New posts

the future of mtb's

April 13, 2019, 9:37 a.m.
Posts: 177
Joined: Feb. 24, 2017

Posted by: craw

Posted by: andy-eunson

Posted by: syncro

Posted by: xy9ine

Posted by: andy-eunson

The next big thing will be compliance. Frames designed to flex a bit for better control. As far as geometry I think we’ll see seat tube angles relax a touch but variable length rear centres will be a thing.

would love to see adjustable dropouts commonplace. if you're not going to offer size specific chainstay lengths, at least do a flip chip dropout. about time that manufacturers realized that offering frame sizes with a front center range of around 4" with the same rear center for all is just dumb.

With adjustable dropouts do you think any effort needs to be put into considering how changing CS affects suspension kinematic? Should there also be some adjustments on the shock mounts?

No question a longer chainstay means different kinematics. I read somewhere that is one reason why we don’t see many bikes offering longer chainstays as frame sizes increase. It would mean more engineering for all the sizes as well as greater costs to make multiple sized swing arms particularly in carbon. I wouldn’t think the difference in kinematics would be that great though. Especially DW or VPP type set ups. I think Norco accomplish this by moving the bottom pivot back relative to the bb. 

When I said seat tube angles will moderate I was thinking about some of the super steep 78 angled bikes. My take is that as reach increased, manufacturers made seat tube angles more steep to keep the cockpit the same and to allow shorter chainstays which still seems to be a buzzword measuring stick for some. This also meant wheelbase could be shortened to allow for slacker head tube angles because some people read spec sheets and decide how a bike will ride based on that alone. To me, a bike like a Pole might ride better if the wheelbase and reach all stayed the same but that bb moved forward a bunch. A steep seat tube angle will put a riders weight further ahead of the rear axle which makes the bike have better traction but if that seat tube angle is too steep it may be hard to obtain a proper hip torso angle for more efficient pedalling.

Do you find Pole geometry doesn't ride well? In case you haven't actually ridden these bikes as much as I have: your speculation is incorrect, unless you ride a small. No doubt a 78' seat angle could be too steep for some, but you know what's nice, finally? Options.  There's still plenty of conservative companies making bikes with 74' seat tubes.

I would be on a small at 5’ 5”. And options are good for sure. I just think there is enough adjustment available with saddle rails and offset post heads to accommodate a lot of riders at a slacker seat tube angle. 74 75 is perfectly fine. I’d love to ride one of these more extreme Geo bikes though. It might change my thinking, but it might not.

April 13, 2019, 10:57 a.m.
Posts: 412
Joined: Jan. 31, 2005

Posted by: andy-eunson

Posted by: craw

Posted by: andy-eunson

Posted by: syncro

Posted by: xy9ine

Posted by: andy-eunson

The next big thing will be compliance. Frames designed to flex a bit for better control. As far as geometry I think we’ll see seat tube angles relax a touch but variable length rear centres will be a thing.

would love to see adjustable dropouts commonplace. if you're not going to offer size specific chainstay lengths, at least do a flip chip dropout. about time that manufacturers realized that offering frame sizes with a front center range of around 4" with the same rear center for all is just dumb.

With adjustable dropouts do you think any effort needs to be put into considering how changing CS affects suspension kinematic? Should there also be some adjustments on the shock mounts?

No question a longer chainstay means different kinematics. I read somewhere that is one reason why we don’t see many bikes offering longer chainstays as frame sizes increase. It would mean more engineering for all the sizes as well as greater costs to make multiple sized swing arms particularly in carbon. I wouldn’t think the difference in kinematics would be that great though. Especially DW or VPP type set ups. I think Norco accomplish this by moving the bottom pivot back relative to the bb.

When I said seat tube angles will moderate I was thinking about some of the super steep 78 angled bikes. My take is that as reach increased, manufacturers made seat tube angles more steep to keep the cockpit the same and to allow shorter chainstays which still seems to be a buzzword measuring stick for some. This also meant wheelbase could be shortened to allow for slacker head tube angles because some people read spec sheets and decide how a bike will ride based on that alone. To me, a bike like a Pole might ride better if the wheelbase and reach all stayed the same but that bb moved forward a bunch. A steep seat tube angle will put a riders weight further ahead of the rear axle which makes the bike have better traction but if that seat tube angle is too steep it may be hard to obtain a proper hip torso angle for more efficient pedalling.

Do you find Pole geometry doesn't ride well? In case you haven't actually ridden these bikes as much as I have: your speculation is incorrect, unless you ride a small. No doubt a 78' seat angle could be too steep for some, but you know what's nice, finally? Options. There's still plenty of conservative companies making bikes with 74' seat tubes.

I would be on a small at 5’ 5”. And options are good for sure. I just think there is enough adjustment available with saddle rails and offset post heads to accommodate a lot of riders at a slacker seat tube angle. 74 75 is perfectly fine. I’d love to ride one of these more extreme Geo bikes though. It might change my thinking, but it might not.

Ah the old "I'm close to average so everything that works for me works for everyone" fallacy.

I'm 6'6". At proper extension 74-75' leaves me so so far off the back as to be laughable especially when you factor in our current fascination with really short rear ends. This only gets worse if the actual seat tube angle is much slacker. And that's with the seat all the way forward. Now I'm on 77' with long chainstays and still have the seat all the way forward; the bike fits really well but I could comfortably use another degree steeper. Slacker STA and shorter CS in the smaller sizes, the opposite on the bigger sizes.


 Last edited by: craw on April 13, 2019, 10:57 a.m., edited 1 time in total.
April 13, 2019, 7:28 p.m.
Posts: 177
Joined: Feb. 24, 2017

Posted by: craw

Posted by: andy-eunson

Posted by: craw

Posted by: andy-eunson

Posted by: syncro

Posted by: xy9ine

Posted by: andy-eunson

The next big thing will be compliance. Frames designed to flex a bit for better control. As far as geometry I think we’ll see seat tube angles relax a touch but variable length rear centres will be a thing.

would love to see adjustable dropouts commonplace. if you're not going to offer size specific chainstay lengths, at least do a flip chip dropout. about time that manufacturers realized that offering frame sizes with a front center range of around 4" with the same rear center for all is just dumb.

With adjustable dropouts do you think any effort needs to be put into considering how changing CS affects suspension kinematic? Should there also be some adjustments on the shock mounts?

No question a longer chainstay means different kinematics. I read somewhere that is one reason why we don’t see many bikes offering longer chainstays as frame sizes increase. It would mean more engineering for all the sizes as well as greater costs to make multiple sized swing arms particularly in carbon. I wouldn’t think the difference in kinematics would be that great though. Especially DW or VPP type set ups. I think Norco accomplish this by moving the bottom pivot back relative to the bb.

When I said seat tube angles will moderate I was thinking about some of the super steep 78 angled bikes. My take is that as reach increased, manufacturers made seat tube angles more steep to keep the cockpit the same and to allow shorter chainstays which still seems to be a buzzword measuring stick for some. This also meant wheelbase could be shortened to allow for slacker head tube angles because some people read spec sheets and decide how a bike will ride based on that alone. To me, a bike like a Pole might ride better if the wheelbase and reach all stayed the same but that bb moved forward a bunch. A steep seat tube angle will put a riders weight further ahead of the rear axle which makes the bike have better traction but if that seat tube angle is too steep it may be hard to obtain a proper hip torso angle for more efficient pedalling.

Do you find Pole geometry doesn't ride well? In case you haven't actually ridden these bikes as much as I have: your speculation is incorrect, unless you ride a small. No doubt a 78' seat angle could be too steep for some, but you know what's nice, finally? Options. There's still plenty of conservative companies making bikes with 74' seat tubes.

I would be on a small at 5’ 5”. And options are good for sure. I just think there is enough adjustment available with saddle rails and offset post heads to accommodate a lot of riders at a slacker seat tube angle. 74 75 is perfectly fine. I’d love to ride one of these more extreme Geo bikes though. It might change my thinking, but it might not.

Ah the old "I'm close to average so everything that works for me works for everyone" fallacy.

I'm 6'6". At proper extension 74-75' leaves me so so far off the back as to be laughable especially when you factor in our current fascination with really short rear ends. This only gets worse if the actual seat tube angle is much slacker. And that's with the seat all the way forward. Now I'm on 77' with long chainstays and still have the seat all the way forward; the bike fits really well but I could comfortably use another degree steeper. Slacker STA and shorter CS in the smaller sizes, the opposite on the bigger sizes.

I think we are at the opposite sides of the norm. I think you’re right that rear centres should grow with frame size. A rider’s center of mass needs to be seated ahead of the rear axle.

April 14, 2019, 12:42 a.m.
Posts: 2041
Joined: April 2, 2005

Posted by: DanL

Every component using one or two torx bolt sizes? Too much to ask ?

More like every OEM uses their own proprietary bolt like Apple...

April 14, 2019, 10:31 a.m.
Posts: 3480
Joined: Dec. 17, 2003

This thread is almost as depressing as the "ebikes on the shore" thread.

April 14, 2019, 11:47 a.m.
Posts: 1037
Joined: Nov. 23, 2002

Posted by: nouseforaname

This thread is almost as depressing as the "ebikes on the shore" thread.

How come? The value for performance in today's mtb market is pretty high. If anything bikes are almost too good nowadays, which was part of the motivation for the thread. Except for a few small factors, how much further can bikes really be improved? 

At some point the question of fun/excitement/danger vs ease of use also comes into play which I think is part of the reason why hard tails seem to be enjoying a bit of a surge in popularity. Since getting and riding the Rocky Instinct, while it's been a great ride I've found that some things are disappointingly easy which has hurt the satisfaction of riding in some instances.

April 14, 2019, 12:01 p.m.
Posts: 1
Joined: Feb. 24, 2017

I would really like to see some brand consolidation and prices to go down, now that more or less everyone is selling a variation of the same secret sauce enduro bike.  Fat chance of that ever happening.

April 14, 2019, 7:01 p.m.
Posts: 1462
Joined: Aug. 6, 2009

Posted by: syncro

At some point the question of fun/excitement/danger vs ease of use also comes into play which I think is part of the reason why hard tails seem to be enjoying a bit of a surge in popularity.

Maybe hardtails are in the "what's old and difficult is retro and cool" phase telemark skiing was 15 years ago. You don't see many tele skiers anymore (other than the old guys like me who can't justify buying new gear).


 Last edited by: PaulB on April 14, 2019, 7:02 p.m., edited 1 time in total.
April 15, 2019, 7:47 a.m.
Posts: 412
Joined: Jan. 31, 2005

You're 40 now. Probably should buy a Chromag.

April 15, 2019, 9:45 a.m.
Posts: 13
Joined: June 13, 2017

pretty much agree with everything craw says. and while I am riding 75+ degree ST angle bike now, my next bike will be a Pole, because I want it steeper. My partner really appreciated the climbing benefits when she went from a 73 degree ST trail bike to a 75 and she is a hair under 5'8". So maybe 75-76 is good for average sized riders and it needs to be adjusted from there.

I think Forbidden is a great example of where the industry is going. Riders want more choice and we will increasingly see these small brands eat away at the custom and big brand market because they will offer bikes that have semi-custom geometry off the shelf with different seat tube angles and rear centers in each size. It means some bikes will get even more expensive, but we have seen that people are willing to pay for it. I would take a size-specific geometry alloy bike (Pole just happens to be making what I think will work best for me at 192cm) with a nice GX build over a carbon superbike any day (and then put really nice carbon wheels on it). That is what is going to be the best performance to cost ratio for me.

So I think we're going to see more of what Forbidden is going in terms of geometry offerings.

I also think tire damping is a thing and we will see more tire companies launching their ideas for it in the next few years. I think there is likely a lighter way to incorporate damping into the tire and that will be the way it goes, but we'll see.

I also think we reached peak hardtail popularity and it will not begin declining in popularity but always maintain a low-level market share.


 Last edited by: cyclotoine on April 15, 2019, 9:47 a.m., edited 1 time in total.
April 15, 2019, 11:48 a.m.
Posts: 1432
Joined: July 11, 2014

Posted by: pedalhound

Tires are being worked on a lot lately, between new casings and rubber...I am excited to see them get better, probably one of the best things you can do for your bike is get good tires for your location and riding style. And then there are tire inserts...will they eventually merge into one system or will they stay separate?

Maxxis is prototyping this on their DH tires with the SC Syndicate, I think it's called ZK something? +100g per tire but removes need for insert. 29x2.5 Assegai DH casing with ZK must weigh over 1,500g.

April 16, 2019, 7:59 a.m.
Posts: 2906
Joined: June 15, 2006

Posted by: steven-kovalenko

I would really like to see some brand consolidation and prices to go down, now that more or less everyone is selling a variation of the same secret sauce enduro bike.  Fat chance of that ever happening.

And here I was thinking that 5 years from now bike prices will probably have doubled.

April 16, 2019, 8:28 a.m.
Posts: 6
Joined: Sept. 9, 2018

Posted by: craw

You're 40 now. Probably should buy a Chromag.

Too close to home, man (although I was 46 when I got my Chromag...)

Los

April 16, 2019, 8:32 a.m.
Posts: 412
Joined: Jan. 31, 2005

Posted by: Losifer

Posted by: craw

You're 40 now. Probably should buy a Chromag.

Too close to home, man (although I was 46 when I got my Chromag...)

Los

I heard a younger rider at the bike shop the other day talking about the base of Cypress and "all the old guys shuttling their Knollys". Classic.

April 16, 2019, 8:40 a.m.
Posts: 78
Joined: March 14, 2017

Posted by: cyclotoine

pretty much agree with everything craw says. and while I am riding 75+ degree ST angle bike now, my next bike will be a Pole, because I want it steeper. My partner really appreciated the climbing benefits when she went from a 73 degree ST trail bike to a 75 and she is a hair under 5'8". So maybe 75-76 is good for average sized riders and it needs to be adjusted from there.

I think Forbidden is a great example of where the industry is going. Riders want more choice and we will increasingly see these small brands eat away at the custom and big brand market because they will offer bikes that have semi-custom geometry off the shelf with different seat tube angles and rear centers in each size. It means some bikes will get even more expensive, but we have seen that people are willing to pay for it. I would take a size-specific geometry alloy bike (Pole just happens to be making what I think will work best for me at 192cm) with a nice GX build over a carbon superbike any day (and then put really nice carbon wheels on it). That is what is going to be the best performance to cost ratio for me.

So I think we're going to see more of what Forbidden is going in terms of geometry offerings.

I also think tire damping is a thing and we will see more tire companies launching their ideas for it in the next few years. I think there is likely a lighter way to incorporate damping into the tire and that will be the way it goes, but we'll see.

I also think we reached peak hardtail popularity and it will not begin declining in popularity but always maintain a low-level market share.

Alloy wheels give a better more compliant ride.  Lots of hype on carbon and I think we will less of it in the future.

Forum jump: