How much have bikes come on in the past 20 years?

nickbotfield

My only mountain bike is a full sus Marin from 1997. I've not ridden a modern mountain bike so I'm wondering what sort of difference I might see and feel on a modern bike? I'm guessing lighter / stronger / more efficient power transfer is a given, but does revised geometry and up to date drivetrains and suspension make a big difference?

cooldad

A lot. A very big huge lot.

keef66

I bought a decent MTB in 1998. Fully rigid triple-butted steel frame, 3 x 8 LX / XT transmission, V-brakes, tyres with tubes.
OK, it wasn't at the cutting edge of technology at the time but since then I've seen the proliferation of suspension forks, full-sus, alu and carbon frames / components, 9/10/11 speed transmission, 1 x narrow-wide chainrings, rear mechs with clutches, disc brakes, internal cabling, press-fit BBs, electronic groupsets, tubeless tyres, carbon wheels, decent LED lighting, Garmins and GoPro cameras

rockmonkeysc

The amount they've come on in six years is huge. In twenty years, the difference is enormous.
I can do things now on a relatively light trail bike that I wouldn't have done on anything other than a full on downhill bike six years ago.
Suspension technology, brakes and frame strength / weight and geometry are the biggest developments

The Rookie

I have a 1997 Fuji and a 1997 Gary Fisher, they are very similar.

A current Rockrider 540 has suspension forks (both the above are rigid) with proper damping, ahead (quill stems), alloy frame (.65kg lighter than the steels), hydraulic disc brakes (cable v's), 3x9 (3x7). Lots more advances on higher end bikes such as external bottom bracket etc.

kajjal

Not as much as you would think unless looking at full suspension. I have a recent xc hardtail and mid 1990's xc hardtail.

The disc brakes are better than v brakes. Appart from that there are only minor differences in how the bikes handle due to one being 29" and the other 26". Both great fun to ride, fast, balanced bikes. Alot of it is more marketing than substance but good to have the variety.

The Rookie

So decent lightweight air forks with a proper damping are no better than a variable Spring rate and undamped elastomer fork? You must ride some very smooth trails!

rockmonkeysc

http://enduro-mtb.com/en/revolution-bik ... een-years/

nickbotfield

RockmonkeySC wrote:

http://enduro-mtb.com/en/revolution-bikes-changed-past-sixteen-years/

That was really interesting!

Angus Young

RockmonkeySC wrote:

http://enduro-mtb.com/en/revolution-bikes-changed-past-sixteen-years/

Given Kajjal's comment above the first sentence of that made me smile...

"If social media is your main source of information and you purely rely on internet forums for trail chat, then you’d be under the impression that all the new standards, tire sizes, geometries, & co. are a load of useless b*llocks."

N0bodyOfTheGoat

In the mid 1990s I only had racers and swapped from a Peugeot 531 with SIS shifting on the downtubes, to a lovely green Principia RSL with STI shifting incorporated on the brake levers and CXP33 wheels, it felt like the bee's knees back then. Common as muck and behind the technology times now by a country mile!

kajjal

The Rookie wrote:

So decent lightweight air forks with a proper damping are no better than a variable Spring rate and undamped elastomer fork? You must ride some very smooth trails!

I was surprised as well, i was riding forestry fire roads and rougher mountain trails but not rock gardens. The 1990's bike did have modern tyres as well. The 50mm rockshox elastomer fork was no problem, i expected to get sprung all over the place but it was fine. After 5 minutes on it i was just enjoying the ride without thinking about the bike. The 3 x 8 gearing was no bother and had a really low gear that would climb up walls. I had spent a couple of days servicing the bike beforehand, fitting a bit wider bar, new shifters + cables, new grips and new tyres.

I used to have a scott octane fs bike in the 1990's, it was deadly. Pedal bob, dived under braking and not well balanced.

rockmonkeysc

Technically, elastomer forks are damped. However, they are useless junk by modern standards and effected too much by environmental conditions.
I do prefer a really good coil fork or shock to air suspension. Unfortunately, high performance coil forks have pretty much dissappeared due to their weight.

FishFish

Well for sure those bikes put me into an obsession that remains 20 years later irrespective of the technology in the bikes themselves.

The Rookie

RockmonkeySC wrote:

Technically, elastomer forks are damped.

Hence why I used 'proper damping', I knew you would pick me up otherwise, but you appeared to have missed my caveat!

Crazyjenkins01

Thanks RM. Good read, that article!

BigAl

cooldad wrote:

A lot. A very big huge lot.

Cooldad is underestimating; it's much more than that.

We're spoilt for choice of some really good stuff now -

Just remember how good a £40 Deore disc brake is.
Tuneable, reliable, lightweight front and rear suspension at sensible prices.
9 or 10 speed drivetrains at 'budget' prices. 11 & 12 spd for the more well heeled.
Massive choice of bike styles, wheel sizes etc

My first mountain bike, a '96 Kona, was a very decent bike at the time.
It was rigid, 7 speed, cantilever brakes.
It wouldn't hold a candle to an (inflation linked) similar price bike now. I still have it but only because I'm sentimental

thistle_

There's been lots of small changes:

• Steerer tube diameters
• Axle diameters
• General shift to cartridge bearings from ball bearings?
• Bottom brackets (1 piece with internal ball bearings > cartridge > external > press fit :roll: )
• Heavy frames > superlight frames > sensible frames that don't break

I think the biggest ones though are hydraulic disc brakes and the bigger wheel sizes.

turnerjohn

Have always thought whilst bikes have evolved to ride better they just cover up poor riding or in another way you got far more skill to ride a particular section on an old bike than a new one .

BloggingFit

turnerjohn wrote:

Have always thought whilst bikes have evolved to ride better they just cover up poor riding or in another way you got far more skill to ride a particular section on an old bike than a new one .

Yes and no.

You can't argue that modern bike can make up for a lack of rider skill in terms of clearing sections of a trail that may be technical or allow a little more room for error to make up for poor technique.

The flip side of this is that they also allow riders to ride much faster on trails and there needs to to be an improvement in skill and reaction time compensate for this increased speed. It also opens up possibilities to choose different lines that may not have previously been a viable option to ride, or ride with much meaning, which again improves skill set.

The biggest improvements have to be to frame and suspension technology. The combination of improvements have resulted in very capable bikes that are light, and very efficient for the amount of increased travel on offer.

kajjal

If you gave a modern mountain biker an early 1990's hardtail with cantilever brakes to ride on their normal trails it would break them. Having poor brakes and getting beaten up by the trail was normal then. Thankfully we now have proper disk brakes and suspension now. In one way this is a benefit opening up more trails to more riders in another it takes away the feel of the trail and the need to learn how to handle a bike to some extent.

dogboy73

nickbotfield wrote:

My only mountain bike is a full sus Marin from 1997. I've not ridden a modern mountain bike so I'm wondering what sort of difference I might see and feel on a modern bike? I'm guessing lighter / stronger / more efficient power transfer is a given, but does revised geometry and up to date drivetrains and suspension make a big difference?

I've just bought a Norco Torrent to replace my Ellsworth Isis bought in 2000. In between I had a Giant Trance for a while but sold it after I'd rebuilt the Ellsworth about 6 or 7 years ago. A hell of a lot has changed. In fact EVERYTHING has changed. The geometry, bar width, drive train configuration, wheel size, tire size, tubeless tire systems etc. All this makes a huge difference to the feel & ride of the bike. After a few short blasts on the Torrent I climbed back on the Ellsworth Isis. It felt totally wrong! The stem was too long, the top tube too short. The wheels were too small, tires to thin. I loved that bike to bits & had so many amazing rides on it over the years. But after riding a modern bike I realize just how much things have moved on & how much better things are.

foy

Very interesting thread but for folk like me who ride canal towpaths farm tracks and disused railways i think it makes very little difference to be honest, i have a trek 6700 from 2003 and it is still a better ride than some of the modern bikes that i have tried, it has avid 7 v brakes which have superb modulation and can stop me on a dime, i do not really need disc brakes for what i do, but the link that cooldad posted was very interesting indeed. Bikes now are a fraction of the cost of what they were 30 years ago in terms of price and performance. The main thing is to get out there and enjoy your cycling no matter what bike you may ride.

rockmonkeysc

Mountain bikes aren't really being developed to improve how they ride on a canal towpath, that isn't mountain biking. They're developed to improve off road performance.
You'd certainly notice the difference with dictionary brakes in the wet. That's their biggest advantage, they provide the same power in all conditions.

cooldad

RockmonkeySC wrote:

You'd certainly notice the difference with dictionary brakes in the wet.

Those the ones that teach you random F words just before you hit the tree?

rockmonkeysc

Obviously I meant disc brakes. No idea how I wrote dictionary.

ilovedirt

I agree with Bloggingfit, bike geometry and suspension technology have improved modern bikes no end. I'm still on the fence about wheel sizes - having never tried the same bike with different size wheels back to back, I don't feel I can comment, nor can anyone else. I'm on 27.5 now, but that's largely because of the industry shifting that way.

Brakes have been good for some time now, and I've been running 1x drivetrains for years now with no issues, I think that's largely media hype.

turnerjohn

BloggingFit wrote:

turnerjohn wrote:

Have always thought whilst bikes have evolved to ride better they just cover up poor riding or in another way you got far more skill to ride a particular section on an old bike than a new one .

Yes and no.

You can't argue that modern bike can make up for a lack of rider skill in terms of clearing sections of a trail that may be technical or allow a little more room for error to make up for poor technique.

The flip side of this is that they also allow riders to ride much faster on trails and there needs to to be an improvement in skill and reaction time compensate for this increased speed. It also opens up possibilities to choose different lines that may not have previously been a viable option to ride, or ride with much meaning, which again improves skill set.

The biggest improvements have to be to frame and suspension technology. The combination of improvements have resulted in very capable bikes that are light, and very efficient for the amount of increased travel on offer.

Partly agree, I think also that trail centres have got more and more extreme because the bikes are far far more capable than they were and riders are demanding it.
I started mtb'ing back in the mid 80s when Jason McCroy (RIP) and Rob Warner were racing downhill on hard tails with bugger all suspension , you simply couldn't nowadays ....those guys didn't lak any skills .
Different type of skill I guess in someways ....it's the way things have evolved

rockmonkeysc

I think trails have got more tame in the last few years due to riders not knowing their limits and getting hurt and trail builders getting worried about getting sued. For some reason people seem to think all trails should be inclusive for everyone.
I can't think of a new black trail without chicken lines around every feature which requires a bit of skill and commitment. Black trails didn't used ti have chicken lines and all the hardest black trails were built years ago (Black powder at Antur Stiniog and Super Tavi at Gawton).
New black trails are just a bit disappointing, they should be hard enough to push the abilities of above average riders.

BloggingFit

I rode at a similar time and think back that we much have been completely mad riding the way we did on steel or aluminium hardtails that could barely stop, had rims that would taco if you even looked to hard at a tight bend and suspension forks so unsophisticated you were better off staying fully rigid. SPDs were about the only positive change at the time but we loved every minute of it. The combination demanded your had to ride with some skill but it was more a case of get through a trail clean rather than how fast. Now on the modern bike it's a different kind of skill set.

Are trails getting tamer? I think this is a yes and no answer. I think features are getting bigger but at the same time becoming a little more sanitised. Jumps are getting bigger but if you carry the speed and have the balls they are rideable without too much issue. I'd rather see smaller features but a more natural element introduced back in. Having chicken lines on black runs is a bit of a contradiction and if there are a selection of trails where riders can progress upwards in terms of difficulty then I see now reason to include chicken lines on black runs. If I don't have the skill or balls to ride a trail then I don't ride it and see little point or joy from taking chicken lines all the way through.

dogboy73

ilovedirt wrote:

I'm still on the fence about wheel sizes - having never tried the same bike with different size wheels back to back, I don't feel I can comment, nor can anyone else. I'm on 27.5 now, but that's largely because of the industry shifting that way.

I've been riding 26" wheels on mountain bikes for 16 years. I was keen to go larger but reluctant to go too big. I liked the idea of 650B but I've ended up with a new bike that has 650B plus wheels / tires. Apparently these are just 7mm shy of standard 29" wheels. All I can say now is that I'm sold. Bigger is definitely better in this case. They roll so well. No looking back. And I think a larger wheel size is going to make a difference wherever you ride, even disused canal / rail tracks as they feel so much more efficient than 26" wheels. 26" wheels are totally dead as far as I'm concerned now. I'm converted. Hallelujah!!