Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
661 - 680 of 784 Posts
I remember when I first really trail rode my 26" fatbike it was super amazing to ride anywhere at all and get away with all kinds of shenanigans that would be painful on a skinnier 2.0- 2.4 tire.

That fatbike is not what I think of as a 26er.

Plus tires are a bit like that too.

It all depends on skill and where you ride, as well as the bike, of course.

I think that current variety of tire widths are wonderful thing. Something for everyone.

Narrower tires have to be placed better on the trail, and with more precision, with less suspension and smaller diameter.

Old school 26" rigid bikes are more difficult to ride. But they can ride.

Kind of like old school skiis.

Once you learn them, you can turn them.

Nothing wrong with the latest stuff. It's better.

But like vintage for vintage sake, that's okay. Just get out of the way old man!

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk
Some of the new stuff is better yes, but I must say the pressfit BB on my 650b "super enduro" bike sucks. The interntal cable routing sucks too. I also don't like the 148 rear spacing which has caused more damage to hangers and mechs than I've ever dealt with. I also find 27" wheels to be little more than a weight penalty. Geo improvemnts on the other hand are great but I was south of 66 10 years ago. IMO, head angles are the biggest improvement in bikes over the past 10 to 15 years. Seat tubes too but that's not as important to me. TT lenghths and BB height I find annyoing. I just size down now, or run stupid short stems that make the sterring twitchy.
 
"but I was south of 66 10 years ago."

Head angle, or years old?

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk
 
Some of the new stuff is better yes, but I must say the pressfit BB on my 650b "super enduro" bike sucks. The interntal cable routing sucks too. I also don't like the 148 rear spacing which has caused more damage to hangers and mechs than I've ever dealt with. I also find 27" wheels to be little more than a weight penalty. Geo improvemnts on the other hand are great but I was south of 66 10 years ago. IMO, head angles are the biggest improvement in bikes over the past 10 to 15 years. Seat tubes too but that's not as important to me. TT lenghths and BB height I find annyoing. I just size down now, or run stupid short stems that make the sterring twitchy.
Press fit bb are one of the worst ideas in bike design. One chap had a high dollar Trek and the press fit was making a ton of noise. Trek did nothing to fix so he went Ti with a threaded bb, the only way to go.
 
Press fit bb are one of the worst ideas in bike design. One chap had a high dollar Trek and the press fit was making a ton of noise. Trek did nothing to fix so he went Ti with a threaded bb, the only way to go.
Why I won't buy a Stache
 
Save
"but I was south of 66 10 years ago."

Head angle, or years old?

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk
Sometimes I do feel that old. I miss the old days honestly, and not because of wheel size. I miss what proper gnarly trails used to be like before the younger generation sanatized everything. I miss being able to ride social trails without strava getting them shut down. Most of you dumb kids don't even know everything is going to their heat map even when you're not tracking rides. Strava is responsilbe for so many trail colsures just so you kids can see who's best at straitlining corners. You kids started with better bikes than us old crusties, but we had local's trails that you kids would pee your little panties over.
 
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! I needed a good laugh. Yea, we also wrecked a lot more back in the day and we rode with almost no protection. I have scars to prove it. Safe Travels All!
 
I'm getting a lot of grey hair now. I'm 59!

Riding in the 80-90's there was no discussion about wheel size. All the tires were pizza cutters by today's standards.

Tubeless was not even on the horizon.

Just to survive a weekend of gnarly riding would entail all kinds McGuivery.

The style of riding was heavily influenced by the exacting requirements in equipment preparation and riding technique.

Low air pressure was dangerous back then. If I wanted to shred down something, in direct contrast to today, I'd air up the tires to resist pinch flats.

Suspension was non-existent or ludicrous. Suspension was in the arms, legs, neck, back, and ass.

Vision could be impaired by vibration. We'd take hits so hard that loose helmets and glasses could shift position on the cranium. Hilarious.

It was important to know the trail very well, so as to anticipate the deep pockets, ruts, rills, ramps, and tombstones.

Of course usually the action was not based upon recall.

Typically, as it is today, you just took it on the fly, making adjustments in body positioning, and arm and leg piston retraction and extension, to enable the rigid 26" bike wheels to track over the obstacles, rather than conforming to the terrain as modern full suspension bikes do.

There was a lot more on the line in those times.

Hell yeah, as mentioned earlier, the trails were different, and so was the attitude. Things were as they were, so to speak. Trails weren't made for mountain bikes.

We sort of arrived on the trails, maybe uninvited, yet certainly fulfilling an inevitable destiny.

And we discovered trails that were overlooked by a few generations of hikers. We discovered game trails, log skids, gulches, washes, fall-lines, ridges, landslides; any place you could fit a bike, we'd be there.

No Google Earth either.

Some of that stuff was burly as ****!

And the brakes were so lousy that many times the descents were unstoppable, and a rider was forced to a continuous involuntary commitment of unpredictable velocity.

All this with your belly or chest on around saddle, thighs flared so they don't get too scratched up from the cantilever brakes at the extreme.

Since there wasn't as much riding going on, the "trails" would often be filled with all kinds of loose materials such as of course rocks and sticks, moss chunks, clods, logs, hummocks of bunch grass, fern clumps, deep drifts of leaves, thorny vines, low branches, and occasional huge fallen logs, springs, bogs, mud pits, and quick sand.

Almost all of the charismatic descents are extinct now due to the land management agency trail emasculating activity.

We would celebrate sections of "buff" trail with hoots of joy to cover a quarter of a mile without resorting to trials riding.

So yeah, trials was a thing.

It was good enough to descend a trail without dabbing, let alone setting some sort of time record.

If anything comes from this rant, it's that trials skills were a part of original 26" bike riding. Flow really didn't exist, per se, in my neck of the woods.

I don't mind today's flow trails, but I do not seek them out.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk
 
I'm getting a lot of grey hair now. I'm 59!

Riding in the 80-90's there was no discussion about wheel size. All the tires were pizza cutters by today's standards.

Tubeless was not even on the horizon.

Just to survive a weekend of gnarly riding would entail all kinds McGuivery.

The style of riding was heavily influenced by the exacting requirements in equipment preparation and riding technique.

Low air pressure was dangerous back then. If I wanted to shred down something, in direct contrast to today, I'd air up the tires to resist pinch flats.

Suspension was non-existent or ludicrous. Suspension was in the arms, legs, neck, back, and ass.

Vision could be impaired by vibration. We'd take hits so hard that loose helmets and glasses could shift position on the cranium. Hilarious.

It was important to know the trail very well, so as to anticipate the deep pockets, ruts, rills, ramps, and tombstones.

Of course usually the action was not based upon recall.

Typically, as it is today, you just took it on the fly, making adjustments in body positioning, and arm and leg piston retraction and extension, to enable the rigid 26" bike wheels to track over the obstacles, rather than conforming to the terrain as modern full suspension bikes do.

There was a lot more on the line in those times.

Hell yeah, as mentioned earlier, the trails were different, and so was the attitude. Things were as they were, so to speak. Trails weren't made for mountain bikes.

We sort of arrived on the trails, maybe uninvited, yet certainly fulfilling an inevitable destiny.

And we discovered trails that were overlooked by a few generations of hikers. We discovered game trails, log skids, gulches, washes, fall-lines, ridges, landslides; any place you could fit a bike, we'd be there.

No Google Earth either.

Some of that stuff was burly as ****!

And the brakes were so lousy that many times the descents were unstoppable, and a rider was forced to a continuous involuntary commitment of unpredictable velocity.

All this with your belly or chest on around saddle, thighs flared so they don't get too scratched up from the cantilever brakes at the extreme.

Since there wasn't as much riding going on, the "trails" would often be filled with all kinds of loose materials such as of course rocks and sticks, moss chunks, clods, logs, hummocks of bunch grass, fern clumps, deep drifts of leaves, thorny vines, low branches, and occasional huge fallen logs, springs, bogs, mud pits, and quick sand.

Almost all of the charismatic descents are extinct now due to the land management agency trail emasculating activity.

We would celebrate sections of "buff" trail with hoots of joy to cover a quarter of a mile without resorting to trials riding.

So yeah, trials was a thing.

It was good enough to descend a trail without dabbing, let alone setting some sort of time record.

If anything comes from this rant, it's that trials skills were a part of original 26" bike riding. Flow really didn't exist, per se, in my neck of the woods.

I don't mind today's flow trails, but I do not seek them out.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk
I've been hanging around reading the forums for better than a year now. Never have I read a post here that better describes my experiences. It clarifies my noob bewilderment reading about XC riding here and now.

My trails don't look like the ones pictured in most posts. Twisty, rooty, climby, tight turny hiking trails that I see very few bike tracks on even in the dead of Summer.

Both my bikes don't look like the ones pictured in anything except vintage whip posts. A couple of rigid bikes, one from the 80's, one from 2011 with them new fangled mechanical discs & retrofitted with a rigid fork. Both rebuilt & running smoothly without rebuilding suspensions annually. I have discovered the joys of lower tire pressure, though!

I don't catch big air, instead I pick my way through uneven footing, trackstanding until the line becomes clear, then heading another 30 yards to the next minor obstacle. My lowest, and second lowest, gear ratio is the overwhelming favorite.

In my two years of noobishness, I've had a few chances to ride a pump track about an hour's drive for me. Buddy, it was FUN! I can see how this flow thing could get addicting. But that's not the reality of my nearby trails, so I'll continue to rejoice in those mornings that I didn't have to dab a toe anywhere on my ride.

I'm 66, and two lessons life taught me are: speed kills and skills outlast luck. I'll just poke along and practice to avoid broken bones at my age. It's nice to know that I'm really mountain biking, though, despite it not looking like anything here!
 
I'm getting a lot of grey hair now. I'm 59!

Riding in the 80-90's there was no discussion about wheel size. All the tires were pizza cutters by today's standards.

Tubeless was not even on the horizon.

Just to survive a weekend of gnarly riding would entail all kinds McGuivery.

The style of riding was heavily influenced by the exacting requirements in equipment preparation and riding technique.

Low air pressure was dangerous back then. If I wanted to shred down something, in direct contrast to today, I'd air up the tires to resist pinch flats.

Suspension was non-existent or ludicrous. Suspension was in the arms, legs, neck, back, and ass.

Vision could be impaired by vibration. We'd take hits so hard that loose helmets and glasses could shift position on the cranium. Hilarious.

It was important to know the trail very well, so as to anticipate the deep pockets, ruts, rills, ramps, and tombstones.

Of course usually the action was not based upon recall.

Typically, as it is today, you just took it on the fly, making adjustments in body positioning, and arm and leg piston retraction and extension, to enable the rigid 26" bike wheels to track over the obstacles, rather than conforming to the terrain as modern full suspension bikes do.

There was a lot more on the line in those times.

Hell yeah, as mentioned earlier, the trails were different, and so was the attitude. Things were as they were, so to speak. Trails weren't made for mountain bikes.

We sort of arrived on the trails, maybe uninvited, yet certainly fulfilling an inevitable destiny.

And we discovered trails that were overlooked by a few generations of hikers. We discovered game trails, log skids, gulches, washes, fall-lines, ridges, landslides; any place you could fit a bike, we'd be there.

No Google Earth either.

Some of that stuff was burly as ****!

And the brakes were so lousy that many times the descents were unstoppable, and a rider was forced to a continuous involuntary commitment of unpredictable velocity.

All this with your belly or chest on around saddle, thighs flared so they don't get too scratched up from the cantilever brakes at the extreme.

Since there wasn't as much riding going on, the "trails" would often be filled with all kinds of loose materials such as of course rocks and sticks, moss chunks, clods, logs, hummocks of bunch grass, fern clumps, deep drifts of leaves, thorny vines, low branches, and occasional huge fallen logs, springs, bogs, mud pits, and quick sand.

Almost all of the charismatic descents are extinct now due to the land management agency trail emasculating activity.

We would celebrate sections of "buff" trail with hoots of joy to cover a quarter of a mile without resorting to trials riding.

So yeah, trials was a thing.

It was good enough to descend a trail without dabbing, let alone setting some sort of time record.

If anything comes from this rant, it's that trials skills were a part of original 26" bike riding. Flow really didn't exist, per se, in my neck of the woods.

I don't mind today's flow trails, but I do not seek them out.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk
amen...and some of us were doing this all on BMX bikes as well...smaller tires, way different geo, harder to climb tech on for sure, but you rode what you had

you just sort of got on and rode to where ever the trail took you

my arms, legs back and ass are still my suspension today...though my post heart attack "fragile" heart won't allow me to ride as hard as I did back then

I also have no problem with flow trails, but I don't like flow trails that were originally techy trails, and then became sanitized...part of the fun of the challenge for me is/was to ride in places where people said that my bike "shouldn't be ale to go"
 
Save
I'm getting a lot of grey hair now. I'm 59!

Riding in the 80-90's there was no discussion about wheel size. All the tires were pizza cutters by today's standards.

Tubeless was not even on the horizon.

Just to survive a weekend of gnarly riding would entail all kinds McGuivery.

The style of riding was heavily influenced by the exacting requirements in equipment preparation and riding technique...
Nice post. That brings me back to those old days. Besides courting death on occasion on an ancient Univega I also took my road bike a Peugeot Ventoux thru the glens in the area. I'd drop a few psi on the Michelins and rip thru the flatter sections. Those early days were fun and crazy at teh same time. We rode on them junkers!
 
Yup, good post, Jack

I'm getting a lot of grey hair now. I'm 59!

Riding in the 80-90's there was no discussion about wheel size. All the tires were pizza cutters by today's standards.

Tubeless was not even on the horizon.

Just to survive a weekend of gnarly riding would entail all kinds McGuivery.

The style of riding was heavily influenced by the exacting requirements in equipment preparation and riding technique.

Low air pressure was dangerous back then. If I wanted to shred down something, in direct contrast to today, I'd air up the tires to resist pinch flats.

Suspension was non-existent or ludicrous. Suspension was in the arms, legs, neck, back, and ass.

Vision could be impaired by vibration. We'd take hits so hard that loose helmets and glasses could shift position on the cranium. Hilarious.

It was important to know the trail very well, so as to anticipate the deep pockets, ruts, rills, ramps, and tombstones.

Of course usually the action was not based upon recall.

Typically, as it is today, you just took it on the fly, making adjustments in body positioning, and arm and leg piston retraction and extension, to enable the rigid 26" bike wheels to track over the obstacles, rather than conforming to the terrain as modern full suspension bikes do.

There was a lot more on the line in those times.

Hell yeah, as mentioned earlier, the trails were different, and so was the attitude. Things were as they were, so to speak. Trails weren't made for mountain bikes.

We sort of arrived on the trails, maybe uninvited, yet certainly fulfilling an inevitable destiny.

And we discovered trails that were overlooked by a few generations of hikers. We discovered game trails, log skids, gulches, washes, fall-lines, ridges, landslides; any place you could fit a bike, we'd be there.

No Google Earth either.

Some of that stuff was burly as ****!

And the brakes were so lousy that many times the descents were unstoppable, and a rider was forced to a continuous involuntary commitment of unpredictable velocity.

All this with your belly or chest on around saddle, thighs flared so they don't get too scratched up from the cantilever brakes at the extreme.

Since there wasn't as much riding going on, the "trails" would often be filled with all kinds of loose materials such as of course rocks and sticks, moss chunks, clods, logs, hummocks of bunch grass, fern clumps, deep drifts of leaves, thorny vines, low branches, and occasional huge fallen logs, springs, bogs, mud pits, and quick sand.

Almost all of the charismatic descents are extinct now due to the land management agency trail emasculating activity.

We would celebrate sections of "buff" trail with hoots of joy to cover a quarter of a mile without resorting to trials riding.

So yeah, trials was a thing.

It was good enough to descend a trail without dabbing, let alone setting some sort of time record.

If anything comes from this rant, it's that trials skills were a part of original 26" bike riding. Flow really didn't exist, per se, in my neck of the woods.

I don't mind today's flow trails, but I do not seek them out.
"You go to war with the army you have."

We rode the bikes we had. We had a blast. Part of the fun and adventure was the discovery of it all. Beyond just riding the bike. Exploring the backcountry was thrilling. True adventure.

I became a Medicare recipient a few months ago and I recall the camaraderie of the early days. The '80s. I started riding mountain bikes when I was 32. Even though there were few of us back then, mountain biking was a social activity inasmuch as one rider would practically cheer when he met another rider on a trail. We'd meet & greet. We were oddities, rarities. We sought one another out. We felt like the pioneers that we were.

Back to the point of this thread, as time goes on, armies do get better. So do bikes. Antique 26ers make great mantle pieces. As for hoots & hollers, give me one of today's wonder machines including sophisticated suspension and a party post. Even at this advanced age, I still rip.
=sParty
 
We rode the bikes we had. We had a blast. Part of the fun and adventure was the discovery of it all. Beyond just riding the bike. Exploring the backcountry was thrilling. True adventure.

I became a Medicare recipient a few months ago and I recall the camaraderie of the early days. The '80s. I started riding mountain bikes when I was 32. Even though there were few of us back then, mountain biking was a social activity inasmuch as one rider would practically cheer when he met another rider on a trail. We'd meet & greet. We were oddities, rarities. We sought one another out. We felt like the pioneers that we were.
=sParty
Nice. I remember being able to tell who had been out on the trails recently by looking at tire tracks. :)
 
Yesterday I took out a 26" bike from the garage because I was craving a ride on it.

Man it was awesome.

After months of riding 29ers, this was a breath of fresh air.

And the rim brakes! Cane Creek Direct Curve. One of the last great buys I made at Nashbar.

On the trails. No problems. Just [emoji3590] 26.
Image


Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk
 
It's all about the feel. 26" wheels spin up quicker and slow down faster. They're more flickable. I can steer with my hips on descents. They're so responsive, they feel telepathic. I think it, and they do it. Yes, they force you to make better line selections, but that's part of the fun for me. It's cliche now, but 26" wheels are like a sports car; as you go up in size, they become more like monster trucks.

Or I could just summarize and say I have more fun on 26" wheeled bikes.
So you aggree with me that 27½ and 29 is nothing but marketing bullshit?
26" untill I stop riding.
 
Save
I rode the '07 RMB this morning, just pointed it where I was goin'.
 
Save
Because 650b and 29 are easier...just like an eBike. I don't need easy. I'm only 55.

And then there's this...

The first pic is when I built my new carbon 26 hoops and mounted the standard 2.35 tires that I can buy all day long for only $35 ea. and always buy them in bulk.

The second pic is the bike today with the elimination of the Fox 34 CTD and CTD Boostvalve shock, adding a brand new Pike RCT3 and new Monarch Plus Debonaire shock. And I should mention I built this brand new 2014 factory warranty covered Expert Evo frameset in June '15 and paid <1/3 of it's new price and built it with all top line components for pennies on the dollar. It would cost me well over $7k to spec this bike as it sits with the only difference being wheel diameter.

I'll be wearing this one out.
You are still young. Hope you'll have many more years with your nice bikes
 
Save
It's a good analogy with bikes:
The 26ers are come back in fashion in 10 years , people are gonna realize how fast and responsive they are compared to old 29ers. :)
I had to order a custom made frame to keep a 26 setup ...... sad......

PS : I know that we're in a bike forum but about the vinyl comeback :
it is 75% nostalgia and 25% to be cool.
Nothing about sound , in fact , the difference perceived in sound quality is mostly due to the higher distortion with vinyl. (if you compare to uncompressed digital sound)
Distortion is giving "a certain sound" that digital doesn't have.
Same thing with tube amps , certain people prefer them because of the higher distortion.
You can still buy a new Ibis Mojo frame on their web site should you want to.
 
Save
661 - 680 of 784 Posts
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.