Hacker News Reader

Comment by tchvil | Hacker News Reader

Mountain Bike geometry has changed, they have a longer reach, the stem are shorter, and bars wider for a better leverage. Bar ends would put your arm too wide to be useful.

But maybe the real reason is if you ride with bar ends today, chances are you and your bike are old already, you have a front derailleur, no tubeless tires, no disc brakes unfortunately being part of a population that is going slowly but certainly extinct.

For marathons though they offered a change of hand position. But their modern version comes as smaller hooks for the thumbs.

View on HN

Not a mountain biker but: I (and many people I know) ride road bikes older than we are. I've got a Norco from the early 80s, friends ride similar age or older Peugeot and Raleigh. Chromoly that is pretty light and feels great and can take a beating.

Newer isn't always better - especially for those who are time-rich but money-poor. Old bikes can be maintained with a minimum of parts - grease, new bearings, brake pads, tired/tubes and one new chain are all the parts I've had to replace on my 38 year old bike in the last fifteen years. Touched up scratches with almost-matching nail polish. And I've learned everything about how a bike works along the way.

FWIW, mountain bike technology has advanced an enormous amount over the past 20 years as compared to road bike technology. Granted road bike technology has advanced a lot too, but most of the benefit there is in weight reduction.

Mountain bike technology has advanced in weight reduction as well, but suspension technology is orders of magnitude better than 20-30 years ago. Modern mountain bikes are incredibly advanced and they're loads of fun to ride (and I say that as someone riding a bike designed about 10 years ago).

Bikes have got much bigger too.

Earlier this year I bought my first 29er (Production Privee Shan No.5) and it's way bigger than my 26er bikes. It makes my DH bike (224) look small!

> I (and many people I know) ride road bikes older than we are.

Road bikes haven't changed as much as mountain bikes.

> Newer isn't always better

That may be the case in road bikes, but mountain bikes have gone through a huge transformation in the past decade. The new mountain bikes are night and day different than mountain bikes from a decade ago.

Suspension technology alone has advanced by leaps and bounds. Not relevant to road bikes, but it's a game changer on modern mountain bikes.

> That may be the case in road bikes, but mountain bikes have gone through a huge transformation in the past decade. The new mountain bikes are night and day different than mountain bikes from a decade ago.

You can still ride track on an old mountain bike. The specific technologies listed have all been part of the changes for road bikes as well (disc brakes, better derailleurs, tubeless tires, suspension (mountain) and frame materials (carbon for road bikes)). And in both cases the outcome is the same - better performance at the cost of more expensive purchase and maintenance.

And the snobbery from "elites" who think they own the road or trail are damn similar, and the same across other sports I've done (skiing, snowboarding, surfing, sailing...) too. All I'm saying is that the peak performance isn't really relevant to having a good time, and other considerations may be different for different users.

Edit: in good faith I'd guess your argument may come more from a competitive view of mountain biking? Even if competing with friends via strava segments etc?

The snobbery from the "anti-elites" is just as obnoxious. At the end of the day we're all out there to have fun, and I have more fun on a bike with modern geometry. I'm not going to judge if you want to ride an old bike, but if you're going around telling people their modern bikes are unecessary and silly, you're just as much of a bike snob as anybody else.

Cheers, I'll agree that snobbery from anti-elites would be just as obnoxious, I just haven't experienced it personally. I've only been bothered by people who criticize me for riding the gear I can afford, and people who don't ring their bells when passing.

It's not just about competition riding, but simply the terrain and trails have changed. Modern MTBs allow you ride down steeper and rougher terrain with confidence and open up the possibility of riding more trails.

All the commenters here have been talking about how new geometry has changed the game. But unfortunately, you cannot find "modern" geometry on older MTBs built before ~2013 unless the frame was an odd custom. Even the king of retrogrouches Grant Petersen of Rivendell has been tweaking his frames to offer longer chainstays for off-road riding.

On the otherhand, road bikes haven't changed their frontend geometry since the 80s (72º~73º HTA, ~60mm of trail). For the most part roads haven't changed, but wider tires help with the lack of investment in infrastructure.

You can definitely ride offroad on the old style mountain bikes. I used to ride a department store bike ($200 job) on the tracks in a national park and had a blast, and it teaches you good riding habits as well. On a full suspension bike you can make all kinds of mistakes and they will be covered but on a rigid or hardtail you pay for those mistakes more dearly.

I ride a full suspension trail bike these days. It's really comfortable and I can go on much longer rides and hit all kinds of gnarly terrain. But I still like to get scrappy on my old hardtail sometimes :)

It really depends on your local trails. I used to ride a hardtail with 100mm up front, and it just was not fun at all on my local trails, which are mostly very rough rock. Paint shaker.

I see a few guys riding full rigid, but they are generally either exceptionally talented or relish Type 2 fun.

I agree. I have an old 1987 Bridgestone MB-1 (mountain bike). I lift modern mountain bikes and they are lighter but not by that much. Especially the ones with crazy amounts suspension parts.

Another note: my bike came stock with drop bars (only year for that model) that the lower bar flairs out. I can't count the number of times those bars have caused me to ricochet off obstacles where flat bars would have hooked. I would not trade them for modern flat bars, but my cycling has turned more cross than technical so old still works for me.

To be fair that’s a fairly collectible bike.

Here is a list of what changed in the last ~20 years or so in MTB technology:

- geometry: slacker head angles and longer reach, steeper seat tube

- wide handlebars

- dropper seatposts

^^^ these 3 above fundamentally transform your ability to descend or ride technical terrain. A very skilled 90s rider could have attempted some of todays enduro tracks, now they are very reasonably accessible by medium-skilled riders.

- tubeless tires

- suspension tech in general

- 1x drivetrain

- disc brakes becoming ubiquitous

- 29inch wheels, wide tires, tire material...

I mean, now that I think about it, I can't think of a single part of a modern mountain bike that was not revolutionized in the past 20 years (maybe the saddle?).

Comparing bikes from the 80s/90s versus the bikes of today is like comparing cars from the early XX. century to cars of today. Yes, they mostly all have 4 wheels, but...

Which is not to say you can't love your old bike, and ride it to your heart's content. But if you haven't tried an MTB from today, you are missing out. Just sayin'...

> For marathons though they offered a change of hand position.

TBH I don't really get it, because I can put my hands in the same position (grabbing the ends of my bar with a rotated wrist) without the bar-ends just fine. Yes, the leverage is a bit smaller, but I can do this for "resting", and I can even pull some.

Mind you, ever since we had these crazy low gears (even on 1x now) there is no need for the extra leverage a bar-end provides. Maybe that's the reason they went extinct.

All those changes were instigated by an industry that decided everyone needs a front suspension with 8" of travel (or the frame must at least support it) so the head tubes have to be slacker for tire clearance. Since that makes for sluggish steering you get 0mm stems and 1m bars to compensate.

What's wrong with having a front derailleur?

why have a front shifter, cable, and derailleur, and multiple chain rings when they are not required, you can have a 12 speed with only a rear derailleur

36 speeds baby!

(Just kidding, your point is well taken.)

With that many gears in the cassette with only a single chain ring, would cross chaining become an issue when in the lowest or highest gear?

No more than on an 8-speed cassette. The stack height is the same, the gears are just closer together on the larger cassettes.

Why have a derailleur at all? Just get onboard the Rohloff e14 + Gates Carbon Drive train.

I mean chains are a relic of the past. The future is carbon belt drives.

(See, I can be snobby, too).

They tend to trap mud and dirt easily. Also, simplicity is desirable. Less to wear out or go wrong.

Conceptually, one less derailleur is simpler. However, the design and manufacturing of 12-speed full-range rear shifting systems is pretty darn complicated. I run 2x9 on my main MTB, and love the simplicity of the parts.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com