uncajohn

Vertical compliant frame!

It is only… logical (as Mr. Spock would say). Weight is not the major factor to consider, at least from a point and ahead. This is quite important when your “weight savings” affect your safety (I’ve seen bikes damaged because the weight-phobic rider changed all the steel bolts with aluminum lightweight ones!). As for the tires, I DO prefer the heavier, more reliable versions, which keep me away from the flats. That’s all.

Ahoy there! Mmmmen: 1) Hart 2) Gwin 3) Bruni Wwwwomen: 1) Atherton 2) Carpenter 3) Hannah

My thought by a different perspective. My main concern is the presentation of the overpriced category as the new norm…. We all love to take a look on the “overpriced / high-end / experimental / early (and expensive) prototyping / race-only bikes. But these are not the bikes we ride (once upon time I was riding a prototype bike…) So, The difference between the mid - prized bike and a high – end one is quite… nothing. I do agree with you.

"The latter cost around $2,800 USD for a complete 2x11 group, which is enough coin to buy a decent entry-level bike".... Well, for once you DID address one of the mail drawbacks of today's bike sub-culture. I am NOT "attacking" the very high-end bikes, nor the experimental ones or even the pure racing beasts. But the mainstream of mountain bikers, as things seem to evolve, are forced to pay more & more for a "decent" bike... It seems that the bike related press, purposely "pushes" the envelope of "decency" quite ahead, pricewise, excluding nicely made bikes within the price tag of the 2500 - 3000 USD. Most of the people who enjoy mountain biking don't have the support of a sponsor. A few years ago the 2,800 USD was almost at the top, as a cost for a bicycle, as most of the magazines and articles were claiming... Now the 5000 to 7000 (or more) seems to be the high limit. We all seem to forget that the evolution of technology on mass production, was supposed to make those products ALSO cheaper… As for the not-that-new idea of electronic shifting, if I had to choose between having a battery less to worry about while I ride my bike in the wild (it is called reliability) of be able to pose with the “latest cool part from the shelve) I do refer reliability. Yep. I know, I am an old guy.

Right to the point Deeeight! This "formulazation" of the disc brake history is, at least, strange.... After all the title of your article is "A Brief History of Disc Brakes"... So, where are the early mechanical ones! And yes. There are older riders than 32-35 years old, that HAVE NOT lost their memory!

According to Matt Wragg: While this may look normal now, internal cable routing was virtually unheard of in 1996. Also, this angle should give those too young to remember URTs a better idea of how they worked - the rear triangle was a solid piece that pivoted just ahead of the chainring. The problem with these is that the drivetrain was constantly moving under the rider, which made for a horrific pedaling experience. Also, the unsprung mass was incredible - you also have the cranks included in that weight with this design. Not quite dear. You see back then there were many URT designs with different approaches, influencing the way the suspension arm was reacting. Some worked bad (really bad), some were goon only when climbing (the infamous Clein Mantra) and some are still around, competing with the oh-so popular 4-bar linkage system… Although the URT concept has evolved directing us to the floating bottom bracket systems, which operate really well among the rest of the high-end bikes. To name a few, take a look at GT’s I-Drive, the Maverick American, Commencal’s DH bike (I am pretty sure it is Commencal, but I may be wrong) and more… I remember that there was a “patent war” back then at the 90’s on that system. I know that from first hand as I own an EU patent (category A) on this system… I believe that the evolution of the URT design has a lot to offer yet, despite the forest of today suspension systems, that are mostly variations of the same design (yep, all this effort has produced some really good systems too..) Many thanks for this article. A really pleasant read for us who have seen and ridden those bikes, as well for the kids who had no idea about the “wild days” of mountain biking (tons of crazy experimentation). I propose to add some interviews of the people who invent & created those early designs, it would make these articles even more interesting… Keep on, we want more!

@danmitch01: And that's why a first comparison has to be on hardtails... One of the major (BIG) advantages of the gearbox systems is that we may skip the exposable derailleur... (or tensioner) As for the rest (same bikes - same properties) we have to address the different systems by their best values. We cannot just “cripple” a gearbox, on our effort to squeeze it on the same “platform”… Also. There are so many different gearbox configurations out there. The Zerode for instance or the various speedhub (as a gearbox, without spoke flances) bikes…

Well. I can see that the author of this article has done his (probably) best to compare 2 as much identical bikes as it may possible be. On the other hand Paul missed a few “details” of the gearbox systems that are on the top list of their theoretical advantages… First thing first, the ION bike (funny, here at Greece ION is a major... chocolate manufacturer!!!) IS NOT designed around a gearbox system. A proper gearbox bike, has no need for any tensioner at all… (Ok, I get it. How the hell are we going to compare 2 completely different bike frames, one designed to cope with the restrictions of the conventional gearing systems and one designed around a gearbox system…). That means that “we missed” a major factor of the gearbox equipped bikes… Also. I would prefer (by far) the comparison to run between 2 bikes WITH chain. Why add one more factor that may not be an absolute characteristic of a gearbox bike? (Next time, either both bikes with belt, or both with chain, please). Also. There’s the very fine transmission solution of the hub gears systems, mainly referring to the speedhub (I know, I owe one for a long time now). Paul misses this alternative completely… So, I would like to see, for start, a comparison article among 3 hardtails, best equipped with “properly strong” tires and designed for real all mountain use. One with a conventional gearing system, one with a gearbox and one with a speedhub. Then, using this comparison as a starting point, I would like to see a second article, using 3 similarly equipped full suspension bikes (with similar travel) that their design will take full advantage of the best properties of each transmission system. Nice efford though.

Time is still offering a clip/flat pedal that has been running trouble-free for a long time now….