"It must have been hellish trying to ride XC bikes that were basically road bikes with flat bars and fat tires on the kind of terrain that “you people up north” were navigating. An entire sport was being fed by an industry that had decided what everyone needed was lightweight, twitchy, uncomfortable bikes that weren’t good for much aside from going uphill fast."
It was, and I have scars to prove it. The industry was being designed around California flattish desert riding, and in some aspects of design, it still is.
We now have all mountain and enduro bikes that are designed around 64 degree HA's and 76 degree SA's and are designed to, as you say, "winch up steep hills" and descend steep enough to make our hair bleed, yet we insist on fitting them with 30 or 32t NW chainrings that are better suited to XC or trail bikes that are racing around the flattish Utah and California landscape (yes, I know there are exceptions to this, I've ridden some incredibly steep terrain in Northern California, but is the exception.)
I understand that the anti squat geometry of ALL FS mountain bikes is based around a 30 or 32t chainring, but this makes no sense for bikes that are essentially winch/grunt/pedal/chairlift up bikes that are primarily gravity sleds on the way down. The last thing I'm concerned about on the way down any NS ride is if I have a short enough gearset to avoid spinning out. I'm far more concerned with brake fade and modulation.
This is actually a case of win-win-win if designers applied this to new AM or Enduro bikes; a smaller front chainring (26/28t?) that increases clearance and is lighter is win\#1, a smaller rear cluster (11-36?) is much lighter is win\#2, and the fact that all the cogs on the rear cluster can be steel and therefore last FOREVER (or until I buy a new bike) is win \#3.
So why isn't this happening?
Oct. 10, 2022, 12:20 p.m. - woofer2609
"It must have been hellish trying to ride XC bikes that were basically road bikes with flat bars and fat tires on the kind of terrain that “you people up north” were navigating. An entire sport was being fed by an industry that had decided what everyone needed was lightweight, twitchy, uncomfortable bikes that weren’t good for much aside from going uphill fast." It was, and I have scars to prove it. The industry was being designed around California flattish desert riding, and in some aspects of design, it still is. We now have all mountain and enduro bikes that are designed around 64 degree HA's and 76 degree SA's and are designed to, as you say, "winch up steep hills" and descend steep enough to make our hair bleed, yet we insist on fitting them with 30 or 32t NW chainrings that are better suited to XC or trail bikes that are racing around the flattish Utah and California landscape (yes, I know there are exceptions to this, I've ridden some incredibly steep terrain in Northern California, but is the exception.) I understand that the anti squat geometry of ALL FS mountain bikes is based around a 30 or 32t chainring, but this makes no sense for bikes that are essentially winch/grunt/pedal/chairlift up bikes that are primarily gravity sleds on the way down. The last thing I'm concerned about on the way down any NS ride is if I have a short enough gearset to avoid spinning out. I'm far more concerned with brake fade and modulation. This is actually a case of win-win-win if designers applied this to new AM or Enduro bikes; a smaller front chainring (26/28t?) that increases clearance and is lighter is win\#1, a smaller rear cluster (11-36?) is much lighter is win\#2, and the fact that all the cogs on the rear cluster can be steel and therefore last FOREVER (or until I buy a new bike) is win \#3. So why isn't this happening?