Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
121 - 140 of 141 Posts
Someone has to do it though, not everyone wants to sit through college courses. Mike Rowe from dirty jobs said it best, if only 25% or so of the jobs require a college degree then why try and convince 50% or more to attend? But yet there are people that scream about human rights but have no issues buying products made by what can be considered slave labor overseas, as long as it serves their own needs and wants.
Because the basic idea was that the US would become an information/services economy. The US would research/design/etc while others did the manufacturing.

And that has happened to a degree; while this administration's focus has been on trade imbalances on goods, the US actually has a trade surplus with most countries on services, mostly (I assume) in the design and tech sectors. Oracle, Microsoft, Apple, Amazon and Google software runs much of the world. How much ad revenue from around the world goes to Google and Meta? Probably a big percentage. And that's just the overview of the tech sector that I'm familiar with. I don't know anything about the research/engineering/design sectors. I also don't know how much revenue is involved in services from the financial and banking sectors, but it's probably a lot.

It's a big world, and it's not necessarily a problem if other countries are manufacturing the products that are researched, designed, engineered and sold in the US. But when the rest of the world decides they might as well handle their own research, design, engineering, and tech services, we're not going to be any better off in the US because we still won't be manufacturing any more things than we already are, and the rest of the world is still not going to have any reason to buy the things we are making.
 
Man, have you ever ridden an old bike? They were lighter, by a bunch. Sub 22 pound bikes were not uncommon when the "weight weenie" thing was going strong. Also, front derailleurs are the most basic thing. They don't fail. They didn't go away because they didn't work. They didn't go away because people asked for less gears. They went away because sram didn't want to pay Shimano's patent fees, and the wheels got too big for them to fit
My late 80s Allez was lugged steel, although not the lightest interpretation of that technology. It was not a light bike by today's standards. It had SunTour mechs and down tube shifters, which were lousy from the start and only got worse with age. Granted, I never rode a svelte steel Italian job with shiny Campy bits, but I'll take my current carbon road bike over that vintage Colnago. My carbon bike is aero, responsive, light, and comfortable. I have no complaints on the electronic 105 group, although the front shifting still is rather slow. For a road bike where I want small gear gaps and a wide overall range, a 2x is a necessary evil.

My first MTB was in 97 running LX/XT, then early 2000s running sram x-9. I don't miss the front triple. At. All. Good riddance. Small ring was a bail out gear prone to suck the chain, and the front shift lever on the 97 bike took a ton of force and time to shift, required soft pedal long enough for the chain to move robbing momentum, then hope and pray it doesn't fall off on the inside or outside. Grip shift was superior to lever or trigger shifting, but the front triple was still lame.

For fast singletrack and racing, can't imagine anything better than 1x electronic. Instant shifting, predictable ratios, no double shifts.
 
Grip shift was superior to lever or trigger shifting
I definitely don't share your experience. Grip shift was the first thing to go when I started modifying bikes. Took it off in 94, never looked back. Does anyone still put gripshift on a bike? I can see a winter bike as an acceptable usage, with the big gloves and all, but other than that I don't know of any advantage over thumb shifters, just a different friction direction. I hated all the accidental shifts from twisting when holding the bar and shifter.
And honestly, I don't know much about road bikes at all. They might be lighter now, who knows? Mountain bike thread in mountain bike forum. Mountain bikes are heavier now, even without the added weight of front rings and derailleur.
Image

I'm not saying new bikes are bad, but the old ones weren't bad either, or we wouldn't be here. The new stuff just isn't for every rider
 
I definitely don't share your experience. Grip shift was the first thing to go when I started modifying bikes. Took it off in 94, never looked back. Does anyone still put gripshift on a bike? I can see a winter bike as an acceptable usage, with the big gloves and all, but other than that I don't know of any advantage over thumb shifters, just a different friction direction. I hated all the accidental shifts from twisting when holding the bar and shifter.
And honestly, I don't know much about road bikes at all. They might be lighter now, who knows? Mountain bike thread in mountain bike forum. Mountain bikes are heavier now, even without the added weight of front rings and derailleur.
View attachment 2146872
I'm not saying new bikes are bad, but the old ones weren't bad either, or we wouldn't be here. The new stuff just isn't for every rider
Love that pic.

I only see Gripshift on BSO from Walmart now. My Gripshift was early 2000s x-9. I swapped out XT for GS because my right thumb was complaining. The twisty part was just under thumb and index finger, the rest of the hand was planted on grip. Just a slight twist and I could get another gear while still hanging on for dear life through a rough spot. Rear shifting was instant. Plus I could dump a ton of gears in a hurry on a quick transition to a climb.

I love that bike from 81 on the left and can think of some trails around here that would be fun with that one. It would make me feel like a kid again. It might even be a hoot to take one to a local race. The founders of our sport would have loved a bike as good as the 81 stumpjumper. The guys riding from Crested Butte to Vail or bombing down Mt Tam were doing it on bikes not really up for the task and stuff broke all the time.
 
Man, have you ever ridden an old bike? They were lighter, by a bunch. Sub 22 pound bikes were not uncommon when the "weight weenie" thing was going strong. Also, front derailleurs are the most basic thing. They don't fail. They didn't go away because they didn't work. They didn't go away because people asked for less gears. They went away because sram didn't want to pay Shimano's patent fees, and the wheels got too big for them to fit
Yes and no. The front derailleur wasn't the issue. The problem was the shifter and the valuable real estate is took up on the bars. Dropper posts needed triggers. By eliminating the front shifter we created a place for the dropper trigger. Sure you could have both controls on the same hand. But I did that for a while and it sucked. My brain only has the capacity to operate one control per thumb while riding.

The growth (literally and figuratively) of rear cassette gear counts and ranges made front gears less necessary. A 29" wheel with 12 speed 30x10-51T covers nearly the same range as a 26" wheel with 9 speed 22/32/42x11-32T.

The longer chainstays of bigger wheeled bikes decreased chain angle. Granted, your cassette and chain won't appreciate you pedaling in your 51T cog all day long. But for the brief times the extreme gears are needed, the increased wear is negligible.
 
I definitely don't share your experience. Grip shift was the first thing to go when I started modifying bikes. Took it off in 94, never looked back. Does anyone still put gripshift on a bike? I can see a winter bike as an acceptable usage, with the big gloves and all, but other than that I don't know of any advantage over thumb shifters, just a different friction direction. I hated all the accidental shifts from twisting when holding the bar and shifter.
And honestly, I don't know much about road bikes at all. They might be lighter now, who knows? Mountain bike thread in mountain bike forum. Mountain bikes are heavier now, even without the added weight of front rings and derailleur.
View attachment 2146872
I'm not saying new bikes are bad, but the old ones weren't bad either, or we wouldn't be here. The new stuff just isn't for every rider
cool pic!

road bike weights haven't changed nearly as much as MTB weights. UCI has a 6.8 kg (~16 lb) minimum that was implemented in 2000, and most pro bikes are still right there. My 2004 C'dale R3000 was about 16.5. It was pretty trick but not super weight weenie.

MTBs on the other hand, have been all over the place. I had a 2001 Schwinn Homegrown that was 21.2 lbs, even with a relatively heavy (compared to the SID everybody else was running) Marzocchi fork. It also wasn't cheap. My current "XC" bike is around 27 lbs, but is full squish and adjusted for inflation cost less. If you had asked me in 2001 what I thought my 2025 every day ride mountain bike would weigh, I probably would have guessed 15 lbs, not 30. Both awesome, but in different ways for sure!

I know it's theoretically possible to build a sub-22 lb modern mtb, but I've never seen one in the wild.
 
The irony is that 25 years ago you paid more for lighter MTB components. Today, the more expensive parts are often heavier. But we choose the heavier stuff for performance reasons. I could trim my hardtail down from ~13kg as currently built to <11 with parts I have sitting around. I could shave at least 2 kilos just by swapping the fork, tires and seatpost. Could probably get below 10kg by changing the bar and wheels. But it would be a totally different bike and I don't want that kind of ride.

29er wheels and tires add a lot of weight compared to 26 inch. But again, I would not want to switch back. Whatever weight 29 inch adds is more than offset by improved rolling.
 
If you had asked me in 2001 what I thought my 2025 every day ride mountain bike would weigh, I probably would have guessed 15 lbs, not 30. Both awesome, but in different ways for sure!

I know it's theoretically possible to build a sub-22 lb modern mtb, but I've never seen one in the wild.
The same thing has happened with cars. Bikes have got bigger for a start which helps with the terrain being ridden so that's an automatic weight penalty. In reality everyone was riding a bike that nowadays would feel like an extra small.

The other part will be durability, I think we've seen the full range of super light, to over built in the freeride era to something in between and durable.

I have on old Civic project car and modern Corolla. There's about 500kg in difference. I know which one I'd rather have an accident in!!
 
Yeah, buying a used bike is for bike mechanics. Ok if you are willing to invest significant time, effort AND money in learning, tools, etc., but that's not the quick-fix that people think it is and usually results in not riding the bike, junking it, dis-interest in the sport, etc. Apart from what is mentioned, there's usually a stretched out chain, possibly shot front ring and rear cassette, rear freehub and wheel bearings, etc.
Indeed, many people recommend to beginners buying used bikes without taking this into account. I would say a used bike is more appropriate to an enthusiast who already is deep in.
 
this, for real. My son's XS 27.5 wheel MTB has a taller stack and longer wheelbase than my old XL hardtail! :oops:
Yeah I often go back through geo charts to see sizing. There are certain bikes I always wanted to own and as they pop up for sale now it's interesting to see a size that in the past I wouldn't have ridden but now look at and go, oh it's a large or XL, maybe I will.
 
Indeed, many people recommend to beginners buying used bikes without taking this into account. I would say a used bike is more appropriate to an enthusiast who already is deep in.
My newest bike is used and in brand new condition with all top shelf parts. So new I didn't have to mess with it. Dude bought the wrong size. I did put a I9 stem on it to match the hubs though and put the Cromag Ranger on another bike.
 
My newest bike is used and in brand new condition with all top shelf parts. So new I didn't have to mess with it. Dude bought the wrong size. I did put a I9 stem on it to match the hubs though and put the Cromag Ranger on another bike.
I do think that's a slightly different example. Buying a garage queen you usually can't go wrong.

But I think the original example was more along of the lines of spending $500-1000 on a user bike rather than an entry level new bike.
 
I do think that's a slightly different example. Buying a garage queen you usually can't go wrong.

But I think the original example was more along of the lines of spending $500-1000 on a user bike rather than an entry level new bike.
GG Smash for $2300 a couple months before covid. I really want to wrench on it but there's nothing to do.
 
GG Smash for $2300 a couple months before covid. I really want to wrench on it but there's nothing to do.
Yeah in a perfect world I'd have bought a higher spec, barely ridden second hand bike. But it had been nearly a decade between new bikes.
My issue is I couldn't justify the difference between the pricing of the entry level version of the bike I wanted and the more expensive specs which had brakes/suspension/drivetrains I'd be changing anyway.
Think the base Stumpy Evo was $6600NZD in alloy and $9000NZD for carbon which I just couldn't justify.
 
Yeah in a perfect world I'd have bought a higher spec, barely ridden second hand bike. But it had been nearly a decade between new bikes.
My issue is I couldn't justify the difference between the pricing of the entry level version of the bike I wanted and the more expensive specs which had brakes/suspension/drivetrains I'd be changing anyway.
Think the base Stumpy Evo was $6600NZD in alloy and $9000NZD for carbon which I just couldn't justify.
I didn't need it but it was such a great deal and somewhat local. I thought about flipping it but my wife said I'm not allowed to sell anything because I buy them back
 
121 - 140 of 141 Posts