MTB evolution

DD5 said:

I'm not planning to change my bike (1994) - it's perfect for me, but I'm curious about how things
have changed.

Not much that would warrant a change. Suspension is probably the main change and has come on a long
way since 1994.. As for the rest of the stuff, there has been some changes but nothing really
significant. Headset sizes have changed, quill stems have moved to Aheadset, gears have increased in
numbers and brakes have switched to v-brakes and discs. However the1994 versions work as well or
almost as well when properly set up.

Tony

DD5 said:

My perception is that mountain bikes improved vastly from between the late 80s and the mid-90s
(weight & strength of components, gear performance, suspension). Have they carried on improving at
the same rate?

Even as a non-MTB-er, it's quite clear that things are still improving at a good rate. When I got my
MTB in '97 decent front suspension still cost Real Money, where now you can get something reasonable
without paying a fortune. Similarly, worthwhile full sus has come down in price, got lighter and
also got better AFAICT. Disc brakes are now commonplace on higher end kit and make an appreciable
difference to stopping power if you're coated in gunk. It appears to be the case that you can now
get a better bike for the same (or possibly less) money.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email hidden]
dundee.ac.uk~pjclinchOpen ↗

DD5 said:

I'm just getting back into cycling after several years without turning a pedal. I'd just like to
know whether mountain bikes have improved much since the mid-90s.

My perception is that mountain bikes improved vastly from between the late 80s and the mid-90s
(weight & strength of components, gear performance, suspension). Have they carried on improving at
the same rate?

I'm not planning to change my bike (1994) - it's perfect for me, but I'm curious about how things
have changed.

Yes, I think they have. More incremental, less dramatic, but still very rapid. I have to admit I've
switched from a 1989 rigid to a 2003 full suspension in one go, which is a bit extreme...

The modern bikes are much lighter, and they're still very strong. Disk brakes, which I thought were
a fad, are actually really good. Modern air shocks are really good, and developments like platform
shocks may turn out to be very good.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) jasmine.org.uk~simonOpen ↗

-- mens vacua in medio vacuo --

DD5 said:

I'm just getting back into cycling after several years without turning a pedal. I'd just like to
know whether mountain bikes have improved much since the mid-90s.

My perception is that mountain bikes improved vastly from between the late 80s and the mid-90s
(weight & strength of components, gear performance, suspension). Have they carried on improving at
the same rate?

I'm not planning to change my bike (1994) - it's perfect for me, but I'm curious about how things
have changed.

Death of 1 1/4" headsets, death of really light bikes (everything has at least front suspension) and
death of cantilever brakes.

I have a 1994 Kastle which was £500 then reduced from £700. You get a lot
more for your money now!
Having said that the frame was aluminium 7020 so worth upgrading, I've:-

-converted 1 1/4" to 1 1/8" headset (old size obsolete) -converted to Aheadset steerer (to get newer
forks to fit) -put decent forks (old ones had about 1" spring) -converted to V brakes (much sharper
than the cantilevers)

Aheadset and VBrakes are great improvements of design and so simple (why didn't I think of
it first?)

"Zog The Undeniable" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

DD5 said:

I'm just getting back into cycling after several years without turning a pedal. I'd just like to
know whether mountain bikes have improved much

since

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the mid-90s.

My perception is that mountain bikes improved vastly from between the

late

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

80s and the mid-90s (weight & strength of components, gear performance, suspension). Have they
carried on improving at the same rate?

I'm not planning to change my bike (1994) - it's perfect for me, but I'm curious about how
things have changed.

Death of 1 1/4" headsets, death of really light bikes (everything has at least front suspension)
and death of cantilever brakes.

David Wood said:

I have a 1994 Kastle which was £500 then reduced from £700. You get a lot more for your money now!
Having said that the frame was aluminium 7020 so worth upgrading, I've:-

-converted 1 1/4" to 1 1/8" headset (old size obsolete) -converted to Aheadset steerer (to get
newer forks to fit) -put decent forks (old ones had about 1" spring) -converted to V brakes (much
sharper than the cantilevers)

Aheadset and VBrakes are great improvements of design and so simple (why didn't I think of
it first?)

Aheadset, yes, ish (not nearly as easy to adjust for height as a quill stem) but (apart from on full
suspension bikes) why V brakes? They've got no more leverage than cantis, and don't work any better.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) jasmine.org.uk~simonOpen ↗

-- mens vacua in medio vacuo --

"Zog The Undeniable" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Death of 1 1/4" headsets, death of really light bikes (everything has at least front suspension)
and death of cantilever brakes.

1 1/4" are back again.

Pete

"Simon Brooke" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

David Wood said:

Aheadset and VBrakes are great improvements of design and so simple (why didn't I think of it
first?)

Aheadset, yes, ish (not nearly as easy to adjust for height as a quill stem) but (apart from on
full suspension bikes) why V brakes? They've got no more leverage than cantis, and don't work
any better.

I find Vees more easy to set up to get a good result. They may not offer more leverage but they have
a more direct feel as the sponginess of the straddle cable is gone.

BTW, I have a 1992 Trek 8000, now fully rigid (did have Pace RC35s), with cantis that work just fine
and it's very light, as well as a more modern full susser.

Pete

[email hidden] schreef ...

Quoted message said:

"Zog The Undeniable" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Death of 1 1/4" headsets, death of really light bikes (everything has at least front suspension)
and death of cantilever brakes.

1 1/4" are back again.

On which bikes, except Santana tandems? I know of 1.5" too to make things really easy!

--
Regards, Marten

"Marten Hoffmann" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] schreef ...

Quoted message said:

"Zog The Undeniable" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Death of 1 1/4" headsets, death of really light bikes (everything has

at

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

least front suspension) and death of cantilever brakes.

1 1/4" are back again.

On which bikes, except Santana tandems? I know of 1.5" too to make things really easy!

Hmm...yes, I was thinking of 1.5 perhaps, as currently promoted by Cannondale.

Cheers, Pete

Peter B said:

"Simon Brooke" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

David Wood said:

Aheadset and VBrakes are great improvements of design and so simple (why didn't I think of it
first?)

Aheadset, yes, ish (not nearly as easy to adjust for height as a quill stem) but (apart from on
full suspension bikes) why V brakes? They've got no more leverage than cantis, and don't work
any better.

I find Vees more easy to set up to get a good result. They may not offer more leverage but they
have a more direct feel as the sponginess of the straddle cable is gone.

BTW, I have a 1992 Trek 8000, now fully rigid (did have Pace RC35s), with cantis that work just
fine and it's very light, as well as a more modern full susser.

I have a Scott Sawtooth I've had since new - probably about 1989 or 1990 - which has been fully
rigid all its life. It has cantis that work just fine but it is four pounds _heavier_ than my modern
disk braked full suspension bike.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) jasmine.org.uk~simonOpen ↗

;; When your hammer is C++, everything begins to look like a thumb.

Peter B said:

"Marten Hoffmann" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] schreef ...

Quoted message said:

"Zog The Undeniable" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...
> Death of 1 1/4" headsets, death of really light bikes (everything has

at

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> least front suspension) and death of cantilever brakes.

1 1/4" are back again.

On which bikes, except Santana tandems? I know of 1.5" too to make things really easy!

Hmm...yes, I was thinking of 1.5 perhaps, as currently promoted by Cannondale.

They're both back. Cannondale have had 1.5 for at least eight years, and more people (mostly
downhillers) are joining them; 1.25 is quite common. Mind you I'm not absolutely certain that other
peoples 1.5" is interoperable with Cannondale 1.5".

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) jasmine.org.uk~simonOpen ↗

;; When your hammer is C++, everything begins to look like a thumb.

"Simon Brooke" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I have a Scott Sawtooth I've had since new - probably about 1989 or 1990 - which has been fully
rigid all its life. It has cantis that work just fine but it is four pounds _heavier_ than my
modern disk braked full suspension bike.

That's extreme though, I think, unless of course the Sawtooth was heavy to begin with. My Trek
weighs circa 25 pounds with no "trick" bits. At the time I bought it it was possible to get a fully
rigid bike of circa 20 pounds, these may have been breakeasies but considering current unbreakable
free-ride bikes weigh in excess of 30 pound I don't think great advances have been made in weight
saving. And looking in the current issue of MBR shows 3 reasonably expensive womens specific full
sussers with weights ranging from 26 (no pedals, wonder what the point of that is, may as well weigh
it minus the front wheel) to 29 pounds, and 29 pounds for a £1300 trail bike ain't particularly
light IMO.

Pete

[email hidden] schreef ...

Quoted message said:

They're both back. Cannondale have had 1.5 for at least eight years, and more people (mostly
downhillers) are joining them; 1.25 is quite common.

<still curious> On which bikes? </still curious>

Quoted message said:

Mind you I'm not absolutely certain that other peoples 1.5" is interoperable with Cannondale 1.5".

It's not. The Cannondale 1.5 has to do with their Headshok forks. The other peoples' 1.5 is "just" a
large headset AFAIK.

--
Regards, Marten

Peter B said:

"Simon Brooke" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I have a Scott Sawtooth I've had since new - probably about 1989 or 1990 - which has been fully
rigid all its life. It has cantis that work just fine but it is four pounds _heavier_ than my
modern disk braked full suspension bike.

That's extreme though, I think, unless of course the Sawtooth was heavy to begin with.

The Scott weighs 31lbs in it's current state, which is to say pretty much as original but with a few
pretty aluminium and titanium bits and Panaracer Smoke/Dart tyres. The frame is CroMo steel and I
don't think it's double butted. My Cannondale Jekyll weighed 27lbs when we got it from the shop, but
since then I've swapped the stylish but uncomfortable Fizik saddle for a Brooks, and the Hutchinson
Scorpion tyres for Velociraptors, so it may weigh a trifle more now.

Quoted message said:

My Trek weighs circa 25 pounds with no "trick" bits. At the time I bought it it was possible to
get a fully rigid bike of circa 20 pounds, these may have been breakeasies but considering current
unbreakable free-ride bikes weigh in excess of 30 pound I don't think great advances have been
made in weight saving. And looking in the current issue of MBR shows 3 reasonably expensive womens
specific full sussers with weights ranging from 26 (no pedals, wonder what the point of that is,
may as well weigh it minus the front wheel) to 29 pounds, and 29 pounds for a £1300 trail bike
ain't particularly light IMO.

My SO's Juliana SL weighs 26lbs with disk brakes and pedals on.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) jasmine.org.uk~simonOpen ↗

;; Friends don't send friends HTML formatted emails.