in 2014 for an asking price of $2800 USD. Two years later, Shimano followed with an XT-level version at a more affordable, $1300 MSRP. There was no question that Di2 shifted better than Shimano's mechanical counterparts, a victory by itself, but that wasn't enough sizzle to justify its cost, or to divert attention from SRAM's burgeoning fan base.
DI2 XTR used a single rechargeable battery to run all of its components - an environmentally friendly option that may have cost Shimano in the long run. Colin Meagher photos
Fox Live Valve: Fox followed in Shimano's wake with the release of Live Valve. Fox electronics were much faster than Lapierre's, which allowed Fox Live Valve forks and shocks to react individually to impacts before the tires had compressed enough to activate the suspension. Live Valve's purpose was to enhance pedaling feel and efficiency without degrading suspension performance, and it worked seamlessly in its final form.
Unfortunately, during Live Valve's protracted gestation period, riding styles and bicycles had evolved in a different direction. Live Valve was expensive and bikes already pedaled well enough to lug new-school riders to the top of their next descent. Speed, grip and suspension travel were the new currency.
Unfortunately, during Live Valve's protracted gestation period, riding styles and bicycles had evolved in a different direction. Live Valve was expensive and bikes already pedaled well enough to lug new-school riders to the top of their next descent. Speed, grip and suspension travel were the new currency.
Live Valve managed to enhance the pedaling feel of the already good Pivot Mach 5.5. Ian Collins photo
Magura Vyron Dropper: Launched in 2016, Magura's wirelessly actuated dropper seatpost could have transformed the genre. The wholesale shift by bike makers to internal cable routing made switching and installing dropper posts a pain in the butt. A wireless post would be a sell-and-forget slam dunk for retailers, and riders could switch out their dropper between bikes in a minute. The lackluster response time of the Vyron, however, took some getting used to and bad press killed the concept before riders had the chance to vote on it. Had Magura held back until that glitch was solved, the dropper post landscape might look much different.
A vision of things to come. Magura's wireless dropper was almost revolutionary. Colin Meagher photos
SRAM AXS: Being late to the party has its advantages, SRAM's AXS is wireless - a fundamental element and skillset the iPhone generation has mastered, and that alone may explain why SRAM's electronic component ensemble apparently has reversed the opinions of a decade of naysayers.
Armed with a basic tool kit, just about anyone can install an AXS derailleur and dropper on their bike in under an hour's time. No worries, no compatibility issues, just remember to charge the batteries. Most of us can handle that.
Rumors floating around suggest that SRAM is working overtime to bring AXS to its more affordable ensembles - but those bombs won't drop until the next decade.
Armed with a basic tool kit, just about anyone can install an AXS derailleur and dropper on their bike in under an hour's time. No worries, no compatibility issues, just remember to charge the batteries. Most of us can handle that.
Rumors floating around suggest that SRAM is working overtime to bring AXS to its more affordable ensembles - but those bombs won't drop until the next decade.
SRAM's decision to go wireless will have ramifications beyond its near-perfect shifting. Faster assembly time for both factories and aftermarket customers are only two. Margus Riga photos
Kenevo 2020: Specialized jumped into eMTB early on and aggressively forged a leadership role. Harookz photo
Battery Powered Bikes
Bosch forever altered the course of the sport with its pedal-assist electric motor. If anyone had told us in 2010 that we would be sharing trails with electric powered mountain bikes we would have laughed. If a global power tool maker approached government transportation agencies with a proposal to allow uninsured, unlicensed electric mopeds equal access to bicycle lanes and trails, they would have laughed. Instead, Bosh handed off its pedalec system to bicycle makers and we mowed the lawn for them, lobbying government bureaucracies and convincing the naysayers to make it happen. It was marketing brilliance. There's a book in there somewhere.
The start of the men's 2019 UCI sanctioned eMTB World Championships in Mont Sainte Anne.
The marriage of eMTBs into the mountain bike family brings a new crop of riders to the sport who are not wedded to the nuances of our sacred technology - which offers a new opportunity for meaningful change. Once you add a motor, ethereal improvements derived from things like bladed spokes, directionally compliant rims, Kashima coatings and the molecular makeup of frame materials are not all that important. New-school eMTB customers will no-doubt value more measurable performance enhancements like battery life, power output, wheels that stay true and straight, consistent braking power, tires that don't flat, and pro-performing suspension that doesn't require a professor to tune. Fierce competition to court a less technically minded customer will most likely drive down the prices of those high ticket components too.
The last four items on that list should be the first to bounce back to conventional mountain bikers, many of whom have given up on such improvements. Sometimes, it takes another pair of eyes to see that we've missed something crucial, or enough naivety to restate the need for fixes that were swept under the rug. Mountain bikers did that to road bikes, and I anticipate the same treatment from our electrified in-laws. Once again, however, we are talking about the decade to come. Hindsight, they say, is 2020. We shall see...
Must Read This Week
306 Comments
French DH racers Nicolas Voulliouz and Fabien Barel deserve the most credit for the slack angles we have now, they both demanded custom bikes from their sponsors with slacker geometry.
This is one of RC's best articles ever, very interesting and observant, great work.
What planet are you on?
I don't know if the MX influence is true. They started hoping over by the mid 90's and geometry stayed pretty road bike for almost 20 years after that.
I think @bulletbassman has it. The 2nd gen Kona Process was the first truly aggro trail bike that pushed into the Enduro category in my mind.
I'd also like to add that following the 2nd gen Process, the current Process is a bitter disappointment. Which is funny, because if the 2nd gen weren't so good, I probably wouldn't actually mind the current model that much.
Not specifically, but that's what he's getting at when he talks about "the enduro effect".
forks are way better.
130 is the new 160.
You mean damping
With the advent of carbon and the ability manipulate it is just as much of a huge innovation as is his other top innovations. Geometry IDk.
www.youtube.com/user/sherco125290/videos
They'll tell you in the first 30 seconds you talk to them
Just giving you a hard time. Keep it up out there.
I’ve kind of had an epiphany with all this stuff. So much is about speed and how going faster on a carbon 29er will make my life complete, it won’t. Yes bikes are much better now but all this innovation is really about sales and the constant cycle of upgrades. If I’m honest the most fun I’ve had on bikes was bmxing as a kid or the razzing round the woods on my first full suspension bike (69 deg hA, 26 wheels and 120mm of travel front and rear). Don’t get me wrong I still love messing about on bikes but I’m tired of the churn of standards and perpetual upgrade cycle.
1. Strapping tubes to frames
2. Bottle cages in quantities > 1
3. Downcountry
In this order.
The innovation is finally getting to (mostly) uncompromised geometry, despite using the bigger wheels. Which means the innovation here might just be Boost Hubs!
Most any competent engineer understood how to make the same travel bikes in 29 size back when 29ers first were a thing, its just that the business department knew they could milk more money and get people to buy 27.5 first, then upgrade to 29 when magically the 29ers are now better.
27.5 is so much better it's not even funny. I personally haven't completely committed to 29" but I have ridden quite a few. It's definitely got a ton of upside in many places.
Between those two options 26 just does not compare. It's not just marketing.
Go fit some 26" wheels with decent rubber to your modern 27.5 bike, you'll be amazed to discover that it doesn't become unrideable whatsoever, cause the difference is minuscule, if any.
It is quite impressive what this marketing machine has been able to get away with. I recall an ad for some bike from Giant. It claimed the 27.5" wheels would roll over obstacles that would cause 26" wheels to stall. Who writes that kind of stuff? If your 26" wheel stalls then that is rider error, period. There is no excuse and in such a condition even 29" wheels aren't going to save your ass. Learning to ride is a much safer strategy.
If you want a "small wheel" bike 27.5 is much better than 26. And like I said... I haven't completely bought into 29 yet and I'm not into the marketing hype machine for tech. I road a 26" until I bough my remedy a couple years ago. I still ride a 26" bike from time to time. For me the 29 still doesn't feel right. But that's me. Pretty much every other person I know is completely sold on it. I'm actually a huge fan of the mullet set up 27/29.
I guess useless was an overstatement. I should have assumed that the average pb poster would not read past that single word. Point is.... very little product support and 27.5 is better in pretty much everything outside of a pump track/dj/slope course. But mainly... product support. I think most people are fighting it just for the sake of saying FU to the system... has nothing to do with which one is better.
It's like the snowboard arguments. In the 90's you had to have the smallest board possible so you could spin faster. In reality it was all b.s. to sell new boards to everyone on the long early 90's boards. Then it was oh you have to have reverse camber. Oh wait now you need hybrid camber. Etc. Reality is... you can ride on all that stuff and do just fine. Yes certain tech is better for certain things and yes new tech is better than old tech. So if you have the option... why not just use what the best option is?
I think it's funny that people are calling me out for buying in to marketing. Where I'm at I'm the oddball because I'm still into hard tails and 27.5" bikes. Nearly every day I get hassled for not being on the 29 train and it's been that way for the past few years.
If you're upset about people reacting to your use of the word "useless", it was just what your first sentence in that post was all about. I could interpret it as "unfit for the intended purpose" or "inadequate" but not anything mellower than that. If you meant to say "inferior to currently available alternatives" then "pretty much useless" is quite a stretch. If you're worried about being misinterpreted, give your own formulation a second thought before you hit the submit button.
The comment about running 26" wheels in a modern 27.5" specific frame wasn't about convincing you it being way better, merely to point out that 26" perform just fine when paired with more modern geometry.
Now where did anyone call you out for buying into marketing? And where did anyone claim that riding 26" were more hardcore? Not sure why you're dragging that into the conversation.
As for availability, why would that be an issue? If you want a modern wide 26" rim, you can get that. If you want a modern 26" tire, you can get that too. Sure if you want most options then you may be better off with 27.5" or 29" but it isn't quite like you can't get rims, tires and tire inserts in 26". Even the latest stuff, it is there. It kind of reminds me of the two big commercial computer operating systems a good couple of years back. If you wanted to have most soft- and hardware options, you'd run MS Windows. If you ran OSX you may have had fewer options but still more than enough decent options to get the job done. Maybe in competitive XC racing things may get more difficult but for general riding about, most of us would be just fine with what's available now.
Funny to see you mention 26" being the better option for the pumptrack but not for the trail. For me pumping the bike is an essential part of trail riding. So that actually implies that for the rider that actually tries to extract speed from irregularities in the trail (bumps, roots, rocks), running 26" wheels (or at least the rear wheel) is the way to go.
Availability and support... yes you can find it. But I can also find parts for the carb on my 70 year old car. Doesn't mean that the tech in that 70 year old car is better than my 4 year old car. Both have their purpose.
The industry is moving forward in certain areas for specific reasons.
And I was speaking globally... because I get crap for being behind the times in real life but on Pinkbike I get crap for supporting progress. It's comical to me. This single post isn't the entire world or the entirety of similar discussions I've had.
I'm not part of the 26aintdead brigade nor I have interest in bringing it back, feels the same and rides the same (at least to mere mortals who don't spin upside down).
That is not the same as saying 27.5 is superior, cause is not.
29ers are definitely diferent, with atributes that may or may not suit you, but 26 and 27.5 is the same shit.
BTW, camber vs. rocker is a whole different thing, and boards behave radically different too. I tried different combinations that are good, but a pure rocker is a no go for me in other than powder.
I agree with many of the reasons you don't like 26, and I ride 27 now exclusively, but pure performance based on a slightly larger diameter is hardly so much better. A little better... yes.
Your snowboard analogy, you make my point. Ends up that you can ride 26 on all the same stuff and do just fine. It was done for years on some pretty sketchy geometry. Just because you can't get an assguy and 35i rims hardly makes it complete dogshit, unless you're some gullible consumer.
Seems you exaggerated a little.
See, I think we're addressing this discussion differently. People, me included, responded to your statement which appeared to claim that 26" wheels would be inadequate for trail riding whereas (we claim) much of the perceived improvements of the bigger wheels come from improved geometries and other stuff unrelated to wheelsize. What I think we agree upon is that smaller wheels interact more with the irregularities of the trail than the bigger wheels do. That can be a good or bad. Good in that it allows you to extract speed from the terrain, bad in that it can keep you so busy that it is going hold you back. This depends both on rider skill and terrain. For me and where I ride, I feel the balance between those too is fine. If I would ride rougher terrain, would do more seated pedaling and/or ride longer distances in a single go then I might like to tame things down too using bigger wheels. As a dad going out on short blasts on trails nearby, I don't mind being kept busy by whatever these trails throw at me.
When I say availability is there I don't mean to say I only have access to old tech. My asymmetrical rims have 29mm inner width which is just fine for the 2.4" tires I'm running. My rims are from Syntace. Spank, WTB, Ryde, Stans etc have rims available with similar or even larger width. Schwalbe and Continental make their recent tires in 26" too. I'm running Schwalbe/Syntace ProCore inside my tires which may have been developed when 26" was still king, but even now the more recent tire inserts are still being made available in 26". If there are a few brands that don't, who cares? Sure for the kind who likes to be in the position to be able to try everything then 26" may no longer be the way to go. But I'm more than happy with the shortlist of gear that is still available for my bike. You're always going to have that. If you run Formula forks and would like to try whatever Vorsprung is making, you're out of luck too. Doesn't mean you can't have a blast on the gear you have.
As for getting crap for what you choose to ride, that is what friends are for isn't it? I'm still running an ACS freewheel on my BMX even though the entire BMX world has moved on to those microdrive freewheels. It isn't even worth the bother for me. Unless you're racing, the whole point of riding a BMX is to not pedal. Why bother with an expensive freewheel
Just in case this doesn't materialize, please append this post to the December 2029 article of "ten years of innovation gone wild".
Having one shifter for upshifts and one shifter for downshifts sounds like a significant disadvantage compared to having both on one shifter, especially for bikes with dropper post levers on the left side of the handlebar.
no damage. They were confident in its ability to do so but required more energy than a trigger shifter could provide, that's where some type of electronic shifting comes in.
Completely false. Folks have been tuning oil-levels in open-bath forks and adding extra oil (Float Fluid) to air springs to tune spring rate for decades. The innovation is not air spring volume tuning, it's doing it in discrete changes via the plastic tokens.
"Fox offered an air volume spacer kit for their Float RP23 shock in 2011, but the concept fell on deaf ears until wheel travel passed the 150-millimeter mark."
Maybe we have better ears, but everyone I know that had that an RP23 also got a spacer kit.
"Before volume spacers became common, riders had two choices: pressurize your fork or shock until it didn't bottom, at the expense of a harsh ride in the first part of the stroke; or suffer the opposite - a supple ride off the initial stroke, with a tendency to bottom out."
For forks, also false, since before auto-equalizing air negative springs you could always add oil to the air chamber to reduce the air volume. Plastic tokens didn't really need to be a thing until (almost) everyone switch to auto-equalizing with a port. This would have let the extra oil eventually all leak into the negative chamber, thus the need for a solid spacer.
Another thing is that, 27.5 is only a slightly bigger than 26 inch wheels. Why not the industry just stick to 26 and 29?
Strava sucks.
I like to see what my friends are up to, especially the ones that live far away. I really only compare my rides/times to myself & my friends.
The mistake is looking at it as some sort of achievement.
26" is dead if you're looking to sell it.
26" is alive and kickin' if you're looking for an insane bargain on a used one.
Sure, I will not win any KOM on it. But I actually ride the damn bike, and not let it do all the work for me. Some people really should try, for a change.
"Not mountain bikes". ...huh?
They are literally mountain bikes with a pedal assist motor attached.
What are SAF numbers here? I can't seem to read it as anything other than Safe As F**k (RftL) numbers, but that doesn't seem quite right.
Geometry will get crazier and then stabilize again. A pretty big boutique company is going to go out of business trying to make their own proprietary motor/battery system. Meanwhile a wave of new riders comes in to the sport demanding electric assist. Prices go down. Hardware become commoditized. A burgeoning subculture of people hacking and modding motors grows.
As ebikes with throttles become mainstream for commuting and car replacement, they bleed in to mountain biking. Nobody can tell who is actually pedaling and as regular pedal bikes become a fringe part of the market, nobody cares either.
PLEASE DON'T RETIRE AND LEAVE US WITHOUT YOUR EXPERIENCE, EXPERTISE, AND MTB WISDOM!!!
I converted a '05 SC Blur (26"). 22psi turned that too high BB, too steep steerer piece of archaic geometry into a bike that almost turns half as well as my '15 Process134. The old bike still don't flow like a new one, but to repeat an old saying, all bikes is fun!
They are life changing and are actually a "Time Machine"
The feeling (It's you but younger and faster)
E=Mtb2
What's sorta odd is that travel adjust forks have pretty much dissappeared. They really made older bikes ( and newer ones) versatile.
Tubeless is a close second.
And my full sus is gorgeous.
Then again as I mentioned, what is kind of new this decade really is many of these brands now releasing steel full sussers. It is definitely more common now than it was ten years ago. I think (haven't done my research, sorry) it was a first for DMR, Stanton, Starling, BTR, Cotic, Production Privee... Did Curtis already have one in the previous decade? I'm no walking encyclopedia but the only steel full sussers I can think of that were already out there over ten years ago were from Fire Eye. Funny enough Fire Eye and DMR eventually moved on to aluminium whereas Cotic went from an aluminium full susser to a steel front triangle.
Some droppers were good well before the Transfer came out
Was everyone not just pouring a bit of extra oil in their air springs to reduce the volume well before tokens?
Droppers also helped the progressive geometry evolution, since a slacker seat angle was necessary in order to avoid having your saddle in a place where it certainly would hurt your ideal descending position. Since the droppers became a common piece on our bikes, the seat tube angle evolved into much more steeper figures. Simply because being able to drop your saddle when you need it out of your way (and off your belly!) while also being able to rise it back again when you had to mash on your pedals was a huge improvement. Think of those undulating trails where you would face several small but steep hills with valleys between them. When the momentum you build on the downs won't be enough to drive you to the cusp of the next hill. That's where a dropper makes wonders.
Anyway, I'll have to ask you not to put any words on my mouth, as I haven't said anything like you stated above. I haven't implied any bike without a dropper becomes obsolete. I haven't implied you are wrong for not liking droppers.
I merely pointed out droppers and modern geometry go hand in hand towards a better riding experience.
You are entitled to your opinion, and I'm in no way stating you should be banned from speaking it out. Please respect mine, as I do respect yours.
The not-much-loved-here-at-Pinkbike Rock Shox Reverb is fully rebuildable at home with some makeshift tools (I know because I'm on my third Reverb and I do them myself). The Bikeyoke ones are also user serviceable and they include a mechanism to purge the post, should any air get trapped in the oil. And finally, the SDG Tellis Is fully mechanical, and servicing it is darn simple.
30mm inner rims and 2.5" minions? common its almost cheating.
BOOMER NOW REPRESENTS A VIBE HOLMES. BUT AS AN ADULT YOU KNOW THAT. REMEMBER THOSE GUYS WHO'VE BEEN OLD SINCE THEY GRADUATED HIGHSCHOOL? AGE AINT NOTHING BUT A NUMBER. YOUNG REPUBLICAN STYLE NOT R.KELLY STYLE. PLENTY OF YOUNG OLDS JUST LIKE THERE ARE GROWNUPS WHO DON'T SUCK.
HERE'S THE LIST:
TUBELESS
DROPPERS
1X
HITCH RACKS
NO BACKPACKS
EBIKES
YOU'RE DOWN WITH THESE OR YOU'RE OUT. YOU SHOW UP WITH A ROOF RACK JUST KEEP ON DRIVING!
IT FEELS GOOD DO IT
DO IT
I RUN ALLCAPPS WHEN I'M STRESSED OR CHOPPING IT UP ON THE INTERNETMESSAGEBOARDS
OR BOTH
INDICATES AN ADMISSION OF FUTILITY IN DISCUSSION. AINT NOTHING HAPPENING IN HERE BUT JOKES. NOBODY IS CHANGING ANYONES MIND. SO ROLL WITH IT.
DEATH TO ROOF RACKS.
Gears to you!
TOUCHE
In general industry should use what they learned during 27,5 joined effort and introduce 32” wheels.
sam hill being the only top dog on flat pedals is not an innovation
batteries on bikes is nothing new, ever heard of a headlight?
"death of the front derrailuer" is rhetorical in the presense of clutch derrailuer and narrow wide.
1x 8/9/10/11/12 has been happening a lot longer than a decade, it just used to exclude all the fat weak people.
chain guides on all mountain bikes was a thing.
RC you forgot about massive improvement in brake department especially 4 piston brakes like Saint/Zee - Shimano reliability with true stopping power.
gt sensor (first Gen) and I confirm it's dead! Particularly now that cotic discontinue their bfe 26 as banshee does with the spitfire...