Reply to comment

May 10, 2016, 10:56 a.m. -  Tehllama42

#!markdown This. So much this. I'm totally good with justifiable incremental progress, so long as opportunities to keep things backwards compatible are taken. This keeps bikes that are still rad from a few years ago useful (e.g. 10 speed drive trains still play nicely with 10x135mm and 135mm QR stuff - feed that bike bearings, lubricant, and rubber and it'll shred into the sunset). I think what's actually pissing people off is that with the growing price of bikes, the implied expectations of buyers is that if they're forking over a few grand that it'll be a platform which is supported for a few years (I don't think it's wholly unreasonable to expect that a $5k bike should have five years of really solid support in terms of parts availability), but it simply isn't looking to be the case. If the performance delta was a quantum leap it would be one thing, but to be completely honest the latest and greatest 12 speed and super-huge 11 speed drivetrains still don't offer the range of my recent deprecated 2×10 setup or as many useful gear ratios. The really successful technological additions are unsurprisingly stuff which is backwards compatible - dropper posts play nicely with existing stuff - sure using a lever in the place a front shifter is really nice, but not requisite. The best rim and tire setups happen to be the ones which leverage the UST standard. I know the word 'standard' is much maligned in current MTB parlance, but ones which actually are reasonable, logical, and therefore get re-used over time are a wholly different thing than some half-cocked stop-gap of a specification which designers know is a dead end, but the marketing group can't help but see as a 'latest and greatest' piece of technical jargon which further differentiates the product.

Post your comment

Please log in to leave a comment.