bentrim

https://www.mtbbritain.co.uk/best_bikes.html

Here is an interesting, if not controversial opinion, on what makes a mountain bike "the best".

It's from a British MTB site. The Brits are never shy about giving blunt opinions in their reviews...

You may not agree with it but it does make you say "hmmmmm..."

Maelstrom 

Luckily everyone is wrong. There is no best...period. Its always opinion and always based on the rider. And really how many people have ridden enough bikes to really make any claims. Its an impossible argument. Some like 4 bar some like single pivot (not sure why but they do)...oh well thats the life.

Also that site is badly outdated, so even their opinion may be different

skiahh

Sounds about right to me...

Raiyn

They got one right

Hunter

It is merely a opinion. Those bikes shown are all FS bikes. I can think of a few HT's that are superior to those mentioned for a XC application. If you ask some people today for example they will most likely give you the same answer's, Giant, Specialized, Trek etc. Not neccesarily in that order but you get it right?
These are not the only ones making bikes but if you ask most peole it would appear that way.

SamDaBikinMan

Almost any bike frame can be built into a formidable riding machine. A bike is the sum of its components, frames are just the base.

Jim311

I agree about the statement where he talks about companies that are afraid to make ANY bad bikes. Cannondale has a reputation with some because they've made a few bad bikes in the past, but if nobody was to step forward and try out new materials and designs, we'd never have any of the leading technological innovations that we have today. And Cannondale isn't the only company that's made a few ****ty bikes in the past, either. Cannondale might have a bad rap with some of the haters, but those that DO ride them love em. Isn't that right Sam?

Maelstrom 

I think Canondale has a bad rap because its misnomer rymes so well with it.

Crack-n-fail just rolls of the tongue

SamDaBikinMan

Yup, I hear ya Jim! I have had Diamondback, Trek, GT, and Specialized and my Crackandfails have performed flawlessly. I had trouble with all the others though. Frame cracks, a separated downtube, cracked chainstay, and the Trek completely broke at the seat stay. I do like specialized new stuff however. The Epic is nice.

For the past 10 years I have had no frame failures with my cannondales. I love em. But any bike that suits you is a good bike IMHO.

PeterG1185

most companies bother to do heavy R&D when they are bringing out a new material or design, does canni not do the same?

SamDaBikinMan

Cannondale has one of the most sophisticated testing facilities in the bike business. Just like the car industry the racing squads of bike companies are used as test dummies also.

PeterG1185

Other companies have come with innovations, but those companies have not had the storied history of failures that cannondale has had. If soemthing is truely innovative isn't it not suppose to fail? or worse even break?

Ala epic, never heard of a frame failure, never heard as many complaints as with past cannondale ventures.

Innovation is good, but i doubt someone wants somethiong innovative if it could potentially break, or spend money on something that doesn't work. The headshock is an example, no matter what anybody says, cannondale has never gotten them to work as well as the competition forks at the levels. And becauseof that they are thinning them out, putting them on their lower end bikes.

They have cleaned up they way they make bikes recently, and along the way recently have made some truely competitive bikes. But the pricing on some models in non-competitive with other brands, and the performance is less than bikes made by other companies (fsr vs. jekyll)

Cannondale must realize that innovation comes at a cost if it is not well developed enough, with it has not been in some instances

bentrim

I don't think the MTB Britain article's point is really to say Specialized, Cannondale and Marin make the best bikes...

I think there's an underlying message in the article that goes beyond the "this company is best, or that company is best" argument, and that is the original spirit of mountain biking has become diluted.

The original concept was recreation, freedom, and having fun. A bike that could be taken out of the concrete jungle and ridden in in all-terrain.

Now competition, consumers, marketing and technology have categorized mountain bikes such that they so specialized (no pun intended) that you need about 3 bikes to be able to do everything. In the days of Fisher, Specialized, and Ritchey, there was only the mountain bike.

Don't get me wrong. Those bikes of old can't compare to today's high-tech machines; everything has to evolve for the better. Then again, I just think something has become lost.

There's a similar article I came across (can't recall where) on how to buy a mountain bike. Basically, the author echoed his frustration when he was getting into MTB:

(paraphrased)

Author: I'd like to buy a mountain bike.

Salesman: What kind of riding do you do? Cross-country? Downhill? Freeriding? Will you be competing? Do you want full-suspension or a hardtail?

Author: Um...I'd like to buy a mountain bike.