IMO the bicycle was perfected 20+ years ago
There is nothing left to be improved, only gimmicks with aggressive marketing
Just be happy with the bike you have, and ride
There is nothing left to be improved, only gimmicks with aggressive marketing
Just be happy with the bike you have, and ride
If I gave you a hardtail with a traditional post, then the same bike with a dropper, your opinion would change in minutes.
On XC courses I would set my post height at some compromise height, like I would on a CX bike. I’d always feel it in my knees on the climbs though when it was just a bit too low.
Now it’s perfect for decents and for climbs. Such a useful addition to an MTB.
Even being able to adjust the height without the bloody thing twisting from the centre line is a win for me. :)
I can't possibly see how you make this case. I just got a new bike and the dropper was definitely the part I was the least sure I'd care for, but the benefit was immediately obvious on the first ride. Being able to pop the seat up with the press of a button when I started a long climb was amazing.
1.25in (32 mm) and 1.5 in (38 mm) tires were pretty common on the "sport touring" category of 10-speeds from the mid-70s bike boom to the early 90s or something like that.
Then marketing decided that everyone, even casual cyclists, should aspire to ride on "racing" road bikes with 23 mm (or even 21 mm) tires, even if the aero and acceleration benefits really didn't make any sense for them.
Really happy that wider tires are making a comeback and that the "gravel" category is in many ways a comeback of sport touring.
Suspension have received lots of improvements, both features such as lock-out, and also generally in terms of better properties, geometries and availability. Especially when looking at the rear frame. Forks are still mostly just forks :)
Finally you also have overall build quality. A mtb from the last decade just feels more rigid and lightweight, you get a sense of confidence the moment you grab the handlebar, whereas 20y ago shifters and handles have that flimsy feeling to it. Warped wheels and flat tires is also much less common problem today.
Did you put the 1x on a road bike, or something or other?
I'm not into racing, but I like going hard and fast (relative to my fitness), and find that I don't really care about cadence, but I do like range and minimalism. Makes me think a 1x, even on road, would be great for me, even if I'd keep my 2x's, since they work perfectly fine. Only if/ when the components wear out, maybe I'd do the 1x switcheroo.
No worries about chain angle in certain gear combinations.
Front chain ring can be cheaper/more durable/flippable because it doesn't need ramps/pins/grooves.
I did a 3x8 to 1x8 conversion on a hard tail mountain bike I was commuting on a while back (~8 years ago). There was some messing around with chain line, but over all a simpler setup when I was done.
I'd bet it is even simpler to get done now.
I stuck with 8 back then because it's good enough, and the more thin and precise things get, the more expensive yet less tolerant of road salt they seem to become.
2x13 seems like more ratios than I'd ever need, but who am I to say that applies to everybody?
Kinda crazy that people are vouching for 1x if cross-chaining is an issue with that system (as the main pull seemed to be that 1x is fully functional as is, without hiccups).
So in your opinion, do you prefer 2x & 3x? And is the cross-chaining issue with 1x enough of an issue to write it off?
I'm guessing the cross-chaining can be addressed if you reduce the range in the cassette?
As far as 2x vs. 3x, it depends on purpose for me. My rando bike has a triple on it and my faster road bike has a subcompact double. I think if you care about weight savings you can get really good range out of a 2x system. 3x could be more useful for a “do anything” kind of bike.
Theoretically, this is true. Except that the derailleur that 1x design removes is the front derailleur, not well known as the locus of failure or maintainance.
Suddenly I realized that my front derailleur was merely a chain guide.
I was really unkind to my bicycles. Always trying to find a way to replace fewer parts. I've broken or worn out and replaced everything except the frame, seat post and handlebars on that bike.
It happens because the cassettes have gotten SO WIDE -- 12 speed is pretty normal now -- that you don't so much need the extra chainring in front to get a pretty wonderful gear range, especially in contexts where having close ratios may not matter (e.g., mtb or gravel).
I wouldn't go back to 3x9 though. Maybe on the vintage road bike where finding any crankset other than a road 52/42 is an adventure.
A 1x would've been miserable, and this was a weekend with only maybe 6,000 feet of climbing.
That said, are they even MAKING 2x mountain bike setups anymore?
On the gravel bike side of things, 1x still doesn't cut it in the low gearing department and one needs to resort to mixing incompatible gravel and MTB mechanical parts. That's where electronic shifting comes to the rescue.
53/39 is insane. I only use subcompacts like 46/30 or 48/32. No use for the ≥ 50T here.
I love the feel of the 53 vs the compact on my Roubaix, but i have to be really on top of my game to take it to (e.g.) Austin.
https://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-gear/bikes-and-biking/...
Somewhere in the 90's - early 00's was peak bike and I think most (but not all) progress after that came from marketing departments.
Exceptions: MTB geometry changes (debatable), dropper posts, aero wheels.
Not exceptions: internal cable routing, proprietary integrated brakes/handlebars/stems/bottle cages/forks, 1x don't @ me.