MTB’s ‘bling-bling’

Marx SS said:

When it comes to new MTBs, there are a lot of options out there for XC
type riding. Hardtails, duel suspension, with variations in brake types
(disk or V, etc), forks from standard to exotic, various frame
configurations & compositions, even the options of tubeless tyres.
With all this choice in just about every component on a modern MTB it
can be pretty daunting to get the ‘right’ package. Common sense would
normally dictate that the more optioned or higher price the bike the
better right? You know: bigger brakes, more suspension, stronger frame
& wheels, and lighter components etc.

It’s kinda ironic now that I’m getting into the odd MTB XC event &
there are some very fast guys shooting around on what are not much more
but chromoly, rigid framed, single speed MTBs.

It's your legs, lungs and skills that win races.

Marx SS said:

When it comes to new MTBs, there are a lot of options out there for XC type riding. Hardtails, duel suspension, with variations in brake types (disk or V, etc), forks from standard to exotic, various frame configurations & compositions, even the options of tubeless tyres.
With all this choice in just about every component on a modern MTB it can be pretty daunting to get the ‘right’ package. Common sense would normally dictate that the more optioned or higher price the bike the better right? You know: bigger brakes, more suspension, stronger frame & wheels, and lighter components etc.

It’s kinda ironic now that I’m getting into the odd MTB XC event & there are some very fast guys shooting around on what are not much more but chromoly, rigid framed, single speed MTBs.
Sure I know that a large part of being competitive in MTB is strength/fitness & technique, but I am now thinking that lot of the stuff hanging off bike shop racks is loaded with ‘bling’-factor to dazzle the punters & turn over the dollar, and perhaps not providing that advantage in the cut ‘n’ thrust.

What do you reckon?

I'd definitely agree in terms of XC racing (or at least, I agree to justify my lack of expense on new bling for many years! 🙂 ) The only real advantage I could see in snazzy new bits is on lighter weight, but even that's dubious. A shortly sprung steel hardtail with v-brakes and tubes will be just as a competitive racer as an alum long-travel fat-forked tubeless disc setup.

However, I think when you start moving away from short-course XC onto things like enduro then equipment starts to play a bigger role. I noticed this at least year's Kona 24hr. Sure, the top guys were often still on hardtails, but the recreational racer was definitely heading towards long-travel cush bikes. Is this because they're fashionable? Probably. But also they seem to allow the average punter to race better and for longer. More comfortable. Better handling. Reliable. And so on...

And then of course, downhill racing's another matter altogether..

A lot probably also depends on where the racing's at. I know for a while at least, European World Cup courses were getting so smooth that racers were almost going back to rigid forks (not quite, but minimal travel anyway). And I guess that's being reflected in a different way now with the singlespeed revolution... Maybe we're all just getting better skilled at riding fewer gears and shorter suspension?? 😄 (I should say 'you all' as i'm definitely not....)

(On another note, this is where I chuckle at a certain Australian MTB mag's commentator who several years ago predicted the death of the hardtail (with the exception of ultra high priced race hardtails)... Couldn't have been more wrong with the proliferation of jump bikes, singlespeeds, and retro items currently available.

Marx SS said:

When it comes to new MTBs, there are a lot of options out there for XC
type riding. Hardtails, duel suspension, with variations in brake types
(disk or V, etc), forks from standard to exotic, various frame
configurations & compositions, even the options of tubeless tyres.
With all this choice in just about every component on a modern MTB it
can be pretty daunting to get the ‘right’ package. Common sense would
normally dictate that the more optioned or higher price the bike the
better right? You know: bigger brakes, more suspension, stronger frame
& wheels, and lighter components etc.

It’s kinda ironic now that I’m getting into the odd MTB XC event &
there are some very fast guys shooting around on what are not much more
but chromoly, rigid framed, single speed MTBs.
Sure I know that a large part of being competitive in MTB is
strength/fitness & technique, but I am now thinking that lot of the
stuff hanging off bike shop racks is loaded with ‘bling’-factor to
dazzle the punters & turn over the dollar, and perhaps not providing
that advantage in the -cut ‘n’ thrust.-

What do you reckon?

<grumpy old man mode.
I agree with all these sentiments. In addition - it really annoys me
that it is quite difficult to buy a simple but good quality bike. About
5 years ago I was after a bike for commuting - I thought a 26" MTB style
riding position with maybe 10 gears (or even just 5) for the occasional
hill, fairly light, rack for child seat and mudguards. Anything of
decent quality components/wheels/frame had 27 gears and suspension
forks and maybe disk brakes. Ridiculous for what I wanted.

Anyway, in the end, a LBS swapped out the forks and disk brakes and
gave me a couple of hundred off the price. I still carry around about
20 more gears than I need. I got slicks put on as well.

I think there's got to be a market for a low maintainence 3 (or 5) speed
hub quality built bike. Good frame, good wheels and simple to ride.
Something like what our parents used to ride!
</grumpy old man, oh what the hell, I may as well stay in that mode now.>

Duncan.

--
e-mail: [email hidden]
To reply, you'll have to remove finger.

On 30/05/05 at 13:19:06 DeF somehow managed to type:

<deletia>

Quoted message said:

I think there's got to be a market for a low maintainence 3 (or 5)
speed hub quality built bike. Good frame, good wheels and simple to
ride. Something like what our parents used to ride!
</grumpy old man, oh what the hell, I may as well stay in that mode
now.>

Well there's always an AM2...:-) http://www.alexmoulton.co.uk/

--
Humbug a happy APB S7 Moultoneer......

Marx SS said:

What do you reckon?

Learn good technique first, then buy a MTB that assists whatever you are
doing.

Features mean extra weight, which could mean slower time.

e.g. full suspension could be good on a downhill rocket race, but on a
24hours, I suspect a good, light hardtail would give better results.

"Marx SS" wrote in message ...

Quoted message said:

It's kinda ironic now that I'm getting into the odd MTB XC event &
there are some very fast guys shooting around on what are not much more
but chromoly, rigid framed, single speed MTBs.

I'm not really that quick.
http://www.geocities.com/kanangara/24hr04_5694.jpg

Quoted message said:

Sure I know that a large part of being competitive in MTB is
strength/fitness & technique, but I am now thinking that lot of the
stuff hanging off bike shop racks is loaded with 'bling'-factor to
dazzle the punters & turn over the dollar, and perhaps not providing
that advantage in the -cut 'n' thrust.-

What do you reckon?

I've found on most XC tracks I'm quicker on my rigid steel Surly 1x1 than on my Epic (or at least I feel quicker). In addition
normal club racing, I've now done two 8hrs & a 100km race solo as well as a few other enduros as part of a team on the Surly - most
people I ride with think I'm nuts (even other SSers). I very rarely ride the Epic these days as it doesn't give me much advantage
over the Surly for most of the riding & racing I do, but could see myself with a long travel XC bike in the near future.

They all have their place and the top riders will often have the choice depending on the course (I don't think too many people would
choose a hard tail for last year's Mont course). A medium to long travel XC bike probably gives the best versatility to the average
rider who wants to race a bit, but still stay comfortable all day.

Of course now I'm looking at bling-bling singlespeeds - maybe even a suspension fork

Parbs

<snip>

Quoted message said:

What do you reckon?
--
Marx SS

Gears? I probably don't need so many for the commute. I'd be happy with a
3 speed hub.

Off road? Well, on some MTB rides you >do< occassionally encounter
mountains. I like my old knees and hope to use them for many years to come.
Give me gears. Lots of them.

Suspension? Front suspension was a revelation. Rear suspension was a
revelation. I'm not going back to relying on my frame flexing to provide a
supple ride. I don't want to negotiate >every< bump.

Tubeless tyres? I had my doubts. With some tyre sealant, I doubt no
longer. Haven't had a flat in some time.[1]

Disk brakes? The first muddy descent had me convinced.

I suppose that I pay a weight penalty.[2] Never mind. It's not much more
than a week's diet to me anyway.

SteppenW

[1] Laughs in the face of the pucture gods.
[2] Oh. And a money penalty too, for being so tech obsessed.

"Marx SS" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

It's kinda ironic now that I'm getting into the odd MTB XC event &
there are some very fast guys shooting around on what are not much more
but chromoly, rigid framed, single speed MTBs.
Sure I know that a large part of being competitive in MTB is
strength/fitness & technique, but I am now thinking that lot of the
stuff hanging off bike shop racks is loaded with 'bling'-factor to
dazzle the punters & turn over the dollar, and perhaps not providing
that advantage in the -cut 'n' thrust.-

What do you reckon?

Very few parts will actualy make you go faster in a race, most expensive
items in a bike store are effectively jewelery. Assuming your bike is of
reasonable quality some of the biggest differences you can make are correct
tyre selection/pressure and properly adjusted and clean drivetrain and
brakes. Differences in part quality will pale in comparison to the fitness
difference between you and the next guy.

A few parts provide comfort and inspire confidence for some people and maybe
important to them but in a standard XC race it's all down to the fastest
rider.

You wouldn't be thinking of yesterdays Macedon race would you? Dan Hale won
vets on a fully rigid SS cyclocross while Vinca took out expert women on a
front suspension SS. I ride with these people and I know that they won
because they are excellent riders.

Riding an SS isn't nearly as much a handicap as a lot of people think. The
biggest disadvantage is spinning out on a downhill/flat. Assuming you have
the power they force you to push on uphills where huge gains can be made.
If the hill is too steep it's often more efficient to run anyway. The lack
of a derailer and a straight drivetrain make for a much more efficient power
delivery. Rigid forks also have advantages a lot of people don't consider.
They track a lot better than suspension forks and can cut a quick line throu
gh technical sections that you'd just bash through with suspension.

Having said that, I'm struggling to stay in the pointy end of expert class
with my little legs so I need all the help I can get. My time was around 1%
slower than the guy in front of me, he got a podium and I didn't. If I
believed there was a bike upgrade I could buy to get that 1% I'd go for it.
(I ride a slightly upgraded Kona Kula Deluxe)

Cheers,
Duncan (the other one)

Duncan said:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Very few parts will actualy make you go faster in a race, most expensive
items in a bike store are effectively jewelery. Assuming your bike is of
reasonable quality some of the biggest differences you can make are correct
tyre selection/pressure and properly adjusted and clean drivetrain and
brakes. Differences in part quality will pale in comparison to the fitness
difference between you and the next guy.

<snip>

When I got to the top of the last psycho climb on Sunday, I asked the
guys at the checkpoint for a "new heart and two new legs", please. From
the looks on the other riders faces they were feeling the same way. I
didn't bother to ask for a new bike. A horse would've been useful.

Tam

Duncan said:

Riding an SS isn't nearly as much a handicap as a lot of people think.

[chomp]

Quoted message said:

The lack
of a derailer and a straight drivetrain make for a much more efficient power
delivery.

Do they really? I'd refer you to "Bicycling Science, 3rd ed" for a
discussion of the losses introduced by gearing and chain
deviation. It's suprisingly little, from memory. What's
your definition of "much" 🙂

"Duncan" wrote in message ...

Quoted message said:

Riding an SS isn't nearly as much a handicap as a lot of people think.

Shoosh, don't tell everyone.

Parbs

"Tamyka Bell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

<snip>

When I got to the top of the last psycho climb on Sunday, I asked the
guys at the checkpoint for a "new heart and two new legs", please. From
the looks on the other riders faces they were feeling the same way. I
didn't bother to ask for a new bike. A horse would've been useful.

That's funny, that's kinda similair to an anecdote I almost threw in before
my post got even longer.

One way I like to consider what may or may not be a good upgrade is when I'm
in the middle of a gruelling climb. If you could imagine someone magicaly
changing things on your bike to try them out you get an idea of what could
make you faster.

My opinoins have been:

Lose the rear suspension - noticable difference
Front lockout / rigid forks - noticable difference
Rigid wheelset / frame - slight difference
Stiffer X-type crank / carbon sole shoes - possible difference
Shave < kilo with bling parts - bugger all difference

Again all these would do virtualy nothing to help you catch up to the guy
who is slowly but surely leaving you behind thanks to his extra fitness.

"Carl Brewer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Mon, 30 May 2005 23:32:27 +1000, "Duncan" <[email hidden]> wrote:
[chomp]

Quoted message said:

The lack
of a derailer and a straight drivetrain make for a much more efficient

power

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

delivery.

Do they really? I'd refer you to "Bicycling Science, 3rd ed" for a
discussion of the losses introduced by gearing and chain
deviation. It's suprisingly little, from memory. What's
your definition of "much" 🙂

I had a flick through my "Bicycling Science 2nd ed" but I couldn't find any
references. Although it is always nice to go back to the graph comparing
leaping bunnys and slithering snakes to cyclists and cars and such.

I have read about such losses but I can't remember exactly where. Maybe I
was exagerating by saying "much" but I do think it is significant and I do
know that I can feel derailer induced drag switching between SS and geared
bikes.

The most obvious drag comes from the jockey wheels. These are never
particularly free running parts and they also force the chain to take two
extra bends on their completely unsealed bushings. Admittedly the lower
side isn't under great tension so the losses will be more proportional to
chain speed than power transfer.
Another factor is the bent chainline, this adds a reasonable amount of load
to the chain and adds friction at the teeth.
Running a straight line also lets you use a better sealed chain.

I seem to remember a bicycle chain in perfect condition is 95%+ efficient.
This drops dramaticaly as it gets worn and dirty, I rmember figures down as
low as around 80%. Consider that an MTB race will introduce a lot of dirt
into the system. An SS system is better sealed and has far fewer points to
gum up.

All this is a little unscientific but I would guess that the efficiency lost
to an SSer by being a gear or two off ideal could well be offset by the
better drivetrain. I know that in many races I spend most if not all [1] of
my time in about 4 gears where the single speed would be just as efficient
as my geared bike.

[1] Dirt crits in particular

On 2005-05-30, Carl Brewer (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

Quoted message said:

Duncan said:

The lack
of a derailer and a straight drivetrain make for a much more efficient power
delivery.

Do they really? I'd refer you to "Bicycling Science, 3rd ed" for a
discussion of the losses introduced by gearing and chain
deviation. It's suprisingly little, from memory.

That's what I was thinking.

Just backpeddling shows how much force it takes to move the drive
chain -- thousands as much force as you put into peddling usually. I
imagine the resistance doesn't increase all that much when the chain
is actually under tension.

--
TimC -- http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/staff/tconnors/
Computer screens simply ooze buckets of yang.
To balance this, place some women around the corners of the room.
-- Kaz Cooke, Dumb Feng Shui

On 2005-05-31, TimC (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

Quoted message said:

On 2005-05-30, Carl Brewer (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

Quoted message said:

Do they really? I'd refer you to "Bicycling Science, 3rd ed" for a
discussion of the losses introduced by gearing and chain
deviation. It's suprisingly little, from memory.

That's what I was thinking.

Just backpeddling shows how much force it takes to move the drive
chain -- thousands as much force as you put into peddling usually. I
imagine the resistance doesn't increase all that much when the chain
is actually under tension.

OK, so it's a lot more complicated than my naive thinking, but at
least people who have actually thought about this agree 🙂

--
TimC -- http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/staff/tconnors/
If you tried to understand this, you'd be very confused, in the standard
way we talk about confusion. -- Some astronomer at a talk.

Duncan said:

"Tamyka Bell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

My opinoins have been:

Lose the rear suspension - noticable difference
Front lockout / rigid forks - noticable difference
Rigid wheelset / frame - slight difference
Stiffer X-type crank / carbon sole shoes - possible difference
Shave < kilo with bling parts - bugger all difference

Again all these would do virtualy nothing to help you catch up to the guy
who is slowly but surely leaving you behind thanks to his extra fitness.

It's very much down to the distances you're riding. My first bike was a steel hardtail with a none-too-impressive RST fork and a 7 speed cassette. I had no problem keeping up with my buddies riding high-end Konas and Gary Fischers during our weekend rides. And if it hadn't been for the fact that we rode roads to the trails I could easily have done without 2 out of 3 chainrings as well. Later we started doing unsupported tours of 1-2 weeks in the Alps and the Pyrennes and for a ride with climbs like that EVERY edge counts.

Equipment can never fully compensate for lack of fitness, but good (lighter)stuff does provide an advantage particularly in a longer run.

Duncan said:

"Carl Brewer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Mon, 30 May 2005 23:32:27 +1000, "Duncan" <[email hidden]> wrote:
[chomp]

Quoted message said:

The lack
of a derailer and a straight drivetrain make for a much more efficient

power

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

delivery.

Do they really? I'd refer you to "Bicycling Science, 3rd ed" for a
discussion of the losses introduced by gearing and chain
deviation. It's suprisingly little, from memory. What's
your definition of "much" 🙂

I had a flick through my "Bicycling Science 2nd ed" but I couldn't find any
references. Although it is always nice to go back to the graph comparing
leaping bunnys and slithering snakes to cyclists and cars and such.

I have read about such losses but I can't remember exactly where. Maybe I
was exagerating by saying "much" but I do think it is significant and I do
know that I can feel derailer induced drag switching between SS and geared
bikes.

The most obvious drag comes from the jockey wheels. These are never
particularly free running parts and they also force the chain to take two
extra bends on their completely unsealed bushings. Admittedly the lower
side isn't under great tension so the losses will be more proportional to
chain speed than power transfer.
Another factor is the bent chainline, this adds a reasonable amount of load
to the chain and adds friction at the teeth.
Running a straight line also lets you use a better sealed chain.

My understanding of the bent chainline issue is that it makes almost
no difference at all, but that's with a constant chain - ie: one
that's designed to flex. The keep it clean issue may make a bigger
difference - it would be interesting (and quite simple to test!) to
see how much difference it actually makes.

There's a -lot- of guesswork and hearsay in bicycle
efficiency claims, and the funny thing about that is
how simple it is to actually test a lot of the claims!

On 02 Jun 2005 00:41:00 GMT, dtmeister <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Carl Brewer said:

My understanding of the bent chainline issue is that it makes almost
no difference at all, but that's with a constant chain - ie: one
that's designed to flex. The keep it clean issue may make a bigger
difference - it would be interesting (and quite simple to test!) to
see how much difference it actually makes.

There's a -lot- of guesswork and hearsay in bicycle
efficiency claims, and the funny thing about that is
how simple it is to actually test a lot of the claims!

Some interesting stuff here :

http://www.jhu.edu/news_info/news/home99/aug99/bike.html

"The first factor was sprocket size," Spicer says. "The larger the
sprocket, the higher the efficiency we recorded."

Which is why it's good to have a 54 tooth big ring 🙂