Hello Vital MTB Visitor,
We’re conducting a survey and would appreciate your input. Your answers will help Vital and the MTB industry better understand what riders like you want. Survey results will be used to recognize top brands. Make your voice heard!
Five lucky people will be selected at random to win a Vital MTB t-shirt.
Thanks in advance,
The Vital MTB Crew
Any Electronic stuff: gimmicks
Longer travel seatpost: gimmicks
Gearbox: i would love it but I can't see a big enough breaktrough happening within a year to make them light/efficient/affordable.
Geo: pretty dialed for average size people which I am.
- pool noodles are not the answer, they belong to swimming pools, not bicycle tires. It's the equivalent of giving carbon legs to an asthmatic runner.
- 1.6kg tires ARE NOT a solution.
- The tire/rim interface has never really been questioned for decades, since most of the flats are pinchflats this is where the thinking has to go.
Other topics that need to be tackled.
- this (good) trend of lengthening reach must be followed by lengthened chainstays, otherwise the rider must conscientiously adapt is riding by putting the weight forward when entering corners. Unbalace, no thanks! Look at Pole if in need of inspiration.
- Leave the philosophy of "efficiency for the sake of it" to capitalist pricks and roadies. It's not wrong if your head tube is not 10% stiffer(I see you trek) or if bb is not 3mm lower then the previous model. When designing, put fun, joy and playfulness at the core of your development. We've reached the maturity to make such bikes viably competitive against the clock regardless.
- Think about sustainability and ecology when designing . Market it, label it, don't care. We, as riders, connect with nature thru biking. So make this connection a concern and a goal to reach.
- More focus on cable routing. No, Pivot and Scott, the underside of a bb is not where the hose brake should protrude. It can't be an afterthough when you ask 10k for a bike.
- Hey Sram, let the hydraulic remote go. I know, you wanted it to work. But it sucks, requires constant bleedings and it's impossible to service trailside.
- Bsa 30, universal hub sizes all across categories, zs headsets, universal direct mount standard for chainrings, swat box or built-in storage, ROOM FOR WATERBOTTLE INSIDE FRONT TRIANGLE, more high-end builds on alu frames.
Currently the ass of XXL riders gets slammed too far rearwards and a longer chainstay helps. If you put your weight more forwards, you can still put enough weight on the front axle even with a relatively short chainstay. Plus, with really steep seat tubes, you need longer reach numbers to get the correct cockpit length (the actually important measurement, reach is useless, this being the case that proves that). That increases the wheelbase as well, with a longer chainstay adding to that again.
Loving the electronic shifting and cutting the power idea though!
I'm afraid the 1x trend and over 500 % of range has effectively killed the gearbox, more or less for good. Plus, Honda's bike was a DH bike. DH bikes can get by with mor inefficiencies much easier than an enduro/trail bike...
No comment on the Spec part.
That would be cool. But there were comments comparing MTB to MX. They also went through many different manufacturers of bikes, suspension and gear, went through ever larger wheels that were then scaled back and the like, where motocross bikes are now very similar to one another, indistinguishable to a general observer, when you take the plastics and the branding off. I hope mountain bikes are going through the same period now.
People are going insane when they read '500 mm of reach', yet they can't even understand that number properly and what it means. Of course the reach will be insane when you have a 78° seat tube angle. But people will still be scared and will rather go off and buy an Enduro. That's why big brands don't want to go extreme, the thing will not sell well. Unless you have a diehard base of customers, ala Apple.
I'm gonna touch on the seat posts and their wobblines. I also don't like cheap materials on expensive products, but hey, if it works... Anyway, the wobbly seatposts, they are round. You could make them less wiggly by making them another shape (oval would probably work best, sealing, bearing and manufacturing wise). Crank Brothers did something along those lines (flat surfaces on a round-ish post). The catch then is all the sealing and bearing components and surfaces, which usually come ready made in cheap, nice, round packages. Plus the manufacturing is cheaper, faster, easier for round things (lathes and the like), usually. So you just have to deal with it on round posts, which is done with keys. And keys need some gap in the keyways for them to be able to move. That's the wiggling. You could make all of that tighter, but the post could then bind and it would be even more expensive due to insane tolerances and more NOK parts during production. Take a look at single sided forks in this regard for example, how they solve this issue. We could also go twin tube on the posts though...
As for trails, we have some rough stuff here in Slovenia, when we ride (illegally of course) hiking trails. These are old trails, worn into the sides of the mountains. The trails are not always that flowy and have hard details in them. I love it. The purpose built stuff is much more flowy, like all over the world. The thing is that certain principles for trail building just work across the whole population, and the better riders then stick out form the average, sadly. And we also need purpose built trails in Slovenia, since the sport is booming, we can't fit all the bikers and hikers on hiking trails. And hard, technical details over rocks and roots usually are not sustainable for a massively abused trail. Either the riding frequency or the water will kill it :/ But i do agree about the sanitization, it's really weird to see some Canadian, even North Shore videos on what are basically manicured trails. Sure, they have big jumps and stuff, but you can't learn and progress on things like that. I much prefer the natural, walked-in style of trails. Walking over the rocks and roots gives them a certain charm that can't be manmade (well, not with a shovel and tools, but i hope you know what i mean).
But yeah, pool noodles and 1,6 kg tyres are not the answer. And i'm not sure what is.
Other topics:
-the reach is lengthening much more than the chainstays are longer on Poles compared to other bikes. Because a longer reach pulls you forward over the front wheel already and gives you a better weight distribution. You just mustn't ride a bike like that over the rear, you have to be centred. If you don't like that, go for a shorter bike. Easy.
-agreed. Most people don't race they ride for fun. Most people don't vene want to go faster, they just want to have more fun. Longer, slacker, etc. bikes are not a solution for them. At least not necessarily.
-more or less agreed, but i don't have such strong views on this.
-and make them external. I hate it when the cables rattle inside the frame. I know carbon frames have cable guides inside, but i care exactly 0 % about carbon, it's aluminium where it's at for me, thanks.
-i like the hydraulic remote and would like hydraulic shifting to get rid of the cables. True about trailside repairs, but i bled my remote... twice. Both times when i had the post serviced. If anything, i'd have them fix the sagging post due to air coming into the oil chamber.
-yes to more high end builds on alu frames, why would i have to buy a carbon frame witht he same shitty equipment for more money than a spec with alu frame and proper equipment would be worth? And aluminium is not an inferior material, if anything, it's superior, since it has better crash resistance. And even if it's damaged, i can see it, the carbon can be damaged on the inside, where you can't see it. Plus, half the carbon only frames require it due to the complexity of the frame. Which, if you ask me, is not needed. Sure, there are 'looks like a session' comments. But what's wrong with that? The shock is mounted at the BB, where the frame is very strong. The rocker is mounted by the seat-tube - top-tube interface, where the frame is strong. You made the frame using three tubes (plus the BB and headtube, of course), it's stiff, it's light, and... HAS A PLACE FOR THE WATER BOTTLE!
Want long? 455ish mm on my Banshee Prime using their 'long' drop-outs.
In all seriousness improving tire casings. Lighter tires with strong sidewalls (i.e DH casing strength/durability) would be awesome.
Wrong way IMO, completely the wrong way.
And no, i don't want to walk. I bought a bike, if i wanted to walk up the hill, i'd do it without a bike (i do hike-a-bikes, but only when there's no other option to access the sweet stuff. And i carry the bike, not push).
As for the gearboxes, there isn't much to support. You have your Pinion, which is far from a widely supported product, so don't expect to see it on any major brands (up to now, Nicolai has embraced it, Zerode has used it and Alutech has dropped it). Effigear is even worse in this regard with only Cavaliere and Nicolai using it at some point (not sure about the satus of Cavaliere, Nicolai has dropped it).
Plus, Pinion has a specific 'offloading' quirk for you to be able to shift (you do get used to it, but it's still a barrier to mass adoption), all the people that tried it say you do notice the added drag and it is still heavier at the end of the day (yes yes, i know, it's more centered, better protected, less maintenance, etc.). Effigear requires the use of a freehub-less rear hub and a concetric single-pivot swingarm design, since the rear wheel drives the gearbox for you to be able to shift - if you want to shift to an easier gear (if i understood them correctly), you would have to backpedal to release the internal freehub when using a freehub hub in the rear. With a fixed hub, you only release the pedals and rely on the rear wheel to turn the gearbox enough to release the internal freehub.
So it's a clear catch-22. There aren't enough good gearboxes for the major brands to use them, and because nobody uses them, there is no support. Plus different standards, when you have all the gear in the world available for current drivetrains, etc.
I stand by my opinion that Sram and Shimano have engineered the gearbox out of existence on MTBs.
The Foes Mixer Enduro bike has been around for a while and the geo is also a bit dated. Would love to see someone proto a mixed wheelsize bike with contemporary geometry.
Let me temper my general anger at current industry engineers with some realism and some nostalgia though. I have loved DH my whole life. I followed each bike development in the late 90s and early 2000s with the type of anticipation usually reserved for a kid with severe ADD waiting for the school bell to ring. I miss when the bike industry would just try crazy stuff. Now there is a formula. You get a basic four-bar suspension system, you put it on a bike with generic angles and then you package it as something new like "giddy-up" with clever marketing. Plenty of companies have found success with that model. Most of their bikes ride awesome. BUT - Where did the creativity of the past go? Why can't we try to make bikes more awesome? That's what I want. I want industry engineers to stop treading water and try to think outside the box. Look at all the current high-pivot stuff that people are flipping out about. Remember Sunn and Balfa? It's been done before. To great effectiveness I might add. The current high-pivot craze is just a repackaging of an old idea. How about more new ideas? The past 10 years of "incremental improvements" have just really worn down my faith and optimism in the collective creative talent of the industry. Also I just snapped my carbon cranks so I'm a little peeved at everything bike related.
At the end of the day - we are all here on Vital because we love bikes. And we're all here commenting on this thread because some small part of us hopes that industry people are listening to our ideas and will work to make those ideas a reality. And I'm here to write angry manifestos about the lack of real progress in the hope that industry insiders will be inspired to suck less. I recognize that my comments are likely detrimental to my cause. I do not care.
Though on an XL a water bottle cage could be mounted towards the front of the triangle on the underside of the top tube. Maybe.
I've seen the effects of a clean sheet design in automotive industry far too many times. The effects being all the issues that are brought up. Automotive industry learns A LOT from the aerospace industry, where the margin for error is MUCH smaller, things just have to work and be light and strong at the same time, much more so than with cars.
Both industries are some of the toughest industries to make good products in due to the demands the products are placed under - the loads, their undetermined nature, the product lifecycles and the environments (temperature ranges from -40°C to 80+°C for most parts of a car with the upper limit going well over 100°C for engine bay components, corrosive fluids covering them, humidity being present, massive vibration loads, etc.) these products need to work in with all their complexities.
So, to cap it off with the point i'm trying to make, you don't do clean sheet designs. You don't do massive changes. You don't do multiple changes without testing, because that throws you in the dark, knowledge wise, and brings issues while testing the components. You iterate with small steps, because that gives you a successful development process. Sure, it locks you out of the groundbreaking new inventions and big gains most of the times, but those, when you do go for them (well, you still have to do big changes now and then), usually bring with them a set of problems, that take time and money to get fixed.
Look at electric cars, why do you think the big brands make 'shitty electric cars that can't compete wit Tesla'? Because they stuffed an unknown (electric drivetrain) into a known quantity (a well developed hatchback). Then they made another change (custom chassis) on a small, cheap car (ala Volt/Bolt or i3), that can still be sold for profit. When you know what you're doing, that's when you go for the big stuff (Porsche Taycan and the like). Tesla went for the big, juicy apple right from the start. How well is that going for them (the internet is full of reports of quality issues, while you can hear some engineering horror stories if you're in the know enough).
Modern drivetrains are engineered plenty enough. Modifying (and testing those modifications) IS the essence of engineering.
I don't see the point in Di2 actuation with anything. Mechanics work plenty fine the way we have it now. The thing is i can hardly see a both-way-actuated seatpost without some electric power for that. I haven't given it enough thought though, but you need some energy for things to move. With seatposts, you compress an airspring with your weight. The thing moving up and down willy nilly would make for a very nice perpetuum mobile, in essence.
I might be wrong and some way could be made for the post to be mechanically operated both ways and i'm happy to eat my hat in that case. But i'll wait and see what happens.
As for other points, no, dropper posts aren't usable only in racing, i'd say it's actually the other way around more or less. With racing less weight is more of a benefit than with touristic riding. And stages are, more or less, only down with transfers mostly up. There's less of up-and-down and transfers during stages, where a dropper post is most useful. But who cares, droppers are awesome. And waiting for that dud that doesn't have one is a PITA, so no, it is that much of an issue, since we all use them nowadays.
As for seat height, when i had a manually operated dropper post (well... a seatpost and a quickrelease), id ropped it by about 10 cm. Just so i got my knee over the seat. I'm now running a 125 mm seatpost and i've come to the conclusion in the past half a year, since my cornering improved, that it's not enough. I can't wait to get on a 170 mm seatpost. I'm at 190 cm BTW.
And yeah, i do agree slamming the seat all the way down is not the best idea. But still, with a 125 mm dropper, i don't have the space to quickly change leaning sides on the bike without going into the corner with my crankarms horizontally (to give me enough space over the seat), which is not optimal. You want the outer foot to be in the low position. With a seat that's too high it's hard to quickly change feet positions in quick consecutive corners.
Post a reply to: 2020 Bike Wants