RichardCunningham

@endlessblockades: The audio was pretty bad, otherwise, I would have included it. I'm also a fan. .

Yeah I learned "third hand": for that tool working at a bike shop. Third or fourth, It's the one that pulls the cable tight.

@zooey: Good points all, and while this may not be the proper forum to discuss this, I think your points deserve an answer. What I have learned over time, first as a bike maker, and later as a reviewer, is that I've had to reinvent my riding style a number of times to adapt to changes driven by both components and geometry. And, that riding style can also drive changes in bike design. That progression, however is rarely linear. It most often occurs in sharp upward curves, followed by plateaus, where we all play catch up. Globally, as emphasis shifted from XC/trail, towards more challenging technical riding, short stems were a mandatory tool to tame existing designs and to allow riders to get far enough behind the front wheel to survive steep descents. Frame design took a while to catch up. Riding style drove frame designers to lengthen top tubes, stabilize handling and increase suspension travel. When head tube angles passed 69 degrees and fork travel jumped from 120 to 160mm, the front wheel was moved substantially ahead of the rider. Steering reaction was slowed and steering forces were heavier for a number of reasons, one being, that slack steering angles tend force the frame to stay in line with the front wheel. Those changes had dynamic effects on the way bicycles handled, which dictated different riding techniques - and wide handlebars played an important role. Long forks and slack bikes required riders to move forward and load the front wheel, so it was not surprising that everyone started extolling super wide handlebars. Wide bars forced old school riders, who had been riding on their rear tires down every descent during the Sam Hill era, to stay up front and maintain grip where it would do the most good. For most riders, exaggerated width was a training crutch, necessary at first, to get riders up to speed on modern geometry. Those who have adapted, probably don't need the crutch, as Richie Rude so aptly demonstrates. So, riders are on a catch up plateau again, learning new riding techniques made possible by major changes in bicycle component and chassis design. We've learned that wider bars, and shorter stems are useful in other ways. For example: instead of setting up before a corner to establish an arc, we leverage the handlebar to force the rear wheel to square off the corner at a prescribed point. Downhillers are racing "point-to-point." Taking the straightest line down the course and compressing off of features to change direction. A short stem lines up your shoulders, down the fork, to the contact patch of the front tire, so you are literally punching the ground when you need to load the front wheel. New-school riders will soon eclipse what we once believed was the ultimate threshold of speed and skill. I've seen it happen a few times. So, yes, mountain bike design is always a compromise, but in times like this, when everything is in flux, explaining how a particular bike rides, rather than why, and suggesting small changes that may assist a potential owner to enhance its performance in some aspect of its envelope, can be more useful and economical information in a review. Thanks for give me a chance to expand on those topics. RC . .

@DirtMcGuirk: The point is, that selling the bike with a wider handlebar gives customers the ability to make that choice with a hack saw instead of a credit card.

Two editors working on the same story. It happens every once and a while. This one was deleted

@nickkk: Ha!

Comment of the day