Why are riders so against change?

lawman

bennett_346 wrote:

Because my 26 inch wheels have been winning cross country races and DH races alike for the past 15-20 years. XC bikes have not been winning DH races and DH bikes have not been winning XC races therefore a compromise that has a use can be made.

What good is spending the money on "new" standards such as 650b when i won't even feel the difference? I am simply not interested in that. It is driving the cost of new bikes up too, because of all the money spend on new machines, R&D etc when 90% of us are happy to ride current bikes. I wonder if it even hinders sales because of the rising price tags.

Some new standards and developments are just plain BS, simply put. Things like electronic suspension are a sensible new development as an identical frame can run normal shocks without electronics if you dont want them, whereas some new standards like axle sizes require you to change either your wheels or your forks or both for the sake of a bit of stiffness.

But as you say it's a compromise between the two, so in theory 650b makes sense. If you were choosing a new bike, one with 26" wheels the other was 650b, say the 650b bike rode better and was more fun than the 26er, would you still buy the 26er? If all other variables stayed the same, would you buy the better bike or stick with your prejudices and buy the less capable bike purely because it's 26"? Are you really saying you'd buy a worse bike purely because of its wheelsize?

The prices of bikes have been rising for years, the R&D to improve 26" bikes must be comparable to any other wheelsize, why should it cost more? It's still a mountain bike at the end of the day, it'll take the same time frame to develop, the component costs are largely similar and as it settles down prices fall into line.

BB and axle standards have stayed the same for a few years now, same with head tubes barring Giants OverDrive, which is just pure BS, but unless you're buying new what difference does it make to you? I get that a lot of people buy frames and transplant parts from one build to the next, but there's going to be incompatibility issues with various parts, but if buying a whole new bike, or building a whole new bike, why are people so against certain things? A bike is a bike and if it rides well and fits your needs who cares what wheelsize it has or what thru axle and BB its running. If it's a good bike, it's a good bike regardless of wheelsize or any standard.

supersonic

People care because some of these 'standards' do not catch on and become obscure. Sure, the bike might ride well and you buy it - then 3 years down the line your choice of parts may become limited.

There is absolutely no need for so many BB and headset standards. Also now getting lots of rear end choices, 135mm QR suits the majority of people, I have no need for 150 or 142x10 or 12 as it makes bugger all difference to me.

Chunkers1980

I'm gutted 20mm front axels seem have gone down the swanny

supersonic

Chunkers1980 wrote:

I'm gutted 20mm front axels seem have gone down the swanny

Yes, is a shame as this seems to make a difference, unlike 15mm. Is a shame for those people who bought 20mm only wheels, forks, and 1.5 steerers and stems.

mcnultycop

It's change for changes sake that's the issue, not just change itself.

rockmonkeysc

DCR00 wrote:

Not against change when it looks like this

I would still rather have an M9 in raw finish, they are a thing of beauty which really rides extremely well.
Didn't Specialized and a couple others come up with an innovative & better 24" rear wheel for downhill bikes? Wasn't that the way forwards? Should we have followed that new standard?

supersonic

Yes, were some 24 inch rear wheels were used - more rear travel for certain frame and axle path deigns.

bluechair84

The wheels were said to be stronger too so you could hammer them off bigger drops.

rockmonkeysc

bluechair84 wrote:

The wheels were said to be stronger too so you could hammer them off bigger drops.

That was the claim......

supersonic

People often talk of the 26 inch (559mm) size being arbitrarily chosen - but is strikes me that 700c (622mm) is even more so ie "bigger wheels sound good, oh look, we'll use this very common size that already exists". Did the manufacturers R and D here and decide 29 was the one? Then 650b (584mm) - not so common, but exists. If they wanted one bang in the middle why didn't others develop a 589 or 590? this actually exists too, 26 x 1 3/8.

Briggo

supersonic wrote:

Exactly this. Why do we need so many BB and headset standards?

Don't talk to me about bloody headsets, can I find a correct fitting replacement for the Stump? Can I fook.

TheNorthernTrain

I don't think it's just bikers. It's human nature to be against change I'm sure of it. I can't remember a time where someone somewhere hasn't grumbled about something being changed.

cooldad

Too right. I still preferred the look of the old forum.

lawman

Briggo wrote:

supersonic wrote:

Exactly this. Why do we need so many BB and headset standards?

Don't talk to me about bloody headsets, can I find a correct fitting replacement for the Stump? Can I fook.

Well it is a specialized, what did you expect?

supersonic

Briggo wrote:

supersonic wrote:

Exactly this. Why do we need so many BB and headset standards?

Don't talk to me about bloody headsets, can I find a correct fitting replacement for the Stump? Can I fook.

Not an 'Italian' standard, Campy type is it?

bartimaeus

I think it's down to the type of change... I used to ride a road bike, and then a rigid MTB in the 90s, but I did not do much mountain biking on it. Now I have a couple of more modern MTBs. The suspension is excellent, and the geometry has improved to let me make use of the suspension, so the bikes I have now are hugely more capable, as well as lighter, than my old bikes used to be - and for me that makes my riding even more fun.

If I have a puncture I can repair it on the go with a sticky patch... I can track my ride with a GPS, and I can keep track of my rides and have a bit of friendly competition with my friends using Strava. I can plan my rides using OS maps on the internet - and I can plot them and see the profile. I can organise my rides using our local forum (on the web - you know, that thing that did not really exist until the mid to late 90s) and if I'm running late I can call and text my friends on one of them new-fangled mobile electric telephones. I could not do any of that in 1990.

And if I want to fix my bike I can access techdocs easily, source parts, and check videos for help... I can buy stuff on eBay or from my favourite internet shops and if I want someone else to fix my bike for me I can still go to my LBS and while I am there I can moan about all this new technology which is spoiling my sport. At at the end of my weekly night ride I can still stop at the pub and drink a decent beer despite breweries in the past trying to convince me to drink lager or Watney's Red Barrel - and for those of you old enough to remember the 70s, the food these days is much better.

So I agree, 'standards' which aren't standard are a wretched nuisance - and amongst the genuine innovation there's a fair amount of hype and marketing BS. It's also annoying that e.g. Specialized have decided we all want 29ers, but I guess that's because they have created a demand for them in the US and are now chasing that demand... but if UK riders want a hardcore 26er I'm sure that someone will keep making them (Cotic, Ragley, Stanton?) as there market isn't the US. I'm looking forward to cheaper carbon bikes - but I'm sure someone will still build me one in steel if that's what I want next.

So when I think about what I have I think that change is good. Some change is disruptive, and some change - particularly change that seems to force early obsolescence is annoying and seems cynical... but on the whole I'd rather be riding my 2010 bikes than my 1990 bikes.

bartimaeus

... BUT, the weather these days is CRAP - not a patch on the summer of '76

The Rookie

Not all changes are for the better, but I'd rather ride my new fangled Alluminium frame with it's new fangled suspension forks with those new fangled damper thingies and air spring (Elastomers work just as well don't you know) and my 1x9 gearing gives pretty much the spread of the 3x7 on my retro Fuji........

Innovation is good, unfortunetly there will be innovations that get leapfrogged, so ISIS and powerspline and Octalink were relatively short lived in the grand scheme of things, as was external, then we went to press fit, but external will be around for a while as it allows people to use modern cranks in older design frames....but had we stopped innovation then we'd still all be on cottered cranks but I'm sure there were people saying the change to cotterless was pointless.

650B actually looks a good idea to me based on the evidence I've seen so far - but no I've not actually ridden one!

bennett_346

Explain to me the benefits of press fit bottom brackets?

Chunkers1980

Good for carbon as you can build the carbon to the full ish width rather than having the bb cups protruding.

lawman

As Chunkers said, they can allow frame to be made stiffer, stronger and marginally lighter too. Tbh bb standards are the one thing thats getting abit silly, I'm fine with axle changes as most wheels are interchangeable between standards these days, and if they aren't imo thats the fault of the wheel manufacturers not those who make the frames. Shimano should take note!

Thewaylander

Some things we like, others we don't it's that simple...

Not everyone thinks the same so not every change will be met with approval. For instance as Sonic says Head tube taper = good to me tyre material = good. BB formats all over = bad. Wheel size 29" = boring 27.5 = pointless 26" =fine for me but its also just my opinion which doesnt hold true accross all people.

bennett_346

My question is why are some riders so against opinion...

97th choice

I'm cynical because most new product claims AND reviews are unsubstantiated bull****. If you want people to buy a product for non aspirational reasons then provide useful data as to why it performs better. and guff like 'gives 15% more tortional stffness than previous models' doesn't count.

It's got to the point where the next stage is simply to get Andie Macdowell to flog a bike ''because you're worth it''

cameronb

For me, changes = more choice = confusion. The people who understand what the benefits would be of the different choices they have are the people that are open to change. The people that don't understand the benefits of what different standards and choices would give them, change is evil. I understand this isn't the case for everybody and is a bet of a generic statement but I honestly think that makes a big difference.

If someone knows what the benefits are of a 29" bike for example, they can make a decision on whether that's for them or not, what they would gain and what they would lose. If someone doesn't understand the benefits of a 29" bike, then they ask the question why does it have to change? Do I want this? Is it better for me? Do I make the change?

sheepsteeth

I have nothing against change, i think new ideas are a good idea but i think that with bikes, most new ideas are about money making and not bike riding.

steerer sizing, headset standards, axle diameters and axle spacings are actually less about improvment and more about making you part with your hard earned because unless someone can convince you there is a better way, you wont need to change the perfectly serviceable equipment you already own.

ive only been riding bikes for about 8 years and in that time we have had a few changes but none of them have rendered the predecessor useless.

i think bikes from 2005 are still pretty modern, but in 2005, bikes from 1997 seemed a bit dated so as far as i am concerned, although development is continuing, i dont think these devlopments are having such a big effect and i think this is the key.

if a new development came forwards which offered a real world and real time change to the way we enjoy our bikes, i think people would get on board. new wheel sizes simply dont make as big a difference as everyone likes to bleat on about and lets also be completely honest: there arent a massive number of problems with 26inch wheels which need solving

riders arent against change, riders are happy with their bikes.

Jolly Swagman

So, flats or SPDs then ?

Chunkers1980

Change or not as you want.

Good point sheeps, 1997 - 2005 saw much more actual development than 2005 to now in my eyes

sheepsteeth

Chunkers1980 wrote:

Change or not as you want.

Good point sheeps, 1997 - 2005 saw much more actual development than 2005 to now in my eyes

bikes became lighter and travel got longer, rear suspension began to work and angles became slacker. changes in these fields hasnt been anywhere near so great so recently.

but even with these improvements, people still like hardtails, people still like racey angles and people still like shorter travel.

luckily for us all, you can still buy what you want.

i reckon in the last 30 years the only things people wouldnt return to is the threaded headset and toe clips

Chunkers1980

Sis too.