Mountain Biking - my golly, how far we've come

we were kicking back, watching my old Kranked video (on VHS. you see kids, years ago, we had things called "video tapes"...). they were "free riding" on 2" travel bikes.

it's amazing (to me) that waaaaay back when, 4" travel was a downhill bike. 4" forks were big hit forks.

nowadays, (at least around here) 5" travel is trail/cross country and 6" travel is all mountain.

the technology is phenomenal, if you think about it. i ride a 6" travel bike as my main bike, uphills, etc, when years ago, a 4" travel bike was a heavy, huge, "downhill bike."

yeah, the riding has stepped up a bit, the new technology lets us push the envelope, which makes us need to increase and push the technology, which pushes the riding, etc.

what would brett tippie, ritchy schley, and wade simmons have done on today's bikes if they had them waaay back then?

Did you see Bicycling Mag, Fruita got some love as a primo bike destination for both Fat and Skinny tires. I'm surprised your face wasn't on the cover.

I am continually amazed by the number of people on this forum who seem stuck in the past and actively refuse to give all that 'newfangled gimmickry' a try, much less embrace it. The evolution of the lowly bicycle has become so downright exciting to see and enjoy. The advancements have actually helped fuel my passion for riding in all its forms. Yeah, retro has its place - - but not all the way back to retro-grouchiness :).

I'm just thankful that I live in a part of the mountain biking universe where embracing those advancements and making full use of them is more the norm than the exception.

I still have the 1st three kranked videos on VHS and still have a video player.

...... The advancements have actually helped fuel my passion for riding in all its forms. .....

same here. I am a sucky rider, the only reason i can do the stuff i do is because of my bike. my bike makes me such a better rider than i truly am. By being able to ride more, i am loving it more, and riding more, and getting better (slightly) etc etc.

seriuosly, it is soooo cool....

Did you see Bicycling Mag, Fruita got some love as a primo bike destination for both Fat and Skinny tires. I'm surprised your face wasn't on the cover.

yeah, our shop is on the contents page and later on, it was cool. no way could i be in it, they only put good looking people on the cover of those mags....

we were kicking back, watching my old Kranked video (on VHS. you see kids, years ago, we had things called "video tapes"...). they were "free riding" on 2" travel bikes.

it's amazing (to me) that waaaaay back when, 4" travel was a downhill bike. 4" forks were big hit forks.

nowadays, (at least around here) 5" travel is trail/cross country and 6" travel is all mountain.

the technology is phenomenal, if you think about it. i ride a 6" travel bike as my main bike, uphills, etc, when years ago, a 4" travel bike was a heavy, huge, "downhill bike."

yeah, the riding has stepped up a bit, the new technology lets us push the envelope, which makes us need to increase and push the technology, which pushes the riding, etc.

what would brett tippie, ritchy schley, and wade simmons have done on today's bikes if they had them waaay back then?

Yeah, but that was way back when the earth was flat.

I'm glad my first season of mountain biking was on a 10-year-old fully rigid bike, so I can at least somewhat relate to the advancements in biking technology. Having a 5.5" travel fork gives me more confidence than I even need on the trail, & also affects the geometry in a way that encourages keeping your weight low & to the rear on DH sections (since the frame was built for 120mm). People think I'm crazy to say I built my bike cheap at ~$1300, & I just laugh inside. That bike is worth every single penny.

I am continually amazed by the number of people on this forum who seem stuck in the past and actively refuse to give all that 'newfangled gimmickry' a try, much less embrace it. The evolution of the lowly bicycle has become so downright exciting to see and enjoy. The advancements have actually helped fuel my passion for riding in all its forms. Yeah, retro has its place - - but not all the way back to retro-grouchiness :).

I'm just thankful that I live in a part of the mountain biking universe where embracing those advancements and making full use of them is more the norm than the exception.Agreed. The technical and engineering aspect of mountain biking is almost as exciting as the actual riding itself.

I like my Scott nude rear lock out shock. Its fun just saying that.

...

what would brett tippie, ritchy schley, and wade simmons have done on today's bikes if they had them waaay back then?

Still get their asses kicked by French people, probably.

I remember watching Henrik Djernis (not French) win the world championship race at Vail on a rigid fork, when the entire rest of the field was using shocks. But the rest of the field didn't care, because they were having so much fun with their high-tech devices.

Too bad we didn't have 8mm back then or I could have shown you my brothers and I using old Columbia single speed bikes to ride through the fields to bring in the cows. We had stripped all non-essential parts off (all the stuff that rattled) and raced across the bumpy fields.

I remember watching Henrik Djernis (not French) win the world championship race at Vail on a rigid fork, when the entire rest of the field was using shocks. But the rest of the field didn't care, because they were having so much fun with their high-tech devices.It may be noted that there really was not much difference between a rigid and a 2"-travel hardtail in those days.

I got a kick out of all the riders walking their bikes down the steep section. Would be so unnecessary today; and speeds carried through a lot of the other descending sections would be quite different:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5L7WmY709U

Still get their asses kicked by French people, probably.

If we're just talking about XC racing, bikes haven't really changed much at all in a long time. Look at a 1995 Trek 9900 OCLV:

http://www.bikepedia.com/quickbike/BikeSpecs.aspx?Year=1995&Brand=Trek&Model=9900&Type=bike

and compare it to a 2012 Elite 9.9 SSL:

http://www.trekbikes.com/us/en/bikes/mountain/cross_country/9_series/elite_9_9_ssl/#

Sure, forks are better now. And disk brakes are an improvement on Vs (although IMO not as much of an improvement as most people claim). But the basic picture of an XC race bike isn't much different now than it was then. (I couldn't find a geometry chart for the 9900, but I would be most surprised if it were any different from the 70/73 angles which are now standard. Anybody know?)

Anyway, if you put Julien Absalon on a cherry 1995 OCLV, he would probaby still win.

Freeride bikes are another matter, and fer sher the technology has advanced an incredible amount on that end. People are doing stuff that would have been unheard of in 1995. Yet with all of those technological advances, people are going back to rigid singlespeeds. Go figure.

Diversity is good!

It may be noted that there really was not much difference between a rigid and a 2"-travel hardtail in those days.

I got a kick out of all the riders walking their bikes down the steep section. Would be so unnecessary today; and speeds carried through a lot of the other descending sections would be quite different:

...

Maybe, but if the bikes and riders are less optimized for the long climb than they were in '94, rigid fork guy could win by an even wider margin.

^^That just shows how little you really know about the new "high tech devices."

I got a kick out of all the riders walking their bikes down the steep section. Would be so unnecessary today; and speeds carried through a lot of the other descending sections would be quite different:

I think a lot of them walking that section might be more to do with handlebar height than suspension. If you look, the guys that did ride that section had trouble because they couldn't get back far enough. Bar height was just too low compared to seat height and they couldn't get the weight back. Their seats had to be that high for pedaling, so I think higher bars would have been the answer. And as for them going as slow as they were on some sections, I think endurance played a factor there. Even if you look at the stairs, they kept doing that section pretty slowly and riding down the stairs. Even a hack like me could carry more speed and just gap those stairs, so I'm sure they could have if they felt it was the thing to do.

we were kicking back, watching my old Kranked video. they were "free riding" on 2" travel bikes.....

.....the technology is phenomenal, if you think about it. i ride a 6" travel bike as my main bike, uphills, etc, when years ago, a 4" travel bike was a heavy, huge, "downhill bike."......

You should have been around when there was no suspension at all, and when most bikes had "cruiser" geometry (i.e., super long wheelbase, long chainstays (19-20"), short front end (20" TT), slack head/seat tube angles (69*/70*).....), and cantilevers were leading edge technology. :eek:



I am continually amazed by the number of people on this forum who seem stuck in the past and actively refuse to give all that 'newfangled gimmickry' a try, much less embrace it......

Me too, and I've been mountain biking since before 1982..... :D



If we're just talking about XC racing, bikes haven't really changed much at all in a long time. Look at a 1995 Trek 9900 OCLV.....

.....People are doing stuff that would have been unheard of in 1995. Yet with all of those technological advances, people are going back to rigid singlespeeds.

Dude, 1995 was yesterday.....Look back to 1984..... :D

....And people aren't really doing stuff that would have been "unheard" of in 1995, they're just able to do it safely enough today that anyone can do it, and the really funny thing about all of the new rigid singlespeeds is that almost everyone else I see riding them is 25 years younger than me.

You should have been around when there was no suspension at all, and when most bikes had "cruiser" geometry (i.e., super long wheelbase, long chainstays (19-20"), short front end (20" TT), slack head/seat tube angles (69*/70*).....), and cantilevers were leading edge technology. :eek:



i was. i was late to the game with a front fork, the first fork i ever had was an AMP on my trek 920.

^^That just shows how little you really know about the new "high tech devices."

I don't know... I feel somewhat familiar with the new devices. What am I missing?

.....I remember watching Henrik Djernis (not French) win the world championship race at Vail on a rigid fork, when the entire rest of the field was using shocks. But the rest of the field didn't care, because they were having so much fun with their high-tech devices.
It may be noted that there really was not much difference between a rigid and a 2"-travel hardtail in those days.

I got a kick out of all the riders walking their bikes down the steep section. Would be so unnecessary today; and speeds carried through a lot of the other descending sections would be quite different....
Maybe, but if the bikes and riders are less optimized for the long climb than they were in '94, rigid fork guy could win by an even wider margin.

^^That just shows how little you really know about the new "high tech devices."
I don't know... I feel somewhat familiar with the new devices. What am I missing?


He's probably referring to the lockout on modern suspension forks, but even with the lockout the rider with the modern suspension forks would be dragging an extra 2-3 pounds of dead weight, so my guess is that on the climb the rider with the rigid for would have the advantage, but on the full course the rider with the modern suspension forks would have the advantage.

I had a bunch of vid's on VHS, but my friend (friend?) kept them. I don't even know where they are now.

I do remember my one of my favorite sessions watching Shaums March shredding urban on a SanAndreas. Back then it was a burly bike. 5" bike with a dual crown and he was bunnyhopping over a freakin' gate. That was amazing stuff!

That's when I started shredding urban on my Cannondale Super-V.

I loved the early days.

I started riding off-road in the early '70s on a coaster brake klunker with no front brake. My handle "Repack Rider" is from the hill that destroyed coaster brakes and inspired some of us to build off-road bikes from the ground up.

I hang around on a forum where guys build and praise old skool klunkers of the sort that I destroyed a dozen of before having a custom frame built in 1978. There is a reason why I quit riding that kind of bike so long ago.

If there is anyone who appreciates new bikes with big travel and awesome brakes, I am that guy.

He's probably referring to the lockout on modern suspension forks, but even with the lockout the rider with the modern suspension forks would be dragging an extra 2-3 pounds of dead weight, so my guess is that on the climb the rider with the rigid for would have the advantage, but on the full course the rider with the modern suspension forks would have the advantage.I wasn't referring to lockouts at all; I don't believe in them. I'm a huge fan of active suspension in almost any situation that is actual mountain biking.

What I was saying actually is that test after test on a loop course that is actual trails (not fireroads or gravel paths), the modern suspension bike will turn in faster lap times under the same rider. That goes for most moderate-to-rough singletrack climbs as well. Why? - - because an active suspension will keep the tire planted on the earth better and give superior traction.

The only disadvantage has been in people's heads, especially old-skool hardtail die-hards, because they cannot wrap their heads past the perceived notion that some of their pedalling energy is being 'wasted' by the motion of the suspension.

lol @ the Henrik Djernis example.



I do remember my one of my favorite sessions watching Shaums March shredding urban on a SanAndreas. Back then it was a burly bike. 5" bike with a dual crown and he was bunnyhopping over a freakin' gate. That was amazing stuff!

Plush. I've still got a copy. Along with Eddie Roman's Hammertime, that movie influenced my riding more than anything except attending WC DH races.




If there is anyone who appreciates new bikes with big travel and awesome brakes, I am that guy.

Thread closed.

lol @ the Henrik Djernis example.



Plush. I've still got a copy. Along with Eddie Roman's Hammertime, that movie influenced my riding more than anything except attending WC DH races.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NT6hqTUpzEo

I loved the quirkyness of those ritcheys with softride stems. I wanted to hate them when I was coming up and paying far too much attention to racing, but they kept doing well under europeans whose names I had no prayer of pronouncing.

The only disadvantage has been in people's heads, especially old-skool hardtail die-hards, because they cannot wrap their heads past the perceived notion that some of their pedalling energy is being 'wasted' by the motion of the suspension.

Finally, a voice of reason on this subject.

..
The only disadvantage has been in people's heads, especially old-skool hardtail die-hards, because they cannot wrap their heads past the perceived notion that some of their pedalling energy is being 'wasted' by the motion of the suspension.

You are focused on the back of the bike and I am talking more about the front.

I've often wondered what it would be like to ride a rear-suspension/rigid fork bike. Probably just right for a lot of terrain.

I've actually thought before that rear suspension would help with difficult, bumpy stuff more than front. More of your weight is on the rear wheel, so I'd think that would help keep you from getting kicked around as much. On the other hand, front wheel traction is more important for not wiping out, and the front suspension keeps that wheel in contact with the ground - getting traction. Maybe it would largely depend on the trail and whether more of your bumpy/choppy stuff was on straits or during/leading into turns.

I've often wondered what it would be like to ride a rear-suspension/rigid fork bike.

Do it. And post pics, I want to see that.

When I bought my Scott Spark someone mentioned that they had one as well and had put a CF Rigid fork on it to get the weight to 22 pounds. I have thought about it as well.

I've often wondered what it would be like to ride a rear-suspension/rigid fork bike. Probably just right for a lot of terrain.

Old tech.

http://patentpending.blogs.com/patent_pending_blog/images/1892_rear_suspension_bicycle.jpg

Shouldn't this thread be titled: "my golly, how far we've travelled"?

:p

Do it. And post pics, I want to see that.
Cannondale did that in the early 90's - E.S.T. :lol:

Cannondale did that in the early 90's - E.S.T. :lol:

http://mombat.org/SE1000Side.JPG

BMXers were doing it back in the '70s . . .

http://i485.photobucket.com/albums/rr212/Volcanobmx/1976DanGurneyMonoShock1.jpg

Old tech.

http://patentpending.blogs.com/patent_pending_blog/images/1892_rear_suspension_bicycle.jpg

yeah, just about everything we think is new today was tried on some bike in the 1890s. The first 'safety bikes' had suspension forks and suspended seats -- but solid rubber tires.

Here's a picture of an early 1900's Pearce Arrow with rear suspension similar to the Moots YBB.

http://www.industrializedcyclist.com/pierce%20sus.jpg