vespasianus

Some of these changes happened years ago. Rebuildable shifters, loose cogs so that you could make your own cassette and standard square taper BBs that every company used, to simple hub designs that just worked and lasted forever. They all started going away in the mid 90's. Thanks Shimano. But they worked and lasted. But alas, WE wanted more. WE wanted lighter, stiffer, stronger, etc. WE were marketed those things and WE ended up buying most of those things. And now you see tons of people riding 35 lb carbon mountain bikes on flat trails that could be ridden on a road bike...

CargoDane

I should have known better than interacting with you and the nonsense you project.

I did on purpose mention a "full-on" FS because I was referring to the type of FS you like and use and have talked a lot about, but as usual you'd rather project your ignorance onto others, while making further unsubstantiated claims and accussations.

That you are not able to understand what I mean by cross-country when talking about mountain bikes says it all, really.

For once, you're not projecting your ignorance, but rather feigning ignorance. Cross country is a disciplin, just like DH, gravel grinding, TT, bike packing, road biking , trials riding, and what have you.

Are you feigning ignorance because you attempt to prove that XC courses are not all the same? That they vary? Well, there is variation in all disciplines.

Trevtassie

Like I say, all the expedition bikes you can buy are basically replicas of 90's rigid MTBs with more eyelets. Surly Troll, Ogre, Dawes, yadda yadda. Why? Because they are practical. https://tomsbiketrip.com/how-to-buil...-touring-bike/
You won't see anybody touring the world on a full suspension bike, maybe a German or two on a hybrid Hard Tail, because that's fashionable there, and they are likely regretting their decision, with a massively overloaded rear rack.
You'll see the odd dually doing a specific off road tour, bike packing style, but usually only for a week or so, hut based or in good weather, nobody is gonna tour independently for months bike packing, unless they are some kind of masochist. They'll have the suspension locked out 90 percent of the time anyway.
I think there is some confusion over the word practicality. Some people take it to mean "being the best at what it's designed for" whereas others take it as "being useful in a variety of situations". Two very different things.
I'm definitely in the latter camp.
To use a car analogy. I drive a 1980s Toyota Hiace 4x4 Diesel Van. I deem it practical. But definitely not best in any category. Can carry 5 people, not in comfort. Can go off road, but not extreme. Can carry 1.1 ton. Noisy. Slow. Can pull a trailer weighing 2.5 ton. Can find most parts in peoples back yards or wreckers. Wouldn't swap unless it was for another Toyota Hiace 4wd van. Zombie apocalypse, it'd be my go to vehicle, because it'd carry enough amour to keep the buggers out, and I could still live in the back, with 4x4 traction to get me through the slime from the animated corpses I've run over.
A Lamborghini Huracan is a very well designed car for going very fast and impressing the plebs, but nobody would ever call it practical.

Maelochs

By that definition a hammer is a highly impractical tool, as are pliers. A screwdriver is practical because one can hammer with the butt, lever with the blade, and turn screws .... which is all worthless if you need pliers.

Sorry, but you set yourself up for that one.

Back to our regularly scheduled e-ego measurement contest.

CargoDane

No, Full-on full-sus is a description that describes bikes used for big drops and downhill. In other words: DH and Freerider bikes.
Everyone knows what is meant except you in your eagerness to prove just how little you know. You did this, by attempting to somehow prove that because there is vareity in any genre/disciplin, those genres/disciplins cannot exist.

You then go on to demolish your own argument by claming there are in fact a genre called DH.
I already told you that I am aware there is variety. Hence my turn of phrase "full-on full-sus".

It is that constant type of dishonesty from you that makes it a chore to respond to you. Not because you are right (because you rarely are). No, you have picked up a thing or two here and there, and now think that you are in fact knowledgeable, and anyone who doesn't share your blindered lookout must somehow be wrong, and you always spent the rest of the post to project that ignorance while attacking everyone for not believing the nonsense you spew.

The problem you have is that you're not actually interested in talking about bikes. You're only interested in showing just how awesome you and your bikes are, and you expect - nay, demand that people worship at your feet, because noone else can have experience and not feel the same as you. If your demands are not met, you go on a full attack to show them "who's boss". It gets tiresome to respond to such levels of unmerited aggression and dishonesty.

Maelochs

---NO. "Full-on full sus" is a term YOU use to describe DH and freeride bikes. I have never heard it used that way .... ever.

To me, "full-on full sus" means "front and rear suspension."

Please cite four different online magazine articles or message-board threads which support your claim.

This is just nonsense.

Look @CargoDane, I usually like everything you post, but this is silly. This is a whole series of communication errors which, instead of resolving, you two have decided to turn into an e-ego battle.

Having spent years perfecting this skill, I know it when I see it being employed.

No, because he mentioned XC (cross-country) as well. You are pretending he meant something which, upon rereading, you will see he never said at all.

In fact HD3andMe said: He also said: He never said All S bikes had 6-9” of travel and were only good for competitive downhill---he established a range, with DH/Freeride bikes at the opposite end from simple rigids.

Look, we have all been here before. No one can be "right" in this issue because just be extending it this far, you are both wrong. Every argumentative post just makes the rest of us laugh, reach for popcorn, and lose a little respect (temporary only) to see two intelligent people getting caught up in the kind of debate better suited to an elementary school playground.

You are both better than this.

Trevtassie

It's a bit of a rubbish analogy, taking it back to bicycles. A steel framed rigid MTB can do anything any bicycle is required to do, it may not do it very well (thinking of your junk when you hit the ground after sending it off a huge jump, the bike may come out intact, but children could be ruled out), but it can do it. So not really like a hammer versus pliers versus screwdrivers. All of which are designed for specific tasks.
If you want practical pliers a set of fencing pliers is pretty practical, can hammer, remove nails, lever stuff and cut wire and hold things, and do all those fairly well. I haven't seem any with a screwdriver on them, but yeah, you could put a philips on one handle end and a flat on the other.
Even more practical, a multi tool. If you get a big enough one you can even have a reasonable go at hammering.

mack_turtle

yup, you have no idea what you're talking about on this subject. explain the Niner MCR.

CargoDane

Ah, yes, a "full-on" [anything] is completely unheard of. Just like a full-on track bike (as in motorcycle) will also be unheard of, not to mention "full-on rockcrawler" is also beyond grasp. I'm sorry, but a "full-on something" is not some weird turn-of-phrase that I made up.

No, in that case, "full-sus" would have sufficed.
Sheesh, feigning ignorance on the term "full-on [something"]

Here you go - apparently too difficult to grasp a term. I may not be a native English speaker, but feigning ignorance of that term from the three of you is ridiculous:


https://www.collinsdictionary.com/di...nglish/full-on


https://www.thefreedictionary.com/full-on

Quote:

full-on

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/full-on


https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dic...nglish/full-on

CargoDane

Variety? It is not a full-on fully suspended bike. It has both front and rear suspension, but it is not the most extreme suspension. It ought to make a lot of sense.

Now, please look at my post above to understand what the term "full-on" means.

I just realised that maybe you guys truly didn't know what "full-on" meant. Maybe because you're from the US. What term do you use instead of "full-on"? "Hardcore"? "Extreme"? No sarcasm, I am genuinely curious at this stage.

CargoDane

Found some examples on Trek's website (my bold):

And further down:

Both from here:

https://www.trekbicyclesuperstore.co...9-367966-1.htm

CargoDane

The first time I responded, I assumed you talked about your own experience and your full-on FS bike you have already talked about.
The second time where you showed your dishonesty, I specified I was talking about full-on fully suspended bikes such as yours.

I'm sorry, but your dishonesty about "third-time-the-charm" is laughable - especially since you always respond to something that was not said and built from there.

Of course, if you guys truly had no idea what "full-on" [anything] meant, that's fine with me. But the fault of that doesn't lie with me, lthough I should obviously have used a word more in tune with such "gnarly" riders such as you. Maybe "extreme" or "hardcore" or something would have suited you better.

mack_turtle

I'm just reading this thread now for the laughs. CargoDane seems to think there's and objective definition to "full-on" that is relevant to the discussion now, and watching that kind of ignorance implode is kind of fun. the level of ignorance and bull-headedness is truly a sight to behold.

hint: no one uses the term "full-on" in this context but CargoDane. that's why there's confusion. you're using your own made-up terms and expecting everyone else to be on the same page. have you ever seen the "Steamed Hams" bit on The Simpsons? it's looking a lot like that.

CargoDane

I've seen photos of it. It's a full-on full-suspended bike.
And what's with the projection again? Calling me confused when neither of you guys understood a well-used term such as "full-on"?
I didn't "make up" anything. Again the utter dishonesty from you.

I have. I just don't like dedicated hobby bikes.

Coming from someone who thinks putting "full-on" before something is "making up" stuff, that mean little, and it shows just how dishonest you are.

LOL, again, coming from you who makes outlandish claims about carbon fibres, don't know anything about tube strength, and who digs himself deeper because there is yet another term he doesn't understand, tells me that referring to Dunning-Kruger is once again projection on your part.
I bet you still haven't acknowledged that putting "full-on" before something is not something I made up, but a term even bike manufacturers use.
Was the links to dictionaries and direct to Trek not enough? You still are adamant that putting "full-on" before a type of bike is somehow something I made up out of thin air?

Seriously, if you continue with such dishonesty, I really don't see the point in explaining such basic stuff over and over again. It is easy to see who actually needs to educated.

cs1

My first real MTB was a 1989 Specialized Rockhopper Comp. It served me well on paved and unpaved terrain. I still own it. Those bikes are indestructible and just plain fun. I’ve since added 4 vintage Stumpjumpers and a 1986 Rockhopper to the stable.

CargoDane

Trek used it to describe both the frame itself and the type of bike in the links I posted.
You're both acting as if putting a modifier such as "extreme", "hardcore", "poor", "practical", "full-on", "quality", or whatever in front of a description, then it suddenly is verboten because "no-one uses it like that". It's a frigging modifier to more accurately describe a thing.
Arguing that one should only use "official" qualifiers to describe something is stupid at best. "Oh, 'no one' uses the term '20" hardtail mountain bike' so when you say it, it is meaningless".
But even if you have never seen one, you will have a very good idea what such a thing would look like. That's the power of modifiers.


At this point, I'm not sure if it was true ignorance of the term "full-on" or if you have simply decided that no one can use such modifiers and are intend to force such notions on the world.

CargoDane

Sigh, still not understanding "variety" do you? There can be variety even when it comes to things that are "extreme" or "hardcore". That's not making things up. More dishonesty from you to hide your ignorance and lack of understanding of nuance.



Yes, I was surprised too. I had no idea you would be so ignorant that you didn't know what such a term meant. I fully expected that most people would know such a term.
And as for your "inanity": You based your whole argument around you not understanding the term, so of course it wasn't something you expected.

Really? I have posted some of the things I consider where you have been wrong: A completely lack of understanding of CF shortcomings, a complete lack of buckling strength in tubes, and that a FULL-ON FULLY SUSPENDED bike is not good for gravel, city riding or whatever. There are MUCH better bikes for that out there. Just about any non-specialised bike.


No point in rehashing what should be obvious:

Late 80s - early nineties mountain bikes: the pinnacle of practical bike design?


Late 80s - early nineties mountain bikes: the pinnacle of practical bike design?

Kapusta

Full suspension bikes excel at pretty much everything off-road. And many are also perfectly fine (albeit not one’s first choice) on dirt and gravel roads.

If the entire spectrum of mountain biking (from dirt roads to Red Bull Rampage) is a “niche” to you, then I guess they are niche.

All a bit beside the point, though as that is not what the OP is talking about.

Russ Roth

I hear what you're saying with this. The comparison is that if you walked in the bike shop in 1990 and plopped down 500 you ended up with a typically rigid, maybe 40 or 50mm of travel front suspension bike that really didn't have great performance geometry for mountain biking but would do ok with general riding. If you walked in today and plopped down the 800.00? 900.00? equivalent in today's dollars the MTB you get would not be as versatile, as far as actual MTBing it would be much more practical then the bike of yesteryear. The variety, as you point out, is there today but I'd suspect you'd have a hard time finding its true equivalent. The Karate Monkey might be very similar but is going to cost more albeit better equipped and equipping it the same as that 500.00 bike of 1990 would be pointless with a nice frame, cheap parts. Really a basic, Sora equipped gravel bike or something like the trek DS is the better equivalent at the price range.

Kapusta

I've been immersed in MTB culture for 23 years, and have been on mtb forums with international members for most of that time. I've also been reading publications from all over the English speaking world for a lot of that time.

"Full-On Full Suspension bike" is a nonsensical term. I have seldom ever heard that term, and NEVER in the manner that you are using it. Almost nobody in the English speaking MTB world would be sure what the heck you are talking about. My best guess would have been that you were talking about full suspension as opposed to a HT.

Maybe "Full On Full Suspension" is a Google translation from some other language? I don't know what your native language is.

"Hardcore Full Suspension", "Extreme Full Suspension" would be equally vague. The terms are "Downhill Bike" or "Freeride Bike" or maybe "Enduro Bike", depending on what you are actually talking about.

Kapusta

"Full-on DH Bike" means something in that context. It means a DH bike as opposed to, say, an Enduro Bike.

Using that logic, Full-on Full Suspension would mean it is a full suspension bike as opposed to something else.... but what that "something else" is is unclear. I would assume it meant something not quite full suspension. Soft Tail? I don't know, it is a nonsensical term.

Kapusta

I was going to point out the ways in which many of the bikes you see people touring the world on are different from a 1990 mtb, but then I realized it is all beside the point.

What does being able to tour the world (which less than 0.1% of cyclists will ever do) have to do with "practicality" the the other 99.9% of cyclists that are not going to do that?

Talk about niche and special purpose......

Russ Roth

Couldn't remember when front suspension came out, in 95 when I got my first MTB I longed for one with suspension but the best my parents would do as a graduation gift was the cheapest trek 800 from the year prior and that was rigid.

vespasianus

This place is starting to look a lot like MTBR....

mstateglfr 

Wow to this thread.