As someone who has been mountain biking for over 25 years I would say the statement that uphill has been de-emphasized over downhill is absolutely correct. Enduro racing (where the uphills aren't even timed) is a nice example of that.
Why is that? I used to do mountain biking and I loved the challenge of climbing a large hill more than the adrenaline of descending it, which I found a bit too risky to my liking :D ...
Downhill issues have gotten a ton of attention, because there were problems to solve. Suspensions and geometry are making bikes a lot more stable feeling on descent. Try renting a 29er with a longer wheel base and a six inch suspension, and go down one of those previously risky feeling hills, you'll be surprised how much less risky it seems now.
Uphill issues have gotten relatively less attention, because, perhaps, a climb is a climb. There's little that can be done to improve climbs. Except suspensions are pretty good at firming up on the fly. And dropper post seats are amazing at being able to switch from descent to climb instantly.
In other words, climbing on today's mountain bikes is better - slightly better - than it used to be. Going downhill today is much better than before.
Also, in my opinion, the tailgate pad has made it practical to run [downhill] shuttles using pickups. Prior to that, you had to get a roof rack + 4 trays = $600+. A Dakine pad is $125. Without the shuttle, you have to climb.
I think it's a bit more complicated too: they liked to go downhill, but they needed to get back up, and wanted to not have to maintain the bike after one trip down (repack), so bikes that could climb were desirable.
Ah! Excellent example.
After we realized we didn't need 30 gears, new suspension designs also became possible.
You're right that rear mechs frequently die though.
I'm pretty sure the derailleur clearance is actually lower on the old 26" bike! The geometry of the derailleur has changed, and when it's on the biggest rear sprocket, the old Nomad derailleur's center of mass is below, lower than the large sprocket. On the new 29er, the derailleur is mostly above the bottom of the largest sprocket. It seems like derailleurs have improved in order to allow the larger sprockets that single front chainrings call for.
The idler (lower pulley) on the 29" is almost certainly further from the axle than on the 26", however the larger wheel means that clearance from the ground is about identical.
I don't think I've ever hit my derailleur on either bike for lack of clearance -- even though I have caught my pedal on a rock or branch multiple times. I have hit the derailleur during a crash, but mainly because the bike was flying around and smacking into things. I'm guessing because the derailleur is behind and inside the path of a pedaling foot, it's mostly protected.
Nailed it. This is true for almost all bicycle endeavors save actual professional racing. Even then, a pro rider that isn't Egan, Sagan, or Froome is going to ride what the factory says to ride. If they (Specialized, Cannondale, Canyon, Etc.) need to pimp a new product, those dudes will pimp the product. Money talks.
Golf clubs are notorious for actually moving irons down the numbers to fool you into thinking brand new clubs are so much better. You go to a shop and hit your 6 iron on the golf simulator, then you hit a brand new 6 iron and see you hit it further, then you buy the new club thinking all your shots will go farther thanks to modern technology. What you don't realize is that what is called a 6 iron in your new set actually has the exact same specs as your old 4 iron, and might not really go any farther at all when you compare it to your old 4 iron.
It's the age old trap of selling beginners gear instead of practice (which makes manufacturers nothing).
I miss the big fat cannodale brazes, or the Tom Richie flourishes on the headtube and dropouts. But I don't miss needing massive rework to replace a rear derailleur dropout after every crash. :|
There is a lot of fud about discs in the road-biking circles, but it doesn't really hold up to scrutiny.
If you have rim brakes, and you like them, then great! Don't malign them because you dislike change though.
> Disc brakes offer better braking power, don't wear as quickly, and don't fade on long hills
These things are true, but in my experience the limiting factor is almost always grip. I've never been unable to lock up both wheels on road tyres (this is definitely not true off road where the advantage is obvious). This is even more the case in the wet, where disc brakes are touted as even more of an advantage. I do think people often use the straw man of crap cantis or centrpulls on steel rims. On maintenance I think it's less clear cut — if you don't maintain discs regularly they can get sticky and there is _nothing_ more annoying than disc rub, and this is worse on the road than off-road where a bit of grime in discs is to be expected and tolerated (and no worse than mud fouling rim brakes).
> Don't malign them because you dislike change though.
You've jumped straight to accusing me of being a luddite. I actually don't like the _look_ of discs on road bikes but will get them on my next bike for the increased tyre clearance. But I do have them on all my mountain bikes...
The post you replied to was about change for change's (and profit's) sake, to which you responded that that was the case for disc brakes, along with calling them stupid for racing.
Again, if you prefer them, aesthetically or otherwise, that's fine. They're not stupid though, or are they a money grab.
I'm considering upgrading my hybrid road bike to one with disc brakes just so I never have to deal with rim brakes again. (I currently have a 2015 Trek FX which I otherwise like a lot.)
In my 20's I learnt to ride motorbikes with associated disc brakes.
Then later a mountain bike with rim brakes. Nope, no way, never going there again.
Any bicycle I or my family has from now on is disc brakes. They are it, until I die or we find something better.
Better capability, easier servicing, more robust in terms of sidestepping rim warp. Better for the rider, better for the mechanic.
(Edit: clarity)
Also, first time you catch a bar end on a branch and get sent over the handle bars you will ditch them. (at least I did)
If you catch a branch with a bar end while moving you are going to eat some dirt.
Geometry matters. My 2020 35lb enduro bike with 170/160mm travel climbs at least as well than my 2002 28lb XC bike with 125/115mm travel. That's with a frontend that is almost 5 degrees slacker and probably 100mm longer reach. And flat pedals.
Been riding since 1988...bikes are absolutely better now than they've ever been.
(2) bikes are way longer than they used to be with much slacker head tube angles. this allows you to keep more traction on the uphills in a seated position; standing (which was always less efficient) is not required as much.
Of course, you have to get used to this position, which is markedly different to the road bike / track bike leaning ahead and closing your hip position. It also gives you great front-back balance and easier control on your bike. Easier to jump (or just shift weight), and you have the wide bars for greater leverage.
Seriously, if someone has not tried a MTB with a modern geometry, they definitely should, they will be blown away by how much better it is than the old ages. Add to this the dropper seatpost, and you have a winner!
Older geometry frames tended to pop the front wheel, if the rider remained seated and wasn't using bar ends (or just leaning really far forward).
Modern frames are longer overall, with wider bars, so the balance point feels longer and it's easier to remain seated without lifting the front wheel.
Seated climbing is better when possible - the rear suspension can help provide traction, rider just needs to provide the engine.
Mountain bikers raarely (never?) group together in packs on climbs. Even in an XC race you might get one or two riders but even this is odd on a technical climb.
I think it's redundant with wider, riser bars, you can't cover the brakes which you should be at almost all times, and they look terrible.
My new Mountain bike has a 5.4:1 gear ratio at its highest setting. Back when riser bars were popular we were happy to have gear ratios of 2:1.
I don't think so. Freak accidents aside, I think it would have been well documented if that were the case.
Think about it, in any scenario where someone is being hit forcefully by a bar-end there's also another rider and a bike behind that bar-end. At speed, a bruise from bar-end is the least of their problems.
> Or perhaps aesthetics play more a part of mtnbike design than functionality?
Oh, hell yes.
There was a time from the mid-90's up through a some years ago when almost every mass-market bike had to have "suspension". What this meant in practice was a crappy useless fork suspension that did nothing but add weight and subtract from the overall quality of the bike. Ironically the category of "mountain bike" had the perception of toughness when it was anything but tough especially for street riding.
In the last decade or so, it seems more people are using bikes for real practical uses. They realize they don't want a 45lb "mountain bike" with flimsy doodads like fork suspension and cheap grip shifters. It's now possible to get a simple street bike in the mass-market with not too many frills that is good quality and will last longer and have easier maintenance than a "mountain bike".
I think GP's point about hooking another rider might be about the bar end acting as a hook and getting caught in something, as opposed to just hitting.
So yeah, of course behind the bar end there's the rest of the bike and the rider, but what could be just two riders "touching" (and, granted, possibly falling), can turn into a worse situation if the bars of one bike catch something on the other bike (say a backpack strap) causing the first bike to steer abruptly and bringing both bikes down together.
Not sure how often this happens, but I wouldn't be surprised of this possibly happening when I see the way people ride bikes around my city, bunching up one against the other, turning unpredictably, etc.
The consequences of entangling might be a little higher on a mountain bike, but that depends on the situation. Mountain bikers aren't being crowded by semi trailers as often as road bikes, but road bikes aren't flying off embankments into trees very often.
I see that there are more than a couple of models of MTB bar-ends that look like brake hoods. That's probably pretty close to the best compromise you can do, without staging a major educational campaign about how human grip strength works (middle, ring and thumb do nearly all of the work)
I’ve actually seen a kid get impaled in the chest from his own bar end.
And the comment about aesthetics is 100% spot on with a majority of the bike crowd.
If any, 1x drivetrains would de-emphasize going on flat terrain - sometimes you feel like that 30x11 ratio falls too short for a flat road.
As soon as you look at them, the potential for hooking should be obvious. In very average use you won't see many incidents because mountain bikes are often like SUVs and don't see much dirt. As soon as you push them closer to the extremes of close riders, or terrain, then they are an immediate liability.
I would posit that the (professional) riders driving the fashion are also some of those most likely to experience the issues. They'd still have a desire for ergonomics which drives whatever alternative was suggested.
I agree. Downhill is more popular than it was previously, but it hasn’t displaced regular biking. People doing shuttle runs and lift-served are a tiny minority.
Modern bikes climb better than ever. Bar ends were more of a holdover from road biking that quickly went away when everyone realized how undesirable they were on the mountain.
I'd take a modern slack head tube geometry over an older bike for climbing any day. I've owned plenty of bikes through the years and I'm not going back.
Depends on what you use. Cross Country have much less compromise than enduros. On these, descent is the priority though, that's why you get slacker and slacker frames every year, heavy suspension systems and large tires that weigh the same as a dead elephant. The best sign that they're getting closer is that I'm feeling fine with going to the bike park in Whistler with my enduro, which I'd never have tried 10y ago.
Of course going up is always important and all these are not an entire sacrifice, powertrains are much better than they used to, locking sus actually works, and don't get me started with droppers!
But try to go up on a light hardtail retrobike sometimes, and then down. These were optimized for ups
- You can shift under load (usually)
- Shifts are a little faster
- Clutches give less chainslap
- Narrow-wide rings hold the chain freakishly well
Now i see more people shifting back to cross country.
At least where I live.
If this really was the case they should have made a backwards-steering bike like this instead: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fx1V5KT1Lwo
With bikes with straight handlebars, if you graze a fence with the handlebar, the bike will steer INTO the fence, whereas if you have backwards handlebars the bike will auto-steer away from the fence or whatever you bump into.
Reverse steering would just trip you into the obstacle.
Then the idea of only going downhill. Is this really a thing? That seems lame.
I get approving comments on my early-'90s Trek 920 every time I take it out. I was curious as to why, and a guy at a bike shop said that nobody makes an all-purpose bike like that anymore. To me the over-specialization is antithetical to the go-anywhere promise of a mountain bike.
Giant Tough Road feels a lot like a modern take on a 90s mountain bike.
Going downhill is a lot (A LOT) of fun. Way more fun that going uphill (for most I would say). So many people just want to skip the uphill part and only go downhill.
I have an eMTB so going uphill for me is fun. But there's people who would never drive an eMTB so they use bike lifts ;)
I am mystified by standard gearing on newer bikes though. It may be due to my height or a dumb riding style, but I basically only use the top 4-5 gears.
Bar-ends were add-ons for at least a decade (late-80's early 90's) before they became standard. They provide better control and stability because the radius/ulna are not crossed like they are in the standard position. I think they disappeared because there was too much risk of hooking another rider (think packs of riders shoulder-to-shoulder grinding uphill), and not enough climbing or stability benefit.
Or perhaps aesthetics play more a part of mtnbike design than functionality?