The recent push is all about cutting out the aftermarket. Big companies want us to buy complete. So for the most part it's not if we agree to part prices it's if we buy the new shiny POS the push.
MTBR says wider is better
- Thread starter Sandwich
- Start date
I keep reading 'industry' people using the 27.5 argument that they were 'forced' into it by consumer demand. Latecomers like specialized....yeah maybe. But there's the argument that no company would want to completely retool/remold/re-whatever because it's expensive. Everyone was doing that anyway with their own individual updates and changes. But if you could be guaranteed sales for all that overhead investment? As in if you do this, it WILL sell?
Mickey/suspectdevice here and a few others were talking about this a few years ago........this was a decision. A very conscious decision. The plus silliness is just the next one.
Here's how this is going to work. Lots of people buy the stuff, get lots of affirmation online. Then many of those same people will go out and get behind someone with tires that roll fast and start to wonder why their 6K trail bike just absolutely can't keep up rolling in a straight line. Strava will actually help this process. Then just like with dh stuff that already did this 10 years ago..........we'll be back to mostly the baseline we were already reaching.
One benefit of the endurpo thing is the upper end competitive side. To some degree it will keep this crap in check because employees......*cough* I mean racers still need to go fast to remain relevant. Winning bikes should hopefully act as some reigns on this. Something no one is talking about is the fact that a similar wall thickness rim that is just wider, also becomes weaker.
At least I hope. And if not, mavic sure as hell will since they're always about 10 years behind and I can still get strong rims.
I might just have to stock up on my favorite 26" tires so I can continue to ride my bike for a while.
Back when I was in the game, tire molds were paid for by the factory.
This kept you captive to their manufacturing (no taking your molds elsewhere) and made it easier to grey-market your products behind your back.
I don't know the story behind 27.5 or what motivated the change.
I suspect plateaued sales and somebody looking at how shaped skis revitalized that market had something to do with it.
This kept you captive to their manufacturing (no taking your molds elsewhere) and made it easier to grey-market your products behind your back.
I don't know the story behind 27.5 or what motivated the change.
I suspect plateaued sales and somebody looking at how shaped skis revitalized that market had something to do with it.
here's my wall of text:
I'm still of the mindset that 29 was pushed by hand-builders, MTBR nerds and start-ups (in that order). Then the lazy (and not plugged into the internet Forum scene in 2004) large companies rushed frantically to catch up with an e-theory that only (possibly) has benefits for the fringe XC race niche.
27.5 is the repudiation of 29, and it seems to have been lead from the top more than from forum e-engineers and NAHBS brands as was the case with 29.
You can call that collusion, but I'm going to guess the big guys actually have a couple legit engineers and ex-racers on the payroll and those guys said 29's never going to be a true benefit for DH, FR, DJ, etc.
I still haven't totally swallowed 27.5 (don't own one yet), though.
What I think I'm seeing with the wide rim theory is that, as was the case with 29, it doesn't seem that dudes who are actually pushing the edge of performance are demanding the change. Modern tire designs, beginning with the SRY DHF through to the current Maxxis and Spesh designs are INSANELY FYCKIN GOOD, and I certainly can't outride them.
On the other hand, the fatbike seems only to have benefits for 1) riding on fluffy snow and 2) sand dunes, both of which are incredibly niche (on par with XC racing) and also 2 things I never want to do with my life.
I'm still of the mindset that 29 was pushed by hand-builders, MTBR nerds and start-ups (in that order). Then the lazy (and not plugged into the internet Forum scene in 2004) large companies rushed frantically to catch up with an e-theory that only (possibly) has benefits for the fringe XC race niche.
27.5 is the repudiation of 29, and it seems to have been lead from the top more than from forum e-engineers and NAHBS brands as was the case with 29.
You can call that collusion, but I'm going to guess the big guys actually have a couple legit engineers and ex-racers on the payroll and those guys said 29's never going to be a true benefit for DH, FR, DJ, etc.
I still haven't totally swallowed 27.5 (don't own one yet), though.
What I think I'm seeing with the wide rim theory is that, as was the case with 29, it doesn't seem that dudes who are actually pushing the edge of performance are demanding the change. Modern tire designs, beginning with the SRY DHF through to the current Maxxis and Spesh designs are INSANELY FYCKIN GOOD, and I certainly can't outride them.
On the other hand, the fatbike seems only to have benefits for 1) riding on fluffy snow and 2) sand dunes, both of which are incredibly niche (on par with XC racing) and also 2 things I never want to do with my life.
i've already amassed a good stockpile.
Fat bikes suck at riding on fluffy snow. They make a difference on thin crust of ice that is too thin to support skinny tires and thick enough to support wider tires. I personally find the margin between conditions where you can ride fat but not skinny and where you can ride both very narrow.
Sand is a different story though.
OK, fatbikes are possibly only useful for a single niche pursuit that I don't want to do. 
I 'get' 29ers a lot more than 650b wheels. You can't ride a good one and NOT see some really cool benefits.
But for the strong, nimble standard, increasing wheel sizes is moronic. People spend 400 bucks to drop 100g from cranks and then hop on board for adding more than that to the part that rotates, and call it an 'upgrade'. Stoopid.
But for the strong, nimble standard, increasing wheel sizes is moronic. People spend 400 bucks to drop 100g from cranks and then hop on board for adding more than that to the part that rotates, and call it an 'upgrade'. Stoopid.
That's what happens when you have 175mm crankskidwoo's cranks don't rotate apparently
Not passively a foot and a half from their center they don'tkidwoo's cranks don't rotate apparently
Them bitches got WOODRIVE when they move.
so 175mm cranks = unrideable?That's what happens when you have 175mm cranks
def. rideable, but def. unpedalable.
175mm cranks + woo's 6" bb height = unrideable.
Took you long enough.
But what if you combined 175 mm cranks with a VPP bike? Would the 2 forces of unridability cancel each other out and create a rideable bike?
Maybe that explains why dan-o can actually ride his Nomad
Maybe that explains why dan-o can actually ride his Nomad
I do ride 175......But what if you combined 175 mm cranks with a VPP bike? Would the 2 forces of unridability cancel each other out and create a rideable bike?
Maybe that explains why dan-o can actually ride his Nomad
Well there ya go - mystery solved. Perhaps my theory of bi-fuckulation also applies to sandwich's bike:
(gay) 29er + FSR (lawyers) = rideable
Either one of those forces would render a given bike useless, but together, its magic. Surely there is some law of quantum physics which explains this phenomenon.
(gay) 29er + FSR (lawyers) = rideable
Either one of those forces would render a given bike useless, but together, its magic. Surely there is some law of quantum physics which explains this phenomenon.
Yes but you probably see 29ers as an alternative. Something that you can have in addition to a 26er. The industry wants the 650b to be a successor of 26. Though yeah I'm yet to ride a 650b that felt any different to the 26'' bikes I tried.
For that matter, when I rode a 29er, it did not feel notably different than 26...
Nope - getting the balance-point on a 29" is much more involved. This and when hammering bermed corners it is not as razor edge
Not everyone rides this way, but I feel a 29" ride is something different.
That mtbr article on wide rims is amusing. Francis from mtbr hedges his bets right away in comments section, people post the same downsides mentioned here, the author from Arts Cyclery gets defensive and says he wasn't drinking the koolaid and Yeah they can suck with most currently available tires....so in the end the koolaid article undermines itself.
Personally think 650+ makes a lot of sense for the sub $1500 entry level "real" mountain bike segment.
These bikes will, imo, help beginners riders get into the sport. More stable in a straight line, more traction, harder to go too fast, and not as complicated hard tails.
Their second real bike is then a normal 5" fs trail bike.
If you look at fat, 650b and plus bikes in That light, they make a lot of sense.
Salesman: "This fat bike is way too much outside of snow and sand, but they are great townie cruisers. this normal 2.2 full suspension bike is too complicated, expensive and twitchy... But 650b... Oh baby it's juuuuuusssst right".
Same salesman 2 years later "oh your skills have progressed so that 650+ is slow and unresponsive? Check out this 5" carbon wonderbike!"
All the 650plus I have seen are middle of the road spec and alloy frames, which I think further supports the argument.
These bikes will, imo, help beginners riders get into the sport. More stable in a straight line, more traction, harder to go too fast, and not as complicated hard tails.
Their second real bike is then a normal 5" fs trail bike.
If you look at fat, 650b and plus bikes in That light, they make a lot of sense.
Salesman: "This fat bike is way too much outside of snow and sand, but they are great townie cruisers. this normal 2.2 full suspension bike is too complicated, expensive and twitchy... But 650b... Oh baby it's juuuuuusssst right".
Same salesman 2 years later "oh your skills have progressed so that 650+ is slow and unresponsive? Check out this 5" carbon wonderbike!"
All the 650plus I have seen are middle of the road spec and alloy frames, which I think further supports the argument.
Last edited:
I kinda want to track down a 1995 trek 930 and ride it.
Pretty sure my second real bike (1998 m2 sworks w/ z1 bam) would still shred.
Pretty sure my second real bike (1998 m2 sworks w/ z1 bam) would still shred.
I was just out there but joetron said you never come out and play any more.
I'll be down south on some red rock next month.
We should go validate the industry and ride boost hubbed shit bikes at 2mph on slickrock.
I'll be down south on some red rock next month.
We should go validate the industry and ride boost hubbed shit bikes at 2mph on slickrock.
I still ride an old steel rigid 1989 Trek 830 from time to time.
and a little 1995 GT Aggressor with Rockshox indys with about 40mm of dried out elastomer sprung travel...
They both still ride off-road just fine and are a hell of a lot more fun than friends retarded fatbikes and 29+ monstrosities. (mainly down to having normal tyres at decent pressures with an actual edge tread but also from not being fitted with a weeks worth of expedition luggage for a couple of hours local XC riding)
and a little 1995 GT Aggressor with Rockshox indys with about 40mm of dried out elastomer sprung travel...
They both still ride off-road just fine and are a hell of a lot more fun than friends retarded fatbikes and 29+ monstrosities. (mainly down to having normal tyres at decent pressures with an actual edge tread but also from not being fitted with a weeks worth of expedition luggage for a couple of hours local XC riding)
The same argument gets applied to trail building as well. Back in the day we all learned to ride technical natural style trails on bikes with out suspension and toe clips. Now the trails are machine cut, bobsled runs, devoid of anything remotely challenging, ridden by hoards of skin-suit clad riders with 2 years experience on 29rs with enough attitude to inflate a blimp. Dumb it down to the lowest common denominator so everyone gets a trophy.
Soon I will replace my worn out 26 in. frame and wheels with more 26 in. stuff. Hmmpff !
You saw those stickers I made right?
The bermy switchbacky stuff needs to die, for sure. It's like a nationwide virus. If a trail is built somewhere with rocks in the soil, it will erode and get better. Keep that in mind too.
I still kinda envy you. Here they try to build bermy stuff but do it half assed and we get something that both sucks in terms of flow and sucks as a real mans track.
Well at least it still involves lots of backfilled dirt that will get pitted and chewed up and need constant maintenance from it not being shaped correctly.
Fatbikes are great for fluffy snow, just as long as it's not too deep, 5-6 is usually the limit, Although with gravity and light snow I've been able to do more. Fluffy snow and a downhill is tons of fun, especially with a little berm action. As long as you live somewhere that people hike, snowshoe and ski, the trails will usually be good for fat biking. If it hasn't snowed in a month and everything is boilerplate, the skinny and studs can be better, but with the fat you are rarely stopped by the conditions and it doesn't take much to make skinny frustrating (even though you have a relatively packed surface, the sides are often soft and you spend the whole time trying not to veer more than an inch off course, lest the front tire wipe out).
Had the second annual downhill race at the ski resort a little over a week ago. Studded fat tires were like Velcro, brake response was absolutely amazing. Racers were well over 50mph.
What is trail maintenence? Here you hype your new bike spot (and call it a bikepark for idiotic reason) and then do nothing with it after it's build. Even if some jumps are undoable. It's getting better but from what I observed bikeparks also get their share of decent real mans dh tracks. We can't ride hidden trails hero dirt all day.
Ummm, not sure...
Don't get me wrong, I like berms, raced BMX as a kid. Berms have their place and so do flowy bobsled runs. But every trail should not be built this way. The IMBA way is not the only way to build a trail. You're right though, it is like a virus that is spreading at an alarming rate leaving us with homogenized trails. I could support IMBA if they embraced more than one style of trail design. But as their mission is now, big box store model, fuck'em !
It's one thing to build new trails the IMBA way, but when you take a trail that has existed for more than two decades as a natural style trail and start adding berms and switch backs, removing rocks and packing dirt into the roots, it's just not right.
About 35 min. from my studio is a place that has a good combination of bermy switchbacks and technical features such as rock gardens and slippery creek crossings. Some of the more tech sections I can't clean every ride. I like that, keeps me coming back.