Why did bar ends go away from mountain bikes?(brainybiker.com)
brainybiker.com
Why did bar ends go away from mountain bikes?
https://brainybiker.com/why-did-bar-ends-go-away-from-mountain-bikes-the-nostalgia-is-real/
345 comments
I definitely prefer a bicycle bell to getting yelled at from behind.
But you know what would be even nicer? If bikers had the curtesy to slow down a bit when the trail / path is crowded.
I also love riding fast. I understand that crowded paths are annoying. But when I see that the path is full of people, I don't start ringing my bell, or hollering "on your left" or "attention" at the people in front of me, I just slow down. There is no curteous way to pass someone with delta V of 15km/h on a narrow path.
If I want to ride fast, I pick a time when the paths aren't crowded. I don't understand why everyone wants to race their bikes on multi use paths on a sunny afternoon at 3PM when everyone else is outside too.
Try riding eg. Saturday at 7AM and you'll have the world to yourself and you can go as fast as you like.
But you know what would be even nicer? If bikers had the curtesy to slow down a bit when the trail / path is crowded.
I also love riding fast. I understand that crowded paths are annoying. But when I see that the path is full of people, I don't start ringing my bell, or hollering "on your left" or "attention" at the people in front of me, I just slow down. There is no curteous way to pass someone with delta V of 15km/h on a narrow path.
If I want to ride fast, I pick a time when the paths aren't crowded. I don't understand why everyone wants to race their bikes on multi use paths on a sunny afternoon at 3PM when everyone else is outside too.
Try riding eg. Saturday at 7AM and you'll have the world to yourself and you can go as fast as you like.
Most people seem to be curteous already where I ride. There are always a few people giving us all a bad name, but I'm seeing growing awareness of good behavior, and of better signage, at the same time that crowds are increasing. Good to keep in mind that crowds are growing and MTB popularity is growing, because it means that good behavior may be on the rise faster than it seems unless you pay attention to and notice how many people aren't being pushy.
That said, I have an always-on bell that rings as I ride over bumps. I like it for multiple reasons - for one bikers hear me coming for a long time, and know that I'm not going agro right behind them. For two, hikers and dog-walkers appreciate hearing it from far away, and often thank me for it.
That said, I have an always-on bell that rings as I ride over bumps. I like it for multiple reasons - for one bikers hear me coming for a long time, and know that I'm not going agro right behind them. For two, hikers and dog-walkers appreciate hearing it from far away, and often thank me for it.
The bell I recommended isn't one you ring - it's like a cowbell that rings constantly (while you are moving) and lets people know you are coming before they can see you. Basic trail etiquette.
I have nothing against hikers (would be hypocritical as someone who trail-runs) and blasting past people on a crowded path (or at all) is an idiot move. But on a single track trail people can come up on you really quick, 10km/h is a brisk jog so a 15km/h (4m/s) delta V isn't exactly fast.
My local trails are way quieter at 3pm (most people are in work and temperatures are still hot) than at 7am (pre-work dog walkers and exercisers). Saturday 7AM is literally the worse time in SoCal - big groups of riders and local running clubs all hit the trails Saturday morning. Guess it is varies by region but no matter the time I'd want to give other trail users the maximum oppertunity to know I was there so we can all be safe.
For the record I don't want to ride my bike fast on multi-use paths at any time of the day, not sure why you thought I did. If I ride fast it is on bike focussed routes (accessed via the multi-use trails).
I have nothing against hikers (would be hypocritical as someone who trail-runs) and blasting past people on a crowded path (or at all) is an idiot move. But on a single track trail people can come up on you really quick, 10km/h is a brisk jog so a 15km/h (4m/s) delta V isn't exactly fast.
My local trails are way quieter at 3pm (most people are in work and temperatures are still hot) than at 7am (pre-work dog walkers and exercisers). Saturday 7AM is literally the worse time in SoCal - big groups of riders and local running clubs all hit the trails Saturday morning. Guess it is varies by region but no matter the time I'd want to give other trail users the maximum oppertunity to know I was there so we can all be safe.
For the record I don't want to ride my bike fast on multi-use paths at any time of the day, not sure why you thought I did. If I ride fast it is on bike focussed routes (accessed via the multi-use trails).
> it's like a cowbell that rings constantly (while you are moving)
This is horrific, so much unnecessary noise pollution.
This is horrific, so much unnecessary noise pollution.
It's really not. These bells aren't that loud, you really only hear them once the cyclist is maybe 50 yards away. It's an incredibly important safety feature on low-visibility singletracks.
I have a loud rear hub instead... mostly works just as fine. But if not, I'm also very patient in passing hikers, once I spent like 10 minutes behind two hikers on a singletrack before they realised I was behind them, because they were discussing something very intensively... but this is fine, in the meantime I can rest a bit, adjust my gear, eat and drink something etc. I always try to smile and thank people for letting me pass by.
The only - very few - occasions when this tactic did not work were usually hikers coming in the opposite direction and being actively hostile. There was an angry lady once who refused to move even an inch to the right, so I had to move to her left, which was a large field of nettle... To this day I don't know what her problem was, but this happens sometimes.
The only - very few - occasions when this tactic did not work were usually hikers coming in the opposite direction and being actively hostile. There was an angry lady once who refused to move even an inch to the right, so I had to move to her left, which was a large field of nettle... To this day I don't know what her problem was, but this happens sometimes.
Maybe she’d had a run in with a pushy bike, or just got really scared? So what happened, did you step into the nettle, or did you stop and wait, or have a conversation with her and point out the nettle, or turn around and walk back a bit?
Or maybe the question is: in retrospect do you have any wishes or regrets about how you handled it? Did you think of anything you should have done differently to defuse the situation? Do you have any strategies for avoiding or resolving the rare but possible next hostile confrontation?
Multiple times in the past I have goofed and reacted to someone’s aggression with return fire, and I don’t think it’s ever made anything better, usually it’s worse. I would like to have some prepared strategies in my mind for handling it smoothly.
Hikers and animals (dogs and horses) have right of way over bikes at all times on the trails I ride, is that true for you too? I’ve bumped into an angry hiker or two also, but on the whole they’re almost always super friendly and contentious. For me it’s more common than not that hikers are apologizing and getting off the trail before I even have a chance to yield, sometimes so much so that I feel bad about it. Anyway, I think we should take stock of all the nice hikers and lucky interactions, because it’s perfectly okay and reasonable for a hiker on a shared trail to not expect to yield. It’s definitely unkind if they refuse to make any room to pass, you do sound very patient, and the angry hiker experience totally sucks - triply if you got nettle all over. But at the same time, if we as bikers aren’t yielding first as much as we can, it’ll only get less fun for everyone and we can lose trails, right?
Or maybe the question is: in retrospect do you have any wishes or regrets about how you handled it? Did you think of anything you should have done differently to defuse the situation? Do you have any strategies for avoiding or resolving the rare but possible next hostile confrontation?
Multiple times in the past I have goofed and reacted to someone’s aggression with return fire, and I don’t think it’s ever made anything better, usually it’s worse. I would like to have some prepared strategies in my mind for handling it smoothly.
Hikers and animals (dogs and horses) have right of way over bikes at all times on the trails I ride, is that true for you too? I’ve bumped into an angry hiker or two also, but on the whole they’re almost always super friendly and contentious. For me it’s more common than not that hikers are apologizing and getting off the trail before I even have a chance to yield, sometimes so much so that I feel bad about it. Anyway, I think we should take stock of all the nice hikers and lucky interactions, because it’s perfectly okay and reasonable for a hiker on a shared trail to not expect to yield. It’s definitely unkind if they refuse to make any room to pass, you do sound very patient, and the angry hiker experience totally sucks - triply if you got nettle all over. But at the same time, if we as bikers aren’t yielding first as much as we can, it’ll only get less fun for everyone and we can lose trails, right?
It's not that bad at all, and stops when you are not moving. I'd say it has maybe a 20m range so it's not like people can hear you from the other side of the mountain.
I do agree it adds noise to (potentially) tranquil trails but imho its a good safety trade-off. Way better than people who insist on blasting music from their phone speakers or conference call while walking.
I do agree it adds noise to (potentially) tranquil trails but imho its a good safety trade-off. Way better than people who insist on blasting music from their phone speakers or conference call while walking.
Thanks for using a bell, I really appreciate it as a hiker!
I feel like any naysayer hasn't actually been out on the trails much or haven't run into a bike while doing so.
>music from phone speakers
Now those are unjustifiable noise.
I feel like any naysayer hasn't actually been out on the trails much or haven't run into a bike while doing so.
>music from phone speakers
Now those are unjustifiable noise.
Agreed, just use a loud hub. It’ll let people know when you’re flying down DH trails and be silent for climbs when you can see people and slow down in time. I can’t even think about what the cowbell must sound like when it’s up on your roof rack.
> I can’t even think about what the cowbell must sound like when it’s up on your roof rack.
Hahaha. These comments are funny. It's not a cowbell, that was just an analogy. It's a bike bell with an off switch.
https://www.google.com/search?q=timber+bell
It's not "noise pollution" in any meaningful sense, except to the rider while it's on. :) But it is a good safety measure and is kind to other people on the trail.
A loud hub isn't a particularly good replacement for me since I'm running into other riders and hikers just as often while pedaling as while free-wheeling or downhilling. Maybe even less often downhilling since we're getting more and more one-way trails these days. I even watched my friend who has a loud hub have a slow mostly harmless head-on with a climber coming around a blind corner last season. Climber got angry but hadn't made any attempt to be noticed whatsoever, it would have been completely avoided had he made any noise, like, you know, had a bell...
My positive experience with it is very similar to what this guy describes, multiple people on the trail thanking me for using a bell. I've never once had a complaint about the noise, but occasionally I want it quieter for me. And I also found his 'secret' trick for keeping it slightly quieter, in addition to aiming it downward. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tD63c5pgHcU
Hahaha. These comments are funny. It's not a cowbell, that was just an analogy. It's a bike bell with an off switch.
https://www.google.com/search?q=timber+bell
It's not "noise pollution" in any meaningful sense, except to the rider while it's on. :) But it is a good safety measure and is kind to other people on the trail.
A loud hub isn't a particularly good replacement for me since I'm running into other riders and hikers just as often while pedaling as while free-wheeling or downhilling. Maybe even less often downhilling since we're getting more and more one-way trails these days. I even watched my friend who has a loud hub have a slow mostly harmless head-on with a climber coming around a blind corner last season. Climber got angry but hadn't made any attempt to be noticed whatsoever, it would have been completely avoided had he made any noise, like, you know, had a bell...
My positive experience with it is very similar to what this guy describes, multiple people on the trail thanking me for using a bell. I've never once had a complaint about the noise, but occasionally I want it quieter for me. And I also found his 'secret' trick for keeping it slightly quieter, in addition to aiming it downward. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tD63c5pgHcU
I've often wondered how a loud hub would compare to bear bells in terms of alerting wildlife of your presence. I definitely prefer the sound of SRAM or Chris King hubs to bear bells.
It doesn't just let the two-legged critters know you're coming down the trail.
A bell that clangs as you walk is also common for back-country hikers to keep bears and others away too.
A bell that clangs as you walk is also common for back-country hikers to keep bears and others away too.
Until they learn to think 'The Ice/Meatman cometh!'
This is such a non-existent concern compared to a startled animal lashing out. People have been in the wilderness for a reeeeeeaaaaaaaaallly long time. Take their advice.
I INSIST on my interpretation of signaling "Meals on wheels" to them.
Because 'Life finds a way.'
BASTA!
Because 'Life finds a way.'
BASTA!
Bear bells are not effective in any way and in fact may attract curious bears. Bears do not know that the sound of a bell means humans. In fact, in Canada where grizzlies are a concern Parks officers recommend against bells. The best deterrent is your voice.
https://calgary.ctvnews.ca/parks-canada-officials-endorse-th...
https://calgary.ctvnews.ca/parks-canada-officials-endorse-th...
The point of the bell is to prevent you from startling an unsuspecting bear or mountain lion, which often will put them on the (aggressive) defensive. Not good if you come around a bend and find yourself 10 feet from a bear that was previously minding it's own business.
> The flaw with bear bells is their sound means little to a bear. “They just don’t make enough noise and they don’t make a bear aware that you’re human. A little tinkling noise doesn’t necessarily tell a bear that there’s a person nearby.”
> To prevent a negative encounter with a bear, Stuart-Smith recommends:
> Making noise when travelling on a trail
This advice contradicts itself. Bells make noise, and are louder and carry further than a human voice at normal conversation levels. I've never heard a serious hiker/backpacker warn against a bell... and the bear spray this guy recommends using only works when the bear is within 10-15 feet of you, and hopefully not startled into an attack. Bears can run a lot faster than you, and can climb a lot better than you. It's really best to avoid that situation entirely.
The advice of singing loudly, or yelling your name is unrealistic. Nobody that's hiking in backcountry will be able to sustain that for long, it's exhausting, particularly on all-day or multi-day hikes.
I do agree, the small bear bells often sold at REI are not the best though, the cowbell type OP mentioned is far superior.
Rarely do bears and other wild animals go out of their way to interact with humans... the bell just lets them know something is coming so they aren't startled by your sudden presence.
> The flaw with bear bells is their sound means little to a bear. “They just don’t make enough noise and they don’t make a bear aware that you’re human. A little tinkling noise doesn’t necessarily tell a bear that there’s a person nearby.”
> To prevent a negative encounter with a bear, Stuart-Smith recommends:
> Making noise when travelling on a trail
This advice contradicts itself. Bells make noise, and are louder and carry further than a human voice at normal conversation levels. I've never heard a serious hiker/backpacker warn against a bell... and the bear spray this guy recommends using only works when the bear is within 10-15 feet of you, and hopefully not startled into an attack. Bears can run a lot faster than you, and can climb a lot better than you. It's really best to avoid that situation entirely.
The advice of singing loudly, or yelling your name is unrealistic. Nobody that's hiking in backcountry will be able to sustain that for long, it's exhausting, particularly on all-day or multi-day hikes.
I do agree, the small bear bells often sold at REI are not the best though, the cowbell type OP mentioned is far superior.
Rarely do bears and other wild animals go out of their way to interact with humans... the bell just lets them know something is coming so they aren't startled by your sudden presence.
This advice may be good for some bear species / locations, but certainly not for all.
In Japan, hikers are advised to use bells and many do. People here have been using these trails for hundreds of years. They know what they are doing.
In Japan, hikers are advised to use bells and many do. People here have been using these trails for hundreds of years. They know what they are doing.
Cowbells in a mountain don't seem out of place. As a matter of fact, we need more of them.
For some of us in Northern Canada, this is how we alert bears that we're approaching. Even when not biking, we use "bear bells" that make constant noise.
You don't want to sneak up on a bear.
You don't want to sneak up on a bear.
Please do not use bells, they are not an effective deterrent to bears and they annoy the hikers around you.
https://calgary.ctvnews.ca/parks-canada-officials-endorse-th...
Please don't be so emphatic. You seem to have only part of the whole picture wrt to bears.
And many hikers use them too. The ones I encounter are no louder than a dog-collar.
And many hikers use them too. The ones I encounter are no louder than a dog-collar.
That article is specific to bears (and not dogs or people), it doesn't say anything about bells being annoying, and it seems to contradict you by recommending that people should be "Making noise when travelling on a trail".
I use it to ward off predators - noise pollution is a feature :)
In my experience the tires of my bike rolling on the ground tend to be louder than those cow bell things.
Distant rustling, while noticeable by human hearing, is not instantly prioritized with the speed required to dodge bikes on a single-track compared to a ringing bell that engages human brains as soon as the sound is perceivable.
Agreed, all riders should be able to stop before their event horizon. So if you can't whip blind corners on crowded paths if you would hit someone who is a the worst spot on the turn.
I ride a lot of bike paths. I don't like hollering or ringing. I just slow down and let people hear my hub if need be. They can take their time.
I ride a lot of bike paths. I don't like hollering or ringing. I just slow down and let people hear my hub if need be. They can take their time.
A Hope Tech, Industry Nine or Chris King hub is plenty loud enough!
Well said. I don't use a bell but I have developed a deep, unalarming: "on your left" that travels well ahead of me. I also try to slow to just about pedestrian speed and create maximum distance when passing.
A lot of my fellow cyclists (all of them kitted to the nines) thread the needle at 20mph. It's bullshit.
A lot of my fellow cyclists (all of them kitted to the nines) thread the needle at 20mph. It's bullshit.
> If bikers had the curtesy to slow down a bit when the trail / path is crowded.
Where I live we have a wonderful bike/pedestrian path which is heavily frequented whenever there's good weather. The worst offenders are racing bike drivers. Well at least those who like to LARP as such. (50yo, wearing cloth like they would be competing in the Tour de France).
They don't have bells on their bikes because "aerodynamics" (my guess) and they drive like absolute madmen down the path (they compete on Strava).
I myself got yelled at several times which I usually shrug off or tell them to f** off. But what gets my blood boiling is when those people go out on a Sunday when there's sunny weather and start their BS on a crowded path.
The path is frequented by families on weekends and I have seen multiple times how those 40yo/50yo "gentlemen" yell at little children because the kids have the audacity to have fun with their little bikies and thus ruin the racer's Strava times.
Our local mountain biking (we're not really mountain terrain yet we still have some single trails) community is completely different. They're nice, they always make room when you meet them in the woods. No problems there.
/rant
Where I live we have a wonderful bike/pedestrian path which is heavily frequented whenever there's good weather. The worst offenders are racing bike drivers. Well at least those who like to LARP as such. (50yo, wearing cloth like they would be competing in the Tour de France).
They don't have bells on their bikes because "aerodynamics" (my guess) and they drive like absolute madmen down the path (they compete on Strava).
I myself got yelled at several times which I usually shrug off or tell them to f** off. But what gets my blood boiling is when those people go out on a Sunday when there's sunny weather and start their BS on a crowded path.
The path is frequented by families on weekends and I have seen multiple times how those 40yo/50yo "gentlemen" yell at little children because the kids have the audacity to have fun with their little bikies and thus ruin the racer's Strava times.
Our local mountain biking (we're not really mountain terrain yet we still have some single trails) community is completely different. They're nice, they always make room when you meet them in the woods. No problems there.
/rant
This is why it's important that Road Cycling takes place on roads; shared-use paths are designed for everything from small children frolicking about in the sunlight to large slow-moving bicycles and big groups of hikers, whereas road bikes are designed for cruising at >20mph and large turn radii. They are vehicles, and are designed for use on roads in the presence of other vehicles.
There's something about that hobby. I suspect having "all the gear and no idea" is expensive and somehow they feel entitled.
We have a steep winding road near us which is full of blind spots. On a sunny weekend you're guaranteed to encounter a line of cars unable to overtake a 50yo man on foot slowly pushing a expensive carbon frame bicycle up the hill.
I live in a very car-central part of the world, I suspect if we had actual cycle infrastructure the hobbyists would be diluted by people actually going somewhere on bikes.
This 1000x. The types of rider you get are a reflection of the infrastructure you have. Mostly busy roads? Aggressive ,fast male riders. Quiet, physically separated bike lanes? Families, children going to school, cargo bikes...
No need for mountain bikes for that, you see that behaviour everywhere here in Germany.
It is like some bikers forget they have breaks on their devices, instead just yell and curse the other people on the sidewalk that happen to be on the bycicle lane for whatever reason, after all it is just a different colour on the sidewalk.
It is like some bikers forget they have breaks on their devices, instead just yell and curse the other people on the sidewalk that happen to be on the bycicle lane for whatever reason, after all it is just a different colour on the sidewalk.
Yeah, the comment about bells struck out to me as well. I didn't have one on my MTB in the beginning, but it just felt so stupid to yell 'sorry' at people. I don't see what's the reason, saving a few grams of weight? While riding recreationally? Makes no sense.
First I got one of those minimalist designs that blend in with the handlebar, but it didn't work too well. So I just got a huge one, in black color like the handlebar, which is very loud. Sometimes people get scared for a moment but it's much better than them jumping as you ride by them silently. And I don't think it looks bad at all.
I think there may be a thought a bell isn't cool enough for mtb bro's? Or maybe it's just that they aren't fitted to mountain bikes as standard (they should be) and so people don't think to pick one up.
Obviously not cool enough!
Same thing with racing bikes. All that gorgeous gear and Lycra and then you're supposed to announce yourself to the slow masses with that ridiculous sound!? No way!
Why yell "sorry" instead of "hi there", or something as you come up to them.
I'm Canadian, and as the saying goes "we say sorry 50 times a day, and we're sorry we can't say it more", but still...I don't understand why you're apologizing rather than giving warning, and is ringing a bell really any better in this instance?
I'm Canadian, and as the saying goes "we say sorry 50 times a day, and we're sorry we can't say it more", but still...I don't understand why you're apologizing rather than giving warning, and is ringing a bell really any better in this instance?
>Why yell "sorry" instead of "hi there"
The local racing biker etiquette here seems to be yelling "AUS DEM WEG" (make way) in a very rude tone. "Hi there" or even "sorry" would be a definitive improvement over what we have now. ;)
The local racing biker etiquette here seems to be yelling "AUS DEM WEG" (make way) in a very rude tone. "Hi there" or even "sorry" would be a definitive improvement over what we have now. ;)
Instead of yelling "sorry" at people, I try to stick with "on your left", "on your right", or most importantly "can I pass you when the trail widens out". All of which are safer and friendlier than the vauge "move-outta-my-way" signal a bell sends.
> "on your left", "on your right"
I wouldn’t know what these were supposed to mean!
Are you telling me that you’re going to pass on my left or are you telling me to move onto my left? How do you expect people to know?
I wouldn’t know what these were supposed to mean!
Are you telling me that you’re going to pass on my left or are you telling me to move onto my left? How do you expect people to know?
If you hike any sort of trail where you will come across bikes, you’ll quickly get that it means they will pass on the side they mention.
They should say it when you have a bit of time to take a look and assess, but there are some who say it a couple of feet behind you
They should say it when you have a bit of time to take a look and assess, but there are some who say it a couple of feet behind you
Maybe you aren't a native english speaker, but have you ever heard someone ask you to move over by saying a phrase even remotely like "on your left" ?
If something is "on your left" <side>, I'd hope it should be easy to realize that you should either move to the right, or be aware of someone passing "on your left".
If something is "on your left" <side>, I'd hope it should be easy to realize that you should either move to the right, or be aware of someone passing "on your left".
I’m a native speaker and I still get confused if folks shout it at me without giving me more than a second to think about it.
> Maybe you aren't a native English speaker
Lol I'm English.
> If something is "on your left" <side>, I'd hope it should be easy to realize that you should either move to the right
But it could just as likely mean 'please step off the path on your left so I can pass by your right side'.
People make up these conventions and then assume everyone else knows them!
Ideally I'd say don't cycle where people are walking in the first place!
Lol I'm English.
> If something is "on your left" <side>, I'd hope it should be easy to realize that you should either move to the right
But it could just as likely mean 'please step off the path on your left so I can pass by your right side'.
People make up these conventions and then assume everyone else knows them!
Ideally I'd say don't cycle where people are walking in the first place!
[deleted]
Those are the idiomatic phrases for cross-country skiing, biking, trail running, and pretty much every other sport where a slower competitor is required to yield the trail in North America. It’s a pretty reasonable expectation that trail users would be familiar with them.
(The main alternative used in competition is “track track track!” which is distinctly less helpful.)
(The main alternative used in competition is “track track track!” which is distinctly less helpful.)
Many 'trail users' are just normal people out for a walk, not part of any competitive sport. You can't assume people know your lingo.
It’s not about assuming other people know your lingo, it’s about it being the most widely understood phrase with the desired meaning; there isn’t something else you would say that’s more clear to more people.
You should not assume that the other person will understand it and act immediately, but it’s absolutely the correct thing to say in this scenario. You just also need to slow down to be able to respond if they don’t.
You should not assume that the other person will understand it and act immediately, but it’s absolutely the correct thing to say in this scenario. You just also need to slow down to be able to respond if they don’t.
> there isn’t something else you would say that’s more clear to more people
How about 'I'm passing you on your left'?
How about 'I'm passing you on your left'?
[deleted]
I had people express appreciation about having a loud and clear bell, over some unclear yelling from behind. Maybe it's a cultural thing.
Perhaps there is a place for a bell on shared use trails... but I don't see the need for them on dedicated MTB trails. Riding a bike is loud, so you usually hear somebody smashing down a track faster than you are going. I'll usually say something like "there you go" when the trail straightens/widens to indicate they should pass me.
Wait, can you drive a bike without a bell at public roads in your countries? It's illegal here (and for a good reason) so you won't find a bike without a bell (or lights for that matter).
In the UK bikes are required to be sold with a bell, but there is no requirement to have one when riding. So bikes are often sold with the cheapest bell the manufacturer can find, which the rider will remove when it inevitably breaks if not before.
Oddly, here in the Netherlands the reverse seems to be true- it is illegal to ride a bike without a bell on public roads, but bikes are often sold without them...
Oddly, here in the Netherlands the reverse seems to be true- it is illegal to ride a bike without a bell on public roads, but bikes are often sold without them...
Spurcycle bells on both my MTBs. They are great, sound nice and clear -and certainly not too offensive, and are just easy to use whilst looking awesome.
So sad to see their design being ripped off by copycats.
So sad to see their design being ripped off by copycats.
A bell is pointless unless you have some difficulty speaking. People pay much more attention to a verbal hello or warning than a bell.
As someone who uses both verbal alerts e.g. "passing on your left!" and bell dings, I've found that the human brain is quicker to process the "ding" than the verbal cue. At the relative speed of pedestrian vs. cyclist this matters. I think it's simply that "ding ding" is a standard alert with a preprogrammed response, whereas spoken stuff needs to be interpreted first.
My personal optimization is also to not make noise at all, if I can clearly and safely pass without warning i.e. the pedestrian is not moving erratically and there are no small children. On rare occasion this elicits anger from (usually elderly) pedestrians though.
My personal optimization is also to not make noise at all, if I can clearly and safely pass without warning i.e. the pedestrian is not moving erratically and there are no small children. On rare occasion this elicits anger from (usually elderly) pedestrians though.
> As someone who uses both verbal alerts e.g. "passing on your left!" and bell dings, I've found that the human brain is quicker to process the "ding" than the verbal cue. At the relative speed of pedestrian vs. cyclist this matters. I think it's simply that "ding ding" is a standard alert with a preprogrammed response, whereas spoken stuff needs to be interpreted first.
For some humans, sure. The trouble is that maybe 1/3 of people simply won't process the "ding" at all, which makes it so unreliable as to be useless in practice, IME. (You can ring repeatedly and people eventually notice, but overall that's less effective than saying something).
For some humans, sure. The trouble is that maybe 1/3 of people simply won't process the "ding" at all, which makes it so unreliable as to be useless in practice, IME. (You can ring repeatedly and people eventually notice, but overall that's less effective than saying something).
It's the headphones. 100% of the time if I call out or ring the bell and get no reaction, it's because they've got earbuds in. That's OK if at least they're behaving themselves. People who walk onto a busy bike path without looking and with earplugs in are the real menace.
Not my experience. A decent chunk of non-headphone people ignore a bell too.
It's pretty obviously not pointless. This helps with blind turns for example. It also can be heard earlier than a biker's speech (assuming the biker doesn't continually give verbal warnings for 15 seconds as is true for basically all bikers on earth).
> This helps with blind turns for example.
How so? You can say something in the same scenario where you'd ring the bell.
> It also can be heard earlier than a biker's speech (assuming the biker doesn't continually give verbal warnings for 15 seconds as is true for basically all bikers on earth).
I don't quite understand the point you're making here - most bikers don't continually ring a bell for 15 seconds except if a pedestrian is obviously not paying attention, and speech is more effective in that case. Maybe a bell is louder than typical speech, but since it's not acted on reliably by pedestrians, that doesn't help much - you always have to be prepared for the worst case.
How so? You can say something in the same scenario where you'd ring the bell.
> It also can be heard earlier than a biker's speech (assuming the biker doesn't continually give verbal warnings for 15 seconds as is true for basically all bikers on earth).
I don't quite understand the point you're making here - most bikers don't continually ring a bell for 15 seconds except if a pedestrian is obviously not paying attention, and speech is more effective in that case. Maybe a bell is louder than typical speech, but since it's not acted on reliably by pedestrians, that doesn't help much - you always have to be prepared for the worst case.
I prefer the Air Zound. It's like a train horn. Cars notice it.
What a strange non sequitur. I've never said "I don't need a bell because I have an Air Zound" or vice versa. There's no overlap in when I'd use them.
The Air Zound isn't a polite way of telling a pedestrian or cyclist you're passing them. It's more like yelling "move over, jackass!" I can count on one hand the number of times I've used mine on a trail—only when folks were (perhaps deliberately) unaware of more subtle attempts at communication and blocking me from passing and/or doing something reckless. In the few cases I did use it on a trail, people involuntarily jumped in response.
On the other hand, the Air Zound is a way of telling cars "I'm here" / "be careful" / "don't do the stupid thing I see in your eyes". I use it in that way almost daily. (Maybe as much a commentary on the drivers around here as anything else.) A bell just wouldn't work for that at all. They really wouldn't physically hear it.
(I'm a road cyclist and the trails I ride are paved urban creek trails rather than mountain bike tracks, but I think the etiquette is similar.)
The Air Zound isn't a polite way of telling a pedestrian or cyclist you're passing them. It's more like yelling "move over, jackass!" I can count on one hand the number of times I've used mine on a trail—only when folks were (perhaps deliberately) unaware of more subtle attempts at communication and blocking me from passing and/or doing something reckless. In the few cases I did use it on a trail, people involuntarily jumped in response.
On the other hand, the Air Zound is a way of telling cars "I'm here" / "be careful" / "don't do the stupid thing I see in your eyes". I use it in that way almost daily. (Maybe as much a commentary on the drivers around here as anything else.) A bell just wouldn't work for that at all. They really wouldn't physically hear it.
(I'm a road cyclist and the trails I ride are paved urban creek trails rather than mountain bike tracks, but I think the etiquette is similar.)
My first mountain bike was a Fisher mountain bike. I got a wholesale deal Gary Fisher mountain bikes because my mother was dating the bookkeeper. (It was just called Marin Mountian bikes back then.)
Gary Fisher and Charlie Kelly decides to build mountain bikes. This was in 1979? Well both were roommates, who loved bicycles, and loved the outdoors
Both got started on old Schwinn frames tricked out with knobby tires, and such.
They used an old WW2 truck to take a bunch of guys up Mount Tamalpais, and other Fairfax mountains. The main trail down Mt. Tam was called Repac. Why? Because they needed to regrese the rear bearings after a decent.
Well the roommates decided to build mountain bikes, and formed a company.
Both were liberal, and were I guess called hippies back then. Neither knew if people would even like moutan biking.
Gary had some money. Charlie was the fabricator, and inventor. Both had their strong points, but Charlie was the talent.
By the eithties, the business was not thriving. I used to walk by it in high school, and was suprised it was still operating. I loved my mountian green bike though.
One day Charlie decided to leave the business. He just left. I believe their was a fight? Charlie was never about money.
Fisher stayed, and a bit later sold the business to a huge bike company. Fisher is now a multimillionaire. It was luck. It was just the right time, and he stuck it out.
My point in telling this story us don't walk out on any new business.
Don't walk unless you really don't care about money. Charlie was not about the green. I have always admired the way he lived his life.
Mountian biking was started in Fairfax Ca, by about a 12 guys who loved to ride.
I tell this story because Charlie always gets left out of mountian biking history.
Again--Charlie was the talent.
Gary Fisher and Charlie Kelly decides to build mountain bikes. This was in 1979? Well both were roommates, who loved bicycles, and loved the outdoors
Both got started on old Schwinn frames tricked out with knobby tires, and such.
They used an old WW2 truck to take a bunch of guys up Mount Tamalpais, and other Fairfax mountains. The main trail down Mt. Tam was called Repac. Why? Because they needed to regrese the rear bearings after a decent.
Well the roommates decided to build mountain bikes, and formed a company.
Both were liberal, and were I guess called hippies back then. Neither knew if people would even like moutan biking.
Gary had some money. Charlie was the fabricator, and inventor. Both had their strong points, but Charlie was the talent.
By the eithties, the business was not thriving. I used to walk by it in high school, and was suprised it was still operating. I loved my mountian green bike though.
One day Charlie decided to leave the business. He just left. I believe their was a fight? Charlie was never about money.
Fisher stayed, and a bit later sold the business to a huge bike company. Fisher is now a multimillionaire. It was luck. It was just the right time, and he stuck it out.
My point in telling this story us don't walk out on any new business.
Don't walk unless you really don't care about money. Charlie was not about the green. I have always admired the way he lived his life.
Mountian biking was started in Fairfax Ca, by about a 12 guys who loved to ride.
I tell this story because Charlie always gets left out of mountian biking history.
Again--Charlie was the talent.
Now that the Fischer brand is owned by a big bike company (Trek? Specialized?) they have an interest in pushing that narrative. They even made a book about the invention of Mountain bikes with Fischer in the title!
Funny story: Back in the 90's , there was "Fisher" who made bikes, and a much older company "Fischer" that made skis. Fischer complained that Fisher was being confused with their company and wanted them to stop. Gary, a funny guy, thanked them for pointing that out... as Fisher didn't like the association much either. Hence, "Gary Fisher" bikes was the new name.
Yeah it's Trek now. Gary Fisher was one of the first big ones to go heavy on the 29ers, back when 26" was still the norm.
Boy did I feel a bit special on my Hi-fi duallie 11 years ago. :) Still have this bike today, they're built to last.
Boy did I feel a bit special on my Hi-fi duallie 11 years ago. :) Still have this bike today, they're built to last.
I think the claim about de-emphasizing climbing is BS. I just looked at Trek, Giant and Specialized websites and -all- of their mtn bikes ditched the front derailleur and use small-rings in the front. If climbing was passe, why the crazy low gearing?
Bar-ends were add-ons for at least a decade (late-80's early 90's) before they became standard. They provide better control and stability because the radius/ulna are not crossed like they are in the standard position. I think they disappeared because there was too much risk of hooking another rider (think packs of riders shoulder-to-shoulder grinding uphill), and not enough climbing or stability benefit.
Or perhaps aesthetics play more a part of mtnbike design than functionality?
Bar-ends were add-ons for at least a decade (late-80's early 90's) before they became standard. They provide better control and stability because the radius/ulna are not crossed like they are in the standard position. I think they disappeared because there was too much risk of hooking another rider (think packs of riders shoulder-to-shoulder grinding uphill), and not enough climbing or stability benefit.
Or perhaps aesthetics play more a part of mtnbike design than functionality?
> I think the claim about de-emphasizing climbing is BS.
I agree. Downhill is more popular than it was previously, but it hasn’t displaced regular biking. People doing shuttle runs and lift-served are a tiny minority.
Modern bikes climb better than ever. Bar ends were more of a holdover from road biking that quickly went away when everyone realized how undesirable they were on the mountain.
I agree. Downhill is more popular than it was previously, but it hasn’t displaced regular biking. People doing shuttle runs and lift-served are a tiny minority.
Modern bikes climb better than ever. Bar ends were more of a holdover from road biking that quickly went away when everyone realized how undesirable they were on the mountain.
I’m not sure the low slack bikes in vogue now really do climb better tho. Head tube angle is a direct trade off between performance up and down hill.
Seat tube too. I have a fixed fork mountain bike with 67/74.5° head tube vs seat tube angles and a gravel bike with the classic 71/73° or what used to be classic on XC bikes. The gravel bike climbs really well with a higher gear but I wouldn't tank over bumpy terrain with it, the mountain bike is really stable on descents and on flats, climbs okay. Of course a MTB with 63/78° like the new Marin El Roy probably doesn't climb that well?
You should try some of the newer bike geometries. It's amazing what they can get away with.
I'd take a modern slack head tube geometry over an older bike for climbing any day. I've owned plenty of bikes through the years and I'm not going back.
I'd take a modern slack head tube geometry over an older bike for climbing any day. I've owned plenty of bikes through the years and I'm not going back.
> Or perhaps aesthetics play more a part of mtnbike design than functionality?
Nailed it. This is true for almost all bicycle endeavors save actual professional racing. Even then, a pro rider that isn't Egan, Sagan, or Froome is going to ride what the factory says to ride. If they (Specialized, Cannondale, Canyon, Etc.) need to pimp a new product, those dudes will pimp the product. Money talks.
Nailed it. This is true for almost all bicycle endeavors save actual professional racing. Even then, a pro rider that isn't Egan, Sagan, or Froome is going to ride what the factory says to ride. If they (Specialized, Cannondale, Canyon, Etc.) need to pimp a new product, those dudes will pimp the product. Money talks.
The few years when everyone was using curved and tapered main tubes was like shag rugs and paneling, IMHO.
I miss the big fat cannodale brazes, or the Tom Richie flourishes on the headtube and dropouts. But I don't miss needing massive rework to replace a rear derailleur dropout after every crash. :|
I miss the big fat cannodale brazes, or the Tom Richie flourishes on the headtube and dropouts. But I don't miss needing massive rework to replace a rear derailleur dropout after every crash. :|
Disc brakes are exactly this. For racing they are stupid because you don’t need better brakes and spare wheels no longer fit. Only ineos seems to have held out because for stage racing and gt the costs are so much higher. Quickstep used discs first because in one day racing a puncture at the wrong time always meant you lost, so discs didn’t make a material difference.
This is easy to objectively disprove. Disc brakes offer better braking power, don't wear as quickly, and don't fade on long hills. They also keep the braking and structural parts of the wheel independent, so a dented rim doesn't prevent the brakes from working, and wear from braking doesn't structurally compromise the wheel.
There is a lot of fud about discs in the road-biking circles, but it doesn't really hold up to scrutiny.
If you have rim brakes, and you like them, then great! Don't malign them because you dislike change though.
There is a lot of fud about discs in the road-biking circles, but it doesn't really hold up to scrutiny.
If you have rim brakes, and you like them, then great! Don't malign them because you dislike change though.
I wasn't saying anything about discs for general use. Specifically for racing, though, you are wrong: many pros are on the record as saying the braking makes little to no difference in a race and the cost of time lost when you can't get a wheel change is huge. It's already happened in multiple races.
> Disc brakes offer better braking power, don't wear as quickly, and don't fade on long hills
These things are true, but in my experience the limiting factor is almost always grip. I've never been unable to lock up both wheels on road tyres (this is definitely not true off road where the advantage is obvious). This is even more the case in the wet, where disc brakes are touted as even more of an advantage. I do think people often use the straw man of crap cantis or centrpulls on steel rims. On maintenance I think it's less clear cut — if you don't maintain discs regularly they can get sticky and there is _nothing_ more annoying than disc rub, and this is worse on the road than off-road where a bit of grime in discs is to be expected and tolerated (and no worse than mud fouling rim brakes).
> Don't malign them because you dislike change though.
You've jumped straight to accusing me of being a luddite. I actually don't like the _look_ of discs on road bikes but will get them on my next bike for the increased tyre clearance. But I do have them on all my mountain bikes...
> Disc brakes offer better braking power, don't wear as quickly, and don't fade on long hills
These things are true, but in my experience the limiting factor is almost always grip. I've never been unable to lock up both wheels on road tyres (this is definitely not true off road where the advantage is obvious). This is even more the case in the wet, where disc brakes are touted as even more of an advantage. I do think people often use the straw man of crap cantis or centrpulls on steel rims. On maintenance I think it's less clear cut — if you don't maintain discs regularly they can get sticky and there is _nothing_ more annoying than disc rub, and this is worse on the road than off-road where a bit of grime in discs is to be expected and tolerated (and no worse than mud fouling rim brakes).
> Don't malign them because you dislike change though.
You've jumped straight to accusing me of being a luddite. I actually don't like the _look_ of discs on road bikes but will get them on my next bike for the increased tyre clearance. But I do have them on all my mountain bikes...
I'm not trying to start a flame-war, or accuse you of being a luddite. I was just saying that you were: maligning disc brakes, and didn't like change.
The post you replied to was about change for change's (and profit's) sake, to which you responded that that was the case for disc brakes, along with calling them stupid for racing.
Again, if you prefer them, aesthetically or otherwise, that's fine. They're not stupid though, or are they a money grab.
The post you replied to was about change for change's (and profit's) sake, to which you responded that that was the case for disc brakes, along with calling them stupid for racing.
Again, if you prefer them, aesthetically or otherwise, that's fine. They're not stupid though, or are they a money grab.
Disc brakes have their use on road bikes in bad weather conditions. Descending at 90km/h on wet roads with rim brakes is not fun, especially on full carbon rims. I wish I had them in my race days.
Another use: on my oldests bmx race bike, he has a disc brake setup. It is like 300% easier to work on. Pull the axle, and the wheel falls out. No futzing with the caliper to get the wheel off the frame, not concerns about getting the wheel on the exact correct spot.
Isn't adjusting disc brakes a lot easier too? Adjusting rim brakes seems like a never-ending exercise, and the wheel needs to be perfectly true or it will rub. And changing the brake pads with that nut and stack of weird washers is tedious and error-prone. And the squeaks and squeals—I've tried so hard to get rid of them but they always come back.
I'm considering upgrading my hybrid road bike to one with disc brakes just so I never have to deal with rim brakes again. (I currently have a 2015 Trek FX which I otherwise like a lot.)
I'm considering upgrading my hybrid road bike to one with disc brakes just so I never have to deal with rim brakes again. (I currently have a 2015 Trek FX which I otherwise like a lot.)
I grew up riding bicycles of various types with rim brakes. Same as you, always squealing!
In my 20's I learnt to ride motorbikes with associated disc brakes.
Then later a mountain bike with rim brakes. Nope, no way, never going there again.
Any bicycle I or my family has from now on is disc brakes. They are it, until I die or we find something better.
Better capability, easier servicing, more robust in terms of sidestepping rim warp. Better for the rider, better for the mechanic.
In my 20's I learnt to ride motorbikes with associated disc brakes.
Then later a mountain bike with rim brakes. Nope, no way, never going there again.
Any bicycle I or my family has from now on is disc brakes. They are it, until I die or we find something better.
Better capability, easier servicing, more robust in terms of sidestepping rim warp. Better for the rider, better for the mechanic.
What I heard is the biggest issue ties in with mentioned (perhaps inadvertently): carbon rims. Asking them to be the braking device (with associated heat-sink requirements) can cause them to catastrophically delaminate. They can’t safely perform that double-duty like aluminium rims can.
(Edit: clarity)
(Edit: clarity)
This is true for pretty much all sports products. There might be a big tech leap that all manufacturers copy, then stagnation for years masked as incremental improvements that add up to some big change when they really don't.
Golf clubs are notorious for actually moving irons down the numbers to fool you into thinking brand new clubs are so much better. You go to a shop and hit your 6 iron on the golf simulator, then you hit a brand new 6 iron and see you hit it further, then you buy the new club thinking all your shots will go farther thanks to modern technology. What you don't realize is that what is called a 6 iron in your new set actually has the exact same specs as your old 4 iron, and might not really go any farther at all when you compare it to your old 4 iron.
It's the age old trap of selling beginners gear instead of practice (which makes manufacturers nothing).
Golf clubs are notorious for actually moving irons down the numbers to fool you into thinking brand new clubs are so much better. You go to a shop and hit your 6 iron on the golf simulator, then you hit a brand new 6 iron and see you hit it further, then you buy the new club thinking all your shots will go farther thanks to modern technology. What you don't realize is that what is called a 6 iron in your new set actually has the exact same specs as your old 4 iron, and might not really go any farther at all when you compare it to your old 4 iron.
It's the age old trap of selling beginners gear instead of practice (which makes manufacturers nothing).
Hiking products have this problem. They look good in the shop and tick boxes. But a lot of the features are just bad ideas. Weirdly shaped backpacks with small access points that are difficult to get things out of. Light weight zippers that fail easily. "Technical" fabrics that lack permanent water proofing. Expensive boots which will just increase fatigue for most people. With looped lace holes that just degrade.
A couple of things I can think of: bars are a lot wider than they used to be which make it impractical add bar ends to, and bar ends increase the likelihood of hooking vegetation on a descent.
Got a Trek Xcaliber 8 this year and the 1x drivetrain turned out to be like godsend. I can climb much better, not much hassle while cleaning/mantaining the bike and it's a little less weight from it.
If any, 1x drivetrains would de-emphasize going on flat terrain - sometimes you feel like that 30x11 ratio falls too short for a flat road.
If any, 1x drivetrains would de-emphasize going on flat terrain - sometimes you feel like that 30x11 ratio falls too short for a flat road.
Today, maybe, but in the late 90’s when bar ends were popular there was a huge shit from cross country to downhill. Thats when we say full suspension get popular, and ski hill lift assisted runs getting more common.
Now i see more people shifting back to cross country.
At least where I live.
Now i see more people shifting back to cross country.
At least where I live.
Single front chainrings came about from having wider and wider ranges on the rear and suspension designs being made possible by ditching the front derailleur. Yes, there's some top end lost but the range is more the same than different than doubles or even triples.
As someone who has been mountain biking for over 25 years I would say the statement that uphill has been de-emphasized over downhill is absolutely correct. Enduro racing (where the uphills aren't even timed) is a nice example of that.
As someone who has been mountain biking for over 25 years I would say the statement that uphill has been de-emphasized over downhill is absolutely correct. Enduro racing (where the uphills aren't even timed) is a nice example of that.
> uphill has been de-emphasized over downhill
Why is that? I used to do mountain biking and I loved the challenge of climbing a large hill more than the adrenaline of descending it, which I found a bit too risky to my liking :D ...
Why is that? I used to do mountain biking and I loved the challenge of climbing a large hill more than the adrenaline of descending it, which I found a bit too risky to my liking :D ...
Good question. I grew up mountain biking (did my first race 31 years ago) and it was an eclectic mix of people who seemed to enjoy back country single track the most, which included both the climb up and the descent. I'm still in that camp - I don't enjoy 'shaped' (jumps, drops, banked corners etc...) trails as much as more natural looking ones.
To the extent that video sets trends, sending it off wicked drops makes for better video than grinding uphill.
Me too. Probably more people who mountain biked in the 80s and 90s or XC types. I'm still doing it, mostly on a modern fixed fork mountain bike.
Check out the xbiking subreddit. Dedicated to "adventure biking" which is the entirety of off-road riding that exists apart from fast downhill technical single track.
I think it’s because bikes have got so much better that downhills are now fun, rather than just sketchy and dangerous. For me it’s just evened things out so I now love doing both.
Personally, I'd say this is a point of view, or a framing, that is relative. IMO, it's not that climbing specifically has been de-emphasized, it's just that the downhill experience has been emphasized more. Glass half full, etc...
Downhill issues have gotten a ton of attention, because there were problems to solve. Suspensions and geometry are making bikes a lot more stable feeling on descent. Try renting a 29er with a longer wheel base and a six inch suspension, and go down one of those previously risky feeling hills, you'll be surprised how much less risky it seems now.
Uphill issues have gotten relatively less attention, because, perhaps, a climb is a climb. There's little that can be done to improve climbs. Except suspensions are pretty good at firming up on the fly. And dropper post seats are amazing at being able to switch from descent to climb instantly.
In other words, climbing on today's mountain bikes is better - slightly better - than it used to be. Going downhill today is much better than before.
Downhill issues have gotten a ton of attention, because there were problems to solve. Suspensions and geometry are making bikes a lot more stable feeling on descent. Try renting a 29er with a longer wheel base and a six inch suspension, and go down one of those previously risky feeling hills, you'll be surprised how much less risky it seems now.
Uphill issues have gotten relatively less attention, because, perhaps, a climb is a climb. There's little that can be done to improve climbs. Except suspensions are pretty good at firming up on the fly. And dropper post seats are amazing at being able to switch from descent to climb instantly.
In other words, climbing on today's mountain bikes is better - slightly better - than it used to be. Going downhill today is much better than before.
I find this to be the case of cycling in general. I love to climb, way more than descending. I think it's because descending is easier, and what's easier sells more bikes.
In all fairness, the mountain bike was invented to go downhill on Mount Tamalpais in California.
Also, in my opinion, the tailgate pad has made it practical to run [downhill] shuttles using pickups. Prior to that, you had to get a roof rack + 4 trays = $600+. A Dakine pad is $125. Without the shuttle, you have to climb.
Also, in my opinion, the tailgate pad has made it practical to run [downhill] shuttles using pickups. Prior to that, you had to get a roof rack + 4 trays = $600+. A Dakine pad is $125. Without the shuttle, you have to climb.
The movie Klunkerz is free on Amazon Prime right now and has a lot of interviews with the people who were there back then. It's worth a watch if you like bikes.
I think it's a bit more complicated too: they liked to go downhill, but they needed to get back up, and wanted to not have to maintain the bike after one trip down (repack), so bikes that could climb were desirable.
I think it's a bit more complicated too: they liked to go downhill, but they needed to get back up, and wanted to not have to maintain the bike after one trip down (repack), so bikes that could climb were desirable.
[deleted]
> Enduro racing (where the uphills aren't even timed) is a nice example of that.
Ah! Excellent example.
Ah! Excellent example.
Question about single front chainrings... doesn't that decrease the clearance under the rear derailleur? I just looked at some of those new models and the derailleur droops scary low. I can see it getting banged up on rocks/rut walls a lot.
I think gp got it the wrong way round. Single front rings came in because front mechs were always a reliability weak spot as unlike the rear they must shift chain under tension. Also if you ditch them you can run narrow wide chain rings which hold the chain better on rough ground, and you get more clearance under the bottom bracket.
After we realized we didn't need 30 gears, new suspension designs also became possible.
You're right that rear mechs frequently die though.
After we realized we didn't need 30 gears, new suspension designs also became possible.
You're right that rear mechs frequently die though.
The rear derailleur is protected by the presence of the wheel. The bigger danger is getting the front gear caught on things and tipping over on logs or sharp drops. Moving to a smaller front gear gives more clearance for the more likely snags
This is an interesting question. I just went out to look at two bikes I've got, both Santa Cruz, one of them a 26" Nomad from ten years ago, and the other a new Hightower 29er.
I'm pretty sure the derailleur clearance is actually lower on the old 26" bike! The geometry of the derailleur has changed, and when it's on the biggest rear sprocket, the old Nomad derailleur's center of mass is below, lower than the large sprocket. On the new 29er, the derailleur is mostly above the bottom of the largest sprocket. It seems like derailleurs have improved in order to allow the larger sprockets that single front chainrings call for.
The idler (lower pulley) on the 29" is almost certainly further from the axle than on the 26", however the larger wheel means that clearance from the ground is about identical.
I don't think I've ever hit my derailleur on either bike for lack of clearance -- even though I have caught my pedal on a rock or branch multiple times. I have hit the derailleur during a crash, but mainly because the bike was flying around and smacking into things. I'm guessing because the derailleur is behind and inside the path of a pedaling foot, it's mostly protected.
I'm pretty sure the derailleur clearance is actually lower on the old 26" bike! The geometry of the derailleur has changed, and when it's on the biggest rear sprocket, the old Nomad derailleur's center of mass is below, lower than the large sprocket. On the new 29er, the derailleur is mostly above the bottom of the largest sprocket. It seems like derailleurs have improved in order to allow the larger sprockets that single front chainrings call for.
The idler (lower pulley) on the 29" is almost certainly further from the axle than on the 26", however the larger wheel means that clearance from the ground is about identical.
I don't think I've ever hit my derailleur on either bike for lack of clearance -- even though I have caught my pedal on a rock or branch multiple times. I have hit the derailleur during a crash, but mainly because the bike was flying around and smacking into things. I'm guessing because the derailleur is behind and inside the path of a pedaling foot, it's mostly protected.
Aside from the front chainring being more exposed than the rear derailleur, the rear derailleur also tucks away quite dramatically when you upshift. Nobody is in the biggest gear on the way down.
It does, but at the same time as chainrings dropped from 3 to 2 to 1, the wheels grew from 26 to 27.5 to 29 inches (for the most sold bikes), so I imagine in the end perhaps the difference is not so big?
On modern mountain bikes you want to be seated for climbs, thats why their geometry is so different from a bike made 10-15 years ago.
Also, first time you catch a bar end on a branch and get sent over the handle bars you will ditch them. (at least I did)
Also, first time you catch a bar end on a branch and get sent over the handle bars you will ditch them. (at least I did)
I believe you, but how does the geometry help on climbs, I can’t quite picture it?
In my experience you actually don’t need additional traction on the front tire during ascents. You want more traction on the back tire, so leaning forward is more likely to cause slipping. Wider bars makes balancing easier and frames designed to keep the back wheel on the ground (by distributing more weight to the back tire) make it easier to climb.
Back in the days of 26" hard-tails you definitely needed weight over the front wheel to keep it on the ground - there was a fine balancing act of keeping enough weight over the front to not lose control while keeping that back wheel from spinning out.
Modern bike geometry is so so much better! (having tires 2.3+ inches wide helps with traction too!).
Yup, I needed to use a travel-adjust fork on my 26" full-suspension to get up steep inclines without looping. The 29er with today's geometry makes looping on a steep section so much less likely.
Pull on the bars in the direction of the rear tire/ground contact patch. This leads to more rear traction and makes a big difference in sketchy steep climbs.
Seated climbs are faster with a lower heartrate.
https://youtu.be/4zvP4DQgwQE?t=568
https://youtu.be/4zvP4DQgwQE?t=568
(1) bars are significantly wider. Like 30+ cms in some cases. This focuses on skeletal alignment vs. muscular; think wide push-up position vs. narrow. Putting bar ends on these bars would make for an odd posture.
(2) bikes are way longer than they used to be with much slacker head tube angles. this allows you to keep more traction on the uphills in a seated position; standing (which was always less efficient) is not required as much.
(2) bikes are way longer than they used to be with much slacker head tube angles. this allows you to keep more traction on the uphills in a seated position; standing (which was always less efficient) is not required as much.
It does make the steering uphill a bit wobbly though.
Changing the balance point of the bike.
Older geometry frames tended to pop the front wheel, if the rider remained seated and wasn't using bar ends (or just leaning really far forward).
Modern frames are longer overall, with wider bars, so the balance point feels longer and it's easier to remain seated without lifting the front wheel.
Seated climbing is better when possible - the rear suspension can help provide traction, rider just needs to provide the engine.
Older geometry frames tended to pop the front wheel, if the rider remained seated and wasn't using bar ends (or just leaning really far forward).
Modern frames are longer overall, with wider bars, so the balance point feels longer and it's easier to remain seated without lifting the front wheel.
Seated climbing is better when possible - the rear suspension can help provide traction, rider just needs to provide the engine.
There's also a significant trend in frame design towards steeper seattube angles. This shifts the center of mass forward, especially when pointed uphill which helps keep the front wheel from wandering.
Geometry matters. My 2020 35lb enduro bike with 170/160mm travel climbs at least as well than my 2002 28lb XC bike with 125/115mm travel. That's with a frontend that is almost 5 degrees slacker and probably 100mm longer reach. And flat pedals.
Been riding since 1988...bikes are absolutely better now than they've ever been.
Geometry matters. My 2020 35lb enduro bike with 170/160mm travel climbs at least as well than my 2002 28lb XC bike with 125/115mm travel. That's with a frontend that is almost 5 degrees slacker and probably 100mm longer reach. And flat pedals.
Been riding since 1988...bikes are absolutely better now than they've ever been.
Another thing to note is that with the introduction of the dropper post you can have geometry that is both friendly to climbing (rider seated directly above the chain-ring with full leg extension) and going downhill (rider out of seat and weight back above the rear wheel).
There is an important change in the angle in your hip, so leg vs torso.
Modern MTB geometry puts you in a more upright position, and that opens the hip angle. This means for climbing you use more of your glutes and less your quadriceps. This is great, because glutes are the ultimate athletic muscle.
Of course, you have to get used to this position, which is markedly different to the road bike / track bike leaning ahead and closing your hip position. It also gives you great front-back balance and easier control on your bike. Easier to jump (or just shift weight), and you have the wide bars for greater leverage.
Seriously, if someone has not tried a MTB with a modern geometry, they definitely should, they will be blown away by how much better it is than the old ages. Add to this the dropper seatpost, and you have a winner!
Of course, you have to get used to this position, which is markedly different to the road bike / track bike leaning ahead and closing your hip position. It also gives you great front-back balance and easier control on your bike. Easier to jump (or just shift weight), and you have the wide bars for greater leverage.
Seriously, if someone has not tried a MTB with a modern geometry, they definitely should, they will be blown away by how much better it is than the old ages. Add to this the dropper seatpost, and you have a winner!
Another reason you want to be seated on climbs is fewer issues from pogoing on the rear suspension. When everything was a hardtail, a quick uphill sprint out of the saddle made more sense.
That's not another reason, it's the same reason more detailed. Bar-ends had their heyday on top of rigid forks.
I'm a road biker and not a mountain biker but I do have bar ends on my urban bikes and bar ends are great for control and leverage, at least for me. But I don't get that. How is it any more likely to catch a bar end on a branch than it would be for wider, riser bars?
The issue isn't whether it'll hit a branch, it's whether it will let go once it happens. Get a branch inside your bar ends, and you're going down no matter what. Smack it with your regular bars, and you have a decent chance of recovering.
And the recovery is basically to turn your bars in the direction that helps the branch slide off the end, which would be steering toward the brush except that a quick torque at speed will counter-steer, taking you away from the brush.
No, at a minimum the bar has to be moved farther than the bar end length to get the branch loose. That leads to a much larger deviation in the wheel. Now add in that you are moving forward while this is happening. It all combines to make it much, much harder to come off the branch.
If you catch a branch with a bar end while moving you are going to eat some dirt.
If you catch a branch with a bar end while moving you are going to eat some dirt.
I should've made it more explicit, but I was expanding on the case of not having bar ends.
Its funny you say that because the seated/not-seated climb was actually a debate in my cycling club long ago. The agreement was: road = seated, offroad = not seated. Heh, back then (1987?) I rode a cannondale with a 26" front and 24" rear wheel with a gear ratio so low that my cadence had to skyrocket or i'd fall over from lack of momentum, but I sure could climb!
With no rear suspension and tall gearing, it makes sense to stand. But when you have suspension in the back & a big rear sprocket, you get more grip & have more endurance seated.
[deleted]
> too much risk of hooking another rider
As soon as you look at them, the potential for hooking should be obvious. In very average use you won't see many incidents because mountain bikes are often like SUVs and don't see much dirt. As soon as you push them closer to the extremes of close riders, or terrain, then they are an immediate liability.
I would posit that the (professional) riders driving the fashion are also some of those most likely to experience the issues. They'd still have a desire for ergonomics which drives whatever alternative was suggested.
As soon as you look at them, the potential for hooking should be obvious. In very average use you won't see many incidents because mountain bikes are often like SUVs and don't see much dirt. As soon as you push them closer to the extremes of close riders, or terrain, then they are an immediate liability.
I would posit that the (professional) riders driving the fashion are also some of those most likely to experience the issues. They'd still have a desire for ergonomics which drives whatever alternative was suggested.
A big factor is the geometry of modern bikes tend to have a steeper seat tube angle and longer top tube (longer reach). This allows the rider to climb comfortably and more efficiently in a seated position. I think bar ends are more helpful when standing on your pedals while climbing.
I'm a casual rider of a mountain bike, almost always on streets. So I'm no expert. But this guy's reasoning doesn't make sense. I looked up what a "drop bar" is, and it goes DOWN; this lowers your posture profoundly and is NOT a substitute for an extension that goes UP from your handlebars.
Then the idea of only going downhill. Is this really a thing? That seems lame.
I get approving comments on my early-'90s Trek 920 every time I take it out. I was curious as to why, and a guy at a bike shop said that nobody makes an all-purpose bike like that anymore. To me the over-specialization is antithetical to the go-anywhere promise of a mountain bike.
Then the idea of only going downhill. Is this really a thing? That seems lame.
I get approving comments on my early-'90s Trek 920 every time I take it out. I was curious as to why, and a guy at a bike shop said that nobody makes an all-purpose bike like that anymore. To me the over-specialization is antithetical to the go-anywhere promise of a mountain bike.
Drop bars also have brake lever hoods that function sort of like bar ends. Most my road bike riding is done from the hoods. Both give you a neutral hand position.
Surly still makes a lot of all purpose bikes. The big brands also have a model or two, Trek has the 520 and the current 920 but they're drop bar models, also Giant with their Tough Road line. But they're not really that marketed since then one wouldn't need multiple bikes.
There are some great tyres out there now too. Pretty slick in the middle and knobbly on the sides, so both road and trail work.
I am mystified by standard gearing on newer bikes though. It may be due to my height or a dumb riding style, but I basically only use the top 4-5 gears.
I am mystified by standard gearing on newer bikes though. It may be due to my height or a dumb riding style, but I basically only use the top 4-5 gears.
They do make all purpose bikes, they're just called 'hybrids' now.
Giant Tough Road feels a lot like a modern take on a 90s mountain bike.
Giant Tough Road feels a lot like a modern take on a 90s mountain bike.
>Then the idea of only going downhill. Is this really a thing? That seems lame.
Going downhill is a lot (A LOT) of fun. Way more fun that going uphill (for most I would say). So many people just want to skip the uphill part and only go downhill.
I have an eMTB so going uphill for me is fun. But there's people who would never drive an eMTB so they use bike lifts ;)
Going downhill is a lot (A LOT) of fun. Way more fun that going uphill (for most I would say). So many people just want to skip the uphill part and only go downhill.
I have an eMTB so going uphill for me is fun. But there's people who would never drive an eMTB so they use bike lifts ;)
The size of a chain ring doesn't matter, it's the gear ratio, which are larger than ever, making climbing significantly easier. Front Deraillers were ditched because they're (a) now rednundant to get huge ranges and (b) technically inferior (weight, tuning, etc).
Mountain bikers raarely (never?) group together in packs on climbs. Even in an XC race you might get one or two riders but even this is odd on a technical climb.
I think it's redundant with wider, riser bars, you can't cover the brakes which you should be at almost all times, and they look terrible.
Mountain bikers raarely (never?) group together in packs on climbs. Even in an XC race you might get one or two riders but even this is odd on a technical climb.
I think it's redundant with wider, riser bars, you can't cover the brakes which you should be at almost all times, and they look terrible.
The new SRAM Eagle drivetrains have insane gear ratios that we couldn’t have dreamed about even 10 years ago.
My new Mountain bike has a 5.4:1 gear ratio at its highest setting. Back when riser bars were popular we were happy to have gear ratios of 2:1.
My new Mountain bike has a 5.4:1 gear ratio at its highest setting. Back when riser bars were popular we were happy to have gear ratios of 2:1.
> too much risk of hooking another rider
I don't think so. Freak accidents aside, I think it would have been well documented if that were the case.
Think about it, in any scenario where someone is being hit forcefully by a bar-end there's also another rider and a bike behind that bar-end. At speed, a bruise from bar-end is the least of their problems.
> Or perhaps aesthetics play more a part of mtnbike design than functionality?
Oh, hell yes.
There was a time from the mid-90's up through a some years ago when almost every mass-market bike had to have "suspension". What this meant in practice was a crappy useless fork suspension that did nothing but add weight and subtract from the overall quality of the bike. Ironically the category of "mountain bike" had the perception of toughness when it was anything but tough especially for street riding.
In the last decade or so, it seems more people are using bikes for real practical uses. They realize they don't want a 45lb "mountain bike" with flimsy doodads like fork suspension and cheap grip shifters. It's now possible to get a simple street bike in the mass-market with not too many frills that is good quality and will last longer and have easier maintenance than a "mountain bike".
I don't think so. Freak accidents aside, I think it would have been well documented if that were the case.
Think about it, in any scenario where someone is being hit forcefully by a bar-end there's also another rider and a bike behind that bar-end. At speed, a bruise from bar-end is the least of their problems.
> Or perhaps aesthetics play more a part of mtnbike design than functionality?
Oh, hell yes.
There was a time from the mid-90's up through a some years ago when almost every mass-market bike had to have "suspension". What this meant in practice was a crappy useless fork suspension that did nothing but add weight and subtract from the overall quality of the bike. Ironically the category of "mountain bike" had the perception of toughness when it was anything but tough especially for street riding.
In the last decade or so, it seems more people are using bikes for real practical uses. They realize they don't want a 45lb "mountain bike" with flimsy doodads like fork suspension and cheap grip shifters. It's now possible to get a simple street bike in the mass-market with not too many frills that is good quality and will last longer and have easier maintenance than a "mountain bike".
> Think about it, in any scenario where someone is being hit forcefully by bar-end there's also another rider and a bike behind that bar-end. At speed, a bruise from bar-end is the least of their problems.
I think GP's point about hooking another rider might be about the bar end acting as a hook and getting caught in something, as opposed to just hitting.
So yeah, of course behind the bar end there's the rest of the bike and the rider, but what could be just two riders "touching" (and, granted, possibly falling), can turn into a worse situation if the bars of one bike catch something on the other bike (say a backpack strap) causing the first bike to steer abruptly and bringing both bikes down together.
Not sure how often this happens, but I wouldn't be surprised of this possibly happening when I see the way people ride bikes around my city, bunching up one against the other, turning unpredictably, etc.
I think GP's point about hooking another rider might be about the bar end acting as a hook and getting caught in something, as opposed to just hitting.
So yeah, of course behind the bar end there's the rest of the bike and the rider, but what could be just two riders "touching" (and, granted, possibly falling), can turn into a worse situation if the bars of one bike catch something on the other bike (say a backpack strap) causing the first bike to steer abruptly and bringing both bikes down together.
Not sure how often this happens, but I wouldn't be surprised of this possibly happening when I see the way people ride bikes around my city, bunching up one against the other, turning unpredictably, etc.
Road bike handlebars have the same problems due to the brake hoods. That got a little safer when cables started routing under the handlebar tape instead of sticking up and slightly out.
The consequences of entangling might be a little higher on a mountain bike, but that depends on the situation. Mountain bikers aren't being crowded by semi trailers as often as road bikes, but road bikes aren't flying off embankments into trees very often.
I see that there are more than a couple of models of MTB bar-ends that look like brake hoods. That's probably pretty close to the best compromise you can do, without staging a major educational campaign about how human grip strength works (middle, ring and thumb do nearly all of the work)
The consequences of entangling might be a little higher on a mountain bike, but that depends on the situation. Mountain bikers aren't being crowded by semi trailers as often as road bikes, but road bikes aren't flying off embankments into trees very often.
I see that there are more than a couple of models of MTB bar-ends that look like brake hoods. That's probably pretty close to the best compromise you can do, without staging a major educational campaign about how human grip strength works (middle, ring and thumb do nearly all of the work)
Me and the kids race BMX bikes, and you’re actually far more likely to take a bar end to your own self, rather than another rider. You typically bang elbows more than you’re hitting a bar on a competitor.
I’ve actually seen a kid get impaled in the chest from his own bar end.
And the comment about aesthetics is 100% spot on with a majority of the bike crowd.
I’ve actually seen a kid get impaled in the chest from his own bar end.
And the comment about aesthetics is 100% spot on with a majority of the bike crowd.
> I think the claim about de-emphasizing climbing is BS.
Depends on what you use. Cross Country have much less compromise than enduros. On these, descent is the priority though, that's why you get slacker and slacker frames every year, heavy suspension systems and large tires that weigh the same as a dead elephant. The best sign that they're getting closer is that I'm feeling fine with going to the bike park in Whistler with my enduro, which I'd never have tried 10y ago.
Of course going up is always important and all these are not an entire sacrifice, powertrains are much better than they used to, locking sus actually works, and don't get me started with droppers!
But try to go up on a light hardtail retrobike sometimes, and then down. These were optimized for ups
Depends on what you use. Cross Country have much less compromise than enduros. On these, descent is the priority though, that's why you get slacker and slacker frames every year, heavy suspension systems and large tires that weigh the same as a dead elephant. The best sign that they're getting closer is that I'm feeling fine with going to the bike park in Whistler with my enduro, which I'd never have tried 10y ago.
Of course going up is always important and all these are not an entire sacrifice, powertrains are much better than they used to, locking sus actually works, and don't get me started with droppers!
But try to go up on a light hardtail retrobike sometimes, and then down. These were optimized for ups
Are powertrains really much better? I have retro shimsno lx on one bike and it’s really not much different to current slx in terms of shifting perf. Ratios not so good admittedly and triples look fugly!
Powertrains are much, much better.
- You can shift under load (usually)
- Shifts are a little faster
- Clutches give less chainslap
- Narrow-wide rings hold the chain freakishly well
- You can shift under load (usually)
- Shifts are a little faster
- Clutches give less chainslap
- Narrow-wide rings hold the chain freakishly well
> too much risk of hooking another rider
If this really was the case they should have made a backwards-steering bike like this instead: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fx1V5KT1Lwo
With bikes with straight handlebars, if you graze a fence with the handlebar, the bike will steer INTO the fence, whereas if you have backwards handlebars the bike will auto-steer away from the fence or whatever you bump into.
If this really was the case they should have made a backwards-steering bike like this instead: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fx1V5KT1Lwo
With bikes with straight handlebars, if you graze a fence with the handlebar, the bike will steer INTO the fence, whereas if you have backwards handlebars the bike will auto-steer away from the fence or whatever you bump into.
A regular bike auto-steers away. The wheel pulls toward the obstacle, which counter-steers so that you will fall/turn away from the obstacle.
Reverse steering would just trip you into the obstacle.
Reverse steering would just trip you into the obstacle.
The new "crazy-low gearing" isn't crazy at all - new hub designs allow the smallest gear on the cassette to be 10 tooth instead of 11, so a correspondingly smaller front chainring can be used to get the same gear ratios as before.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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!
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.
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?
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.
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 :)
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 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.
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'...
- 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'...
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
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).
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.
> 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.
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.
I did a ton of mountain biking in the late 90s and early 2000s, after years of BMX racing, and one reason myself (and at least a few friends) stopped using bar-ends is because we kept injuring ourselves on them - they had to be constantly tightened or they would come loose while climbing or going downhill. I know more than one person that wrecked a wrist after a bar-end popped off and exposed the sharp metal edge of a handlebar.
I also biked with crazy people, so that was probably issue #1.
I also biked with crazy people, so that was probably issue #1.
The article has only a single sentence on it, but bar ends are illegal in racing, because they can gouge you and because they can hook on things.
From UCI mtb race regs 4.1.040 [1]: "During MTB races no traditional road handlebars may be used.
Clips-on extensions are forbidden but traditional barends are authorized."
If races you race in ban bar ends it's a local rule.
[1] https://www.uci.org/docs/default-source/rules-and-regulation...
If races you race in ban bar ends it's a local rule.
[1] https://www.uci.org/docs/default-source/rules-and-regulation...
I wasn't aware bar-ends were accessories! When I had my mountain bikes as a teenager, they were welded on so there was never any movement.
In the mid-to-late 90s, in hindsight, they were horribly dangerous. Usually each bar-end had an under-engineered tension system that was tightened with a single screw, or two small screws, everything metal on metal and prone to loosening as you rattled up and down trails. To add to that danger, we were installing these all ourselves, so there was likely some WD—40 on the handlebars from when we first put our grips on. All around a lot of poor decisions were made. Probably not a universal thing, but that’s how everyone I knew put their bikes together.
I liked the end bars only cos I could put my backpack on it when riding home from school. :D
"mountain biking" for me as a teenager in New England in the 90s was taking my hard-fork, hard-tail univega out for a ride on a dirt road under some power lines, with 2-3 other kids.
The idea of lift-served downhill biking never crossed our minds. You needed suspension to do any real woods singletrack because the roots and rocks were too numerous. But suspension put the price of a decent bike closer to 1000 bucks rather than <500 and four digits seemed to be a bridge too far for most of our parents' huffy-anchored understanding of "bicycle cost" let alone budget in the 90s.
So we bought bar ends for 30 bucks of saved up lawn mowing cash and told ourselves that they helped for climbs.
The idea of lift-served downhill biking never crossed our minds. You needed suspension to do any real woods singletrack because the roots and rocks were too numerous. But suspension put the price of a decent bike closer to 1000 bucks rather than <500 and four digits seemed to be a bridge too far for most of our parents' huffy-anchored understanding of "bicycle cost" let alone budget in the 90s.
So we bought bar ends for 30 bucks of saved up lawn mowing cash and told ourselves that they helped for climbs.
Same story. Bought a rigid Rockhopper XC in 1993 as an eighth grader with $400 of summer wages. Started life as an off road machine, but converted to an after-school work commuter, then a college commuter, then a law school commuter, then a law firm commuter. Thousands and thousands of miles. At some point it lost its bar ends, along with most of the original drivetrain. Now that I live outside of town, it sees less action. So does its owner. My mid-section tells me I should get back on the nearly 30 year old bike hanging in my garage.
I have a "gravel" bike with drop bars [1] and I love it. I ride it on roads and a variety of trails. Doesn't have a suspension, but I don't miss it. Not doing super technical rocky stuff. Having drop bars is great though, I can vary my hand positions quite a bit and I seem to have plenty of steering control.
[1] https://www.bikes.com/en/bikes/solo/2019
[1] https://www.bikes.com/en/bikes/solo/2019
I ride a Kona Sutra Ltd, also a drop-bar, fat-tire, 1x + disc rig and I love it. It's funny how old the idea is, though. There were CX events in the 1970s where guys were riding drops and fat (for the time) tires, and Gary Fisher was selling a mountain bike with drops before they sold the company, back around 1990. And of course Gary Fisher invented mountain biking on a Schwinn, wearing jeans and a denim jacket, basically giving zero fucks about the kit. The original "riser bar" mountain riders were the people putting BMX bars on Schwinns.
FYI, "fat tire" generally refers to tires that are at least 3.75in wide. Your bike doesn't quite qualify for that :)
That bike looks nice! I am in the process of building a similar looking gravel bike, but with a titanium frame instead of steel.
Interestingly, gravel bikes are now starting to have suspension, such as the Cannondale Topstone Lefty and Lauf True Grit. The line between gravel bikes and mountain bikes is getting more and more blurred.
That bike looks nice! I am in the process of building a similar looking gravel bike, but with a titanium frame instead of steel.
Interestingly, gravel bikes are now starting to have suspension, such as the Cannondale Topstone Lefty and Lauf True Grit. The line between gravel bikes and mountain bikes is getting more and more blurred.
Well, “fat” meaning “too big even for motorcycles” is a recent thing. Decades ago a 43-size tire like the Rock ‘n Road raised questions about clearances. Bikes with a fork and brake that could accommodate the size were desirable for off-road use.
If a gravel or all-road bike was an option, it's what I might have purchased when I got my road bike so many years ago. I considered putting drops on a hybrid frame, but that was a lot more work and was living in an apartment with few tools at the time.
The article is actually talking about something different - the 90s style mountain bikes that were precursors to gravel/cyclocross bikes had what is comparable to bullhorn handlebars.
Drop bars will never go away :)
Drop bars will never go away :)
It is worth noting that there is a lively sub-culture within the MTB scene (at least in the U.S.) that favor "non-traditional" bar designs. Jeff Jones' bar design[0] has become a favorite for bike packers and recreational cyclists. The bar permits a more natural wrist position than the typical riser bar, as well as multiple hand positions. I doubt the design will ever overtake risers (or sweep bars) on the race circuit (which, for better or for worse influence design for most major brands), but I see more and more bikes on the trail with a Jones (or Jones-like) bar.
[0] https://www.jonesbikes.com/h-bars/
[0] https://www.jonesbikes.com/h-bars/
Yeah, for longer distances, multiple hand positions are nice for recruiting different muscles (hence the traditional popularity of drop bars for touring).
It's interesting the author of the article didn't mention bar-ends returning in the form of inner bar-ends: https://www.sq-lab.com/en/products/innerbarends/sqlab-innerb...
Due to MTB handlebars getting extremely wide, having something narrower and in a vertical wrist position helps change things up. Especially if one is riding miles on gentle terrain.
Also, endurance riders like Lael Wilcox, who's won the Trans-Am and Tour Divide, are now mounting aerobars, normally found on tri-bikes, on their bikepacking bikes for both aero benefits and to rest the muscles.
It's interesting the author of the article didn't mention bar-ends returning in the form of inner bar-ends: https://www.sq-lab.com/en/products/innerbarends/sqlab-innerb...
Due to MTB handlebars getting extremely wide, having something narrower and in a vertical wrist position helps change things up. Especially if one is riding miles on gentle terrain.
Also, endurance riders like Lael Wilcox, who's won the Trans-Am and Tour Divide, are now mounting aerobars, normally found on tri-bikes, on their bikepacking bikes for both aero benefits and to rest the muscles.
In the 90s I had these funky Scott mountain aero bars that had the typical mountain straight section, a good bar end like extension, then they looped back around to meet in the center for the front part of the aero bars. Forearm cups and all.
Don’t remember what they were called, but I wonder if they’ll come back into style.
Don’t remember what they were called, but I wonder if they’ll come back into style.
Butterfly bars? I think most folks can't get past the aesthetics.
Found them. Scott at-4 pros.
https://www.mtbr.com/threads/modified-scott-at-4-pro-bars-li...
Third pic down with the yellow bar tape, but with the forearm cups on the flat section as well.
https://www.mtbr.com/threads/modified-scott-at-4-pro-bars-li...
Third pic down with the yellow bar tape, but with the forearm cups on the flat section as well.
I just went to butterfly (trekking) bars, replacing my drops on a touring bike. Arthritis on my neck hit me bad, and that change allowed me to ride again. I tried a lot of different bar types after getting arthritis, those are by far the best.
But, going fast on a downhill and quick cornering, takes a bit of practice.
But, going fast on a downhill and quick cornering, takes a bit of practice.
He kinda does:
Some people like the “inside the grips” bar end set-up as it resembles the popular Velo Orange crazy bar which has an integrated bullhorn section for smoother roads and headwinds.
To know if this set-up will work for you, you’ll just have to try. It’s not a popular choice, though.
A sort of half-measure is available with TOGS thumb grips.
Some people like the “inside the grips” bar end set-up as it resembles the popular Velo Orange crazy bar which has an integrated bullhorn section for smoother roads and headwinds.
To know if this set-up will work for you, you’ll just have to try. It’s not a popular choice, though.
A sort of half-measure is available with TOGS thumb grips.
If you commute by bike, get them (or a bar-end mirror that sticks out)! They will save your hands in a crash!
I have a bike mirror that's structurally like a bar-end. I got right hooked by a driver: he didn't look nor signal, just yanked the wheel while I was in the bike lane next to him. The mirror/bar-end left a dent and then deep scratch all the way down the side of his SUV. That could have been my fingers!
I have a bike mirror that's structurally like a bar-end. I got right hooked by a driver: he didn't look nor signal, just yanked the wheel while I was in the bike lane next to him. The mirror/bar-end left a dent and then deep scratch all the way down the side of his SUV. That could have been my fingers!
If you had been holding onto the bar end at the time, it would have been your fingers, wouldn't it?
He's saying use them like a guard, not as a handle
Perhaps the design should be combined with the guard ring of Oculus controllers:
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/D86jDhirxSY/maxresdefault.jpg
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/D86jDhirxSY/maxresdefault.jpg
[deleted]
Handguards with wrap-around metal guards are a must on my dirt bike and commuter motorcycle. There is a small chance in an over-the-bars crash I could get a wrist caught in the guard, but this is unlikely and the more common incident I have is either a drop on a loose or cambered surface or hitting something like a bush or low branch and knocking it out of the way in a narrow gap.
I don't see any direct comment about bar ends and ergonomics.
Going from a road bike to a mountain bike is hard because you get basically ONE body position with a flat bar.
On my road bike I constantly change positions - on the center of the bar, on the hoods, on the drops, etc. This lets my back and shoulders move around and not get stiff.
On a mountain bike with a flat bar, it kills my back and shoulders the more time spent riding. You're stuck in one position.
You can alleviate it a little bit by moving around on the saddle or standing up, but not too much.
But bar ends help with this shortcoming.
Going from a road bike to a mountain bike is hard because you get basically ONE body position with a flat bar.
On my road bike I constantly change positions - on the center of the bar, on the hoods, on the drops, etc. This lets my back and shoulders move around and not get stiff.
On a mountain bike with a flat bar, it kills my back and shoulders the more time spent riding. You're stuck in one position.
You can alleviate it a little bit by moving around on the saddle or standing up, but not too much.
But bar ends help with this shortcoming.
Well, on a MTB you are changing your position _all the time_. Regardless of your handlebar setup. You move your body around, up and down (you have a dropper seatpost, of course), fore and aft, left and right. If you don't do this, you aren't actually "mountain biking". Maybe riding fireroads? That's fine, but you don't need an MTB for that.
I can't imagine many scenarios I could ride that would fit your description, other than going to a closed course track. Most places I've ridden included a large amount of "getting to" and "getting back from" that was on-the-seat riding.
Moderate to high speed contact with tangly vines or brush are enough to warrant a somewhat dangerous tug on the jersey or directly on the skin and consequently a semi-violent jerk to the handlebar. Now multiply that with the hooking power of an aluminum J-shaped tube sticking out of the front of the bike and now you get why bar ends disappeared quite fast from modern mountain bikes.
Also worth noting, compared to the 90s, bars are much wider (5+in ) , making it more dangerous: catch more vines and when you catch one, more leverage for a disaster.
Not to mention the bikes are WAAAYYYYYYY faster over just about all terrain (suspension design, tire design, etc), and even more so going downhill. Instead of hooking bars at 10mph, you're doing it at 20mph+.
Because they're ugly and most importantly they provide basically no benefit for mountain biking. If you're doing something like gravel riding or road riding then yes they're nice but you typically have drop bars on those bikes.
Having a big silly piece of metal sticking forward on your bars while you're trying to speed down a steep techy piece of single track is just asking to get hurt. It'd be as dumb as putting a kickstand on your mountain bike.
The only reason they used to be there is because mountain biking was so new it hadn't completely separated from the roadie culture. Older mountain bikes have skinny tires, narrow bars, long stems etc. All of this stuff has been proven to make downhill riding harder and less enjoyable.
Having a big silly piece of metal sticking forward on your bars while you're trying to speed down a steep techy piece of single track is just asking to get hurt. It'd be as dumb as putting a kickstand on your mountain bike.
The only reason they used to be there is because mountain biking was so new it hadn't completely separated from the roadie culture. Older mountain bikes have skinny tires, narrow bars, long stems etc. All of this stuff has been proven to make downhill riding harder and less enjoyable.
>Having a big silly piece of metal sticking forward on your bars while you're trying to speed down a steep techy piece of single track is just asking to get hurt. It'd be as dumb as putting a kickstand on your mountain bike.
Been mountin biking for 35 years, I have a kickstand on my bike. What argument against them is there?
Been mountin biking for 35 years, I have a kickstand on my bike. What argument against them is there?
Respectfully speaking, I think we’re talking about different kinds of mountain biking.
Respectfully speaking, that doesn't answer my question. We may be talking different kinds, true, I tend to go far enough that I'll absolutely need to stop and rest before heading back. Maybe you're just on short jaunts where stopping isn't needed?
The wave of MTB that we're currently in is loosely based on lots of things, but two major shifts have happened in the last 10-ish years.
* the geometries of bikes have changed dramatically. Bikes are longer, with slacker headtubes, longer reaches and steeper seattubes. 29" wheels are finally being crowned as "the" standard, with 27.5 and 26" wheels being relegated to speciality bikes.
*The style of riding has shifted from XC, where distance and ups/downs are to be expected, to more Enduro-style, where you go up to go down. The downs are what your bike is oriented to do. The downs are also getting more 'extreme' in the sense that you're seeing lots more flow/jump trails or simply highly technical sections.
Kickstands are not used (I haven't seen one affixed to a modern MTB in a decade or more) because they're heavy, they're a moving part, and most of the routes I ride they'd be an annoyance. They might be useful for you, but you're not going to find any manufacturer touting them as standard equipment (or even compatible) today.
* the geometries of bikes have changed dramatically. Bikes are longer, with slacker headtubes, longer reaches and steeper seattubes. 29" wheels are finally being crowned as "the" standard, with 27.5 and 26" wheels being relegated to speciality bikes.
*The style of riding has shifted from XC, where distance and ups/downs are to be expected, to more Enduro-style, where you go up to go down. The downs are what your bike is oriented to do. The downs are also getting more 'extreme' in the sense that you're seeing lots more flow/jump trails or simply highly technical sections.
Kickstands are not used (I haven't seen one affixed to a modern MTB in a decade or more) because they're heavy, they're a moving part, and most of the routes I ride they'd be an annoyance. They might be useful for you, but you're not going to find any manufacturer touting them as standard equipment (or even compatible) today.
Oh, I know they're not SOP anymore, haven't been for ages. But, they're pretty light and useful for when you get off the bike and don't want to lay it on the ground or on a tree.
I think this is a big issue in this thread. A lot of people in here are calling riding on gravel or maybe a tame dirt path on there way to work mountain biking. This is why bar-ends and kickstands make sense to them because they're not actually mountain biking.
I would imagine snagging it on things, having it drop down due to a big impact and getting tangled in your pedals, or potential impact with your heels since feet are more active on MTBs.
Change the springs if they fall down. I've hit trees and bent frames and not had the kickstand come out. If your heels are flying all over the place, the problem isn't the stand, it's not keeping your feet on the pedals. Heels shouldn't be going side to side when you're mountina biking.
>Been mountin biking for 35 years, I have a kickstand on my bike. What argument against them is there?
Respectfully, I have to ask what you consider mountain biking? I'm not trying to be mean but I have a suspicion that you're not doing real mountain biking and maybe just riding on gravel roads or tame dirt paths. Do me a favor and look up the Whole Enchilada in Moab, UT and let me know if that's even close to what you're doing while mountain biking. I think it'll make more sense.
They're extra weight that can get caught on things and break your frame or you. I've never seen a serious mountain biker riding with a kickstand.
Respectfully, I have to ask what you consider mountain biking? I'm not trying to be mean but I have a suspicion that you're not doing real mountain biking and maybe just riding on gravel roads or tame dirt paths. Do me a favor and look up the Whole Enchilada in Moab, UT and let me know if that's even close to what you're doing while mountain biking. I think it'll make more sense.
They're extra weight that can get caught on things and break your frame or you. I've never seen a serious mountain biker riding with a kickstand.
Every single reason you listed is covered in the article.
And as with so many articles, the reader might ask, what is this thing you are talking about? What is a bar end?
I realize a picture of the front of a bike was provided but it looked pretty normal to me, and I see where the bar ends, but that’s not making it any more clear.
Gradually through reading between the lines I can get an inkling, but readers deserve a short definition up front, beyond just saying they are an emblematic retro accessory.
I realize a picture of the front of a bike was provided but it looked pretty normal to me, and I see where the bar ends, but that’s not making it any more clear.
Gradually through reading between the lines I can get an inkling, but readers deserve a short definition up front, beyond just saying they are an emblematic retro accessory.
This has always been a problem with news aggregation, and it drives me nuts just as much.
In this case, if you're an avid brainybiker.com reader, it might not any sense to define the term, any more than a JavaScript blog needs to explain what IE is. Or even link to the IE Wikipedia article (or else every other word would turn into a link).
On the other hand, when a story gets picked up by a wider audience, people like you and me don't have a clue what the subject of the article even is.
I wish there was some kind of solution to it, but I don't see one.
(It's not like authors are given some urgent phone alert that their article from an hour ago, or two years ago, is getting picked up and they ought to add a prefacing paragraph for general readers in the next 5 minutes...)
In this case, if you're an avid brainybiker.com reader, it might not any sense to define the term, any more than a JavaScript blog needs to explain what IE is. Or even link to the IE Wikipedia article (or else every other word would turn into a link).
On the other hand, when a story gets picked up by a wider audience, people like you and me don't have a clue what the subject of the article even is.
I wish there was some kind of solution to it, but I don't see one.
(It's not like authors are given some urgent phone alert that their article from an hour ago, or two years ago, is getting picked up and they ought to add a prefacing paragraph for general readers in the next 5 minutes...)
Why do we naturally place this burden on the content creator? Of course they're welcome to optimize or chase more eyeballs however they want, but the idea that the reader has to do some work (or not!) was once accepted but not in the era of limitless access to specialized content.
I think you’re overstating the case when you say it’s a burden.
All of us google stuff all the time so that’s not a huge burden either.
It’s just more efficient for one person to write a quick definition than it is for 10 or 1,000 people to go look something up.
All of us google stuff all the time so that’s not a huge burden either.
It’s just more efficient for one person to write a quick definition than it is for 10 or 1,000 people to go look something up.
The majority of readers might very well find it inefficient if words are wasted on explaining things they are familiar with.
It can also turn people off the content. If an article on woodworking (my hobby) explains what a cap iron is, I’m likely to move on because I don’t think I’ll learn anything new there.
It can also turn people off the content. If an article on woodworking (my hobby) explains what a cap iron is, I’m likely to move on because I don’t think I’ll learn anything new there.
I addressed this in another comment. Skipping over a known definition is something our eyes and brains do very quickly and easily. It's not going to slow down a reader who already knows.
As far as turning off some readers, on the one hand, that's natural and unavoidable, if the reader detects the article isn't of interest. There's no obligation that all articles should be interesting to all readers. But defining the basic topic is table stakes.
And on the other hand, the case here is slightly different from what you describe, as well. It's an article about why something went away. So even if it started with saying what that thing is, the main content might still be interesting to someone who already knew what that thing was.
As far as turning off some readers, on the one hand, that's natural and unavoidable, if the reader detects the article isn't of interest. There's no obligation that all articles should be interesting to all readers. But defining the basic topic is table stakes.
And on the other hand, the case here is slightly different from what you describe, as well. It's an article about why something went away. So even if it started with saying what that thing is, the main content might still be interesting to someone who already knew what that thing was.
Exactly. It isn't the fault of super niche blog for not giving an elementary intro to the subject. Indeed, that would be infuriating for experts to read every time. Insofar as this missing context for social-media-linked novices is a problem, it's one that needs to be solved on the social media side.
That would actually be really cool, especially for HN.
Imagine if HN submissions allowed an optional field with a link or short description for "additional context" that the submitter could fill in.
I mean, I can't count the number of times there's been a post on the front page that's just a link to a newly released version of something many readers have never heard of, and half the commenters are like "I've been waiting for this for so long, congrats!" and while the top-voted comment is "what is this exactly? Can someone explain?"
Imagine if HN submissions allowed an optional field with a link or short description for "additional context" that the submitter could fill in.
I mean, I can't count the number of times there's been a post on the front page that's just a link to a newly released version of something many readers have never heard of, and half the commenters are like "I've been waiting for this for so long, congrats!" and while the top-voted comment is "what is this exactly? Can someone explain?"
I actually like this idea, but discovered early on that functionality did not exist, I wondered why but assumed it was for a good reason and forgot about it.
An alternative I often see is an "author here" or "OP, I posted this because..." comment that sometimes is but as often is not the top item.
An alternative I often see is an "author here" or "OP, I posted this because..." comment that sometimes is but as often is not the top item.
> I wish there was some kind of solution to it, but I don't see one.
Have you tried googling the terms you don't know?
Have you tried googling the terms you don't know?
Sometimes it works, but sometimes it doesn't.
Quite often terms are made of common words and Google returns more common contexts. If something is a niche usage, it can be quite challenging to find other terms to add to the search to try to narrow in on the right domain.
Other times it's easy to find the term but that still doesn't give you the "debate" or "significance". E.g. whenever a programmer says the words "except Internet Explorer" we all know exactly what that means. But a non-programmer isn't going to have an easy time figuring that out with Google.
Quite often terms are made of common words and Google returns more common contexts. If something is a niche usage, it can be quite challenging to find other terms to add to the search to try to narrow in on the right domain.
Other times it's easy to find the term but that still doesn't give you the "debate" or "significance". E.g. whenever a programmer says the words "except Internet Explorer" we all know exactly what that means. But a non-programmer isn't going to have an easy time figuring that out with Google.
I think your comment is thoughtful but I want to say, the item in question is the topic of the entire article.
I do see a solution, the tried and true art of defining what is being talked about.
Some jargon mentioned in passing? Probably no, in many cases, because the tradeoff of defining ALL terms would be stifling. But the actual topic? Worth it.
I do see a solution, the tried and true art of defining what is being talked about.
Some jargon mentioned in passing? Probably no, in many cases, because the tradeoff of defining ALL terms would be stifling. But the actual topic? Worth it.
It isn't a problem. If you're interested in the article because you know about the subject, there's no need to for you to waste time reading it. If you don't know about the subject but you're curious about the article anyway, you can search for it. I think it's a reasonable assumption for an article writer that is a quick Duck Duck Go away for someone who isn't the primary audience of the article. It's too bad for someone who is using Read Later, but I'll point to this:
https://signalvnoise.com/posts/347-youre-not-on-a-fucking-pl...
https://signalvnoise.com/posts/347-youre-not-on-a-fucking-pl...
Maybe if they are writing for Reader's Digest or some other generic media, but anyone talking about the details of bar ends is writing for a specific audience; they are far better to focus on their core demo and alienate the masses than try and get everyone up to speed. Readers don't deserve special treatment, it's completely at the discretion of the author. And a quick image search for "bar ends" literally gives you hundreds of pictures of exaclty what they are talking about.
That’s the standard (and sadly mistaken imho) answer for this everywhere.
It’s a kind of gatekeeping reaction (the article is not meant for you) that doesn’t acknowledge that people today read far and wide.
The Google thing is a fair point, but having a text definition inline is literally hundreds of times faster, and zero touch, and friendly for screen readers, and doesn’t slow in-the-know readers down a bit because our eyes and brains are so good at flitting past that stuff.
It’s a kind of gatekeeping reaction (the article is not meant for you) that doesn’t acknowledge that people today read far and wide.
The Google thing is a fair point, but having a text definition inline is literally hundreds of times faster, and zero touch, and friendly for screen readers, and doesn’t slow in-the-know readers down a bit because our eyes and brains are so good at flitting past that stuff.
This isn't gatekeeping; it's simply acknowledging that an article written for a certain audience may assume a certain level of background knowledge. People who are interested and want to learn more are free to look up any words and concepts they don't know. Nobody's going to shame them for doing that.
It's simply not realistic to expect every author to anticipate and try to fill every possible reader's intellectual lacunae. I mean, imagine if that other article on the front page today, "Writing Pythonic Rust," had to explain what Pythonic means, and what Rust is, what an API and a wrapper is, what type foundries and font proofs are, and oh my goodness that's just the technical jargon I wouldn't expect a general audience to understand from the first 4 sentences.
It's simply not realistic to expect every author to anticipate and try to fill every possible reader's intellectual lacunae. I mean, imagine if that other article on the front page today, "Writing Pythonic Rust," had to explain what Pythonic means, and what Rust is, what an API and a wrapper is, what type foundries and font proofs are, and oh my goodness that's just the technical jargon I wouldn't expect a general audience to understand from the first 4 sentences.
I agree with most of what you said. However, I also think you've done a good job in showcasing some extreme examples of how my suggestion could be taken too far. Such an extreme take would be undesirable. But it could be done with moderation, as appropriate, such as when an entire article is about why a thing has gone away (and, since it has gone away, almost by definition there will be interested readers who do not know what it is). There are always tradeoffs to be made in good writing.
Compare bar ends to 3.5mm headphone jacks. You don't see them around that much anymore, but it wasn't that long ago that they were common. You'd expect someone who has basically any level of interest in audio equipment to be aware of their existence, even if they've never personally used one.
I suppose I don't spend much time talking to very young mountain bikers, so maybe there's a generational thing going on, but I would assume it's the same there. And, like 3.5mm headphone jacks, new equipment may not have them, but they're not gone gone. I saw some people riding with them last time I was on a trail.
Also, this complaint seems just a little bit forced given that the title image on the article is a picture of a bar end. Even someone who's not familiar with mountain biking should be able to take a look at that picture and hazard a pretty successful guess.
I suppose I don't spend much time talking to very young mountain bikers, so maybe there's a generational thing going on, but I would assume it's the same there. And, like 3.5mm headphone jacks, new equipment may not have them, but they're not gone gone. I saw some people riding with them last time I was on a trail.
Also, this complaint seems just a little bit forced given that the title image on the article is a picture of a bar end. Even someone who's not familiar with mountain biking should be able to take a look at that picture and hazard a pretty successful guess.
I addressed the picture already in my comments above.
I really can't tell what's a bar end in that picture.
I even did an image search and the images are all over the map. The shapes of what is shown in the search are incredibly diverse and don't clarify much.
Point is, I just don't get the resistance here. I mean, the belief that articles should not explain the basic thing that their topic is about, just blows my mind. I'm not talking about every term in the article. I'm talking about the main item that is discussed.
I really can't tell what's a bar end in that picture.
I even did an image search and the images are all over the map. The shapes of what is shown in the search are incredibly diverse and don't clarify much.
Point is, I just don't get the resistance here. I mean, the belief that articles should not explain the basic thing that their topic is about, just blows my mind. I'm not talking about every term in the article. I'm talking about the main item that is discussed.
If you search for just "bar end", you will get a bunch of different things from different domains. If you image search "bar end mountain bike" in order to narrow the domain, you'll get pictures of nothing but the thing the article is talking about.
I think the resistance here is that what you're saying comes across entitled. It sounds like you're trying to put the onus on anyone who writes an article ever to try and cater to your needs, on the off chance that a fairly technical article they write on their highly topical biking blog might, in some black swan event, end up on the front page of Hacker News and attract your attention.
This article is under no more obligation to explain what a bar end is than an article about SOLID design is to define the term "object." Heck, if I did something like that every time I used those terms here on Hacker News, people wouldn't think I'm being helpful, they'd think I'm insulting their intelligence.
I think the resistance here is that what you're saying comes across entitled. It sounds like you're trying to put the onus on anyone who writes an article ever to try and cater to your needs, on the off chance that a fairly technical article they write on their highly topical biking blog might, in some black swan event, end up on the front page of Hacker News and attract your attention.
This article is under no more obligation to explain what a bar end is than an article about SOLID design is to define the term "object." Heck, if I did something like that every time I used those terms here on Hacker News, people wouldn't think I'm being helpful, they'd think I'm insulting their intelligence.
Fair points.
To me, it's not the end of the world, but a recurring annoyance. And I definitely do not feel "entitled" so I am wondering how I came off that way.
[edit: I see, I said "readers deserve," ok]
I absolutely agree there is no obligation for authors to write in a particular way. That's one of the prerogatives of being a writer, they get to choose.
But: I do think there are courteous things that can be done, within reason. And you make valid counterpoints, when you don't go too far, about how some such things that I see as courteous could be a downer for other readers.
BTW plenty of people agree with me. My top level comment was one of my highest upvoted comments ever on HN. And I don't assume these people feel entitled. I think they just want writers to, well, write stuff that the reader wants to know. Again, no entitlement, no obligation, it's just what some readers want.
There is a skill in writing to mixed level readers. Many people do it very well without anyone feeling insulted. I do wonder if there's a trick to that. It's interesting how it can happen with one author, but not another. Certainly I understand not wanting to fall into the group of authors that seems to insult their readers… not a good way to increase readership.
To me, it's not the end of the world, but a recurring annoyance. And I definitely do not feel "entitled" so I am wondering how I came off that way.
[edit: I see, I said "readers deserve," ok]
I absolutely agree there is no obligation for authors to write in a particular way. That's one of the prerogatives of being a writer, they get to choose.
But: I do think there are courteous things that can be done, within reason. And you make valid counterpoints, when you don't go too far, about how some such things that I see as courteous could be a downer for other readers.
BTW plenty of people agree with me. My top level comment was one of my highest upvoted comments ever on HN. And I don't assume these people feel entitled. I think they just want writers to, well, write stuff that the reader wants to know. Again, no entitlement, no obligation, it's just what some readers want.
There is a skill in writing to mixed level readers. Many people do it very well without anyone feeling insulted. I do wonder if there's a trick to that. It's interesting how it can happen with one author, but not another. Certainly I understand not wanting to fall into the group of authors that seems to insult their readers… not a good way to increase readership.
I actually don't think I went too far. I think that, perhaps through unfamiliarity, you have massively over-estimated how technical the term "bar end" is in the context. That's honestly the only way that I can reconcile your characterization of the examples I gave as "extreme" while continuing to maintain that suggesting the same be done in this article is perfectly reasonable. Within the respective contexts of those articles, "bar end" is a much more well-known term than "pythonic." "Font proof," I suppose you could argue it depends on whether you define the target audience for the article as programmers or specifically people who deal with fonts. But either way we can at least say that it's specific to a very fine context, that, at the very least, is only a subset of the topics covered by the blog where it was written. Unlike this biking article.
Also, yes, it does come across as entitled. For example:
> And I don't assume these people feel entitled. I think they just want writers to...
Right there, the direct object of the sentence, "writers." That's the problem. This isn't just wanting to know something, or deciding that an article doesn't suit you and deciding to move on. Both of those would be fine reactions. This is expecting another person, someone you don't even know, to do extra work and tailor their creative output to your tastes, for no other reason than that you feel entitled to ask them to do so.
Also, yes, it does come across as entitled. For example:
> And I don't assume these people feel entitled. I think they just want writers to...
Right there, the direct object of the sentence, "writers." That's the problem. This isn't just wanting to know something, or deciding that an article doesn't suit you and deciding to move on. Both of those would be fine reactions. This is expecting another person, someone you don't even know, to do extra work and tailor their creative output to your tastes, for no other reason than that you feel entitled to ask them to do so.
I think the issue is the stylized photo; it would be more obviously a bolt-on addition if the photo was higher quality.
Anyway, sort of ironic here on HN where every article is about mashing together 27 frameworks that haven't been out for more than 6 months and won't be around in another 18 months
Anyway, sort of ironic here on HN where every article is about mashing together 27 frameworks that haven't been out for more than 6 months and won't be around in another 18 months
Ideally two photos side by side, one of the old style and the new style.
A definition, or a product photo, even a link to rare backstock bar ends on eBay wouldn't hurt anyone.
What would hurt me most would be if, to make it approachable, the first two paragraphs were a short description of breakfast and their disappointing ringtone, a character sketch of the person who just-now-texted which reminded the author that they had asked to borrow a wrench, that the author had to use to repeatedly tighten a left bar-end that would slip after any real use, then dramatically flex their wrist and continue on with the entire essay while still not once defining bar-end.
What would hurt me most would be if, to make it approachable, the first two paragraphs were a short description of breakfast and their disappointing ringtone, a character sketch of the person who just-now-texted which reminded the author that they had asked to borrow a wrench, that the author had to use to repeatedly tighten a left bar-end that would slip after any real use, then dramatically flex their wrist and continue on with the entire essay while still not once defining bar-end.
Where I've mostly seen bar ends is on bikes with MTB style bars, including hybrids, being used on pavement. I also see a lot of people trying to make straight bars comfortable in other ways, e.g., with their palms cupped around the ends of the bar, or fists resting on top of the grips.
Granted, it's probably a matter of every rider having different requirements, and you can eventually find a bar that's comfortable and performant for your body and riding conditions. But that means trying out different bars, having to remove all of the controls, possibly lengthening the cables, etc.
Or you can add a simple accessory that will at least provide a resting position, that can be attached with minimal tools and effort.
In my own case I ended up with swept bars on all of my bikes. Even a moderate amount of sweep, and the resulting change in wrist angle, is night and day for me in terms of long term comfort.
Granted, it's probably a matter of every rider having different requirements, and you can eventually find a bar that's comfortable and performant for your body and riding conditions. But that means trying out different bars, having to remove all of the controls, possibly lengthening the cables, etc.
Or you can add a simple accessory that will at least provide a resting position, that can be attached with minimal tools and effort.
In my own case I ended up with swept bars on all of my bikes. Even a moderate amount of sweep, and the resulting change in wrist angle, is night and day for me in terms of long term comfort.
I think it's a due to a combination of things. First MTBs went from flat bars to riser bars as front and then rear suspension appeared. Then the bars got wider.
I have memories of the bike magazines (Mountain Bike Action) declaring the bar end on a riser bar a style no-no. MTB takes style direction from motorcross and you don't see bar ends on motors.
I've hooked my new 760mm bars on far more trees than my old narrow ones. While the idea of catching a bar end sounds frightening, think about what would happen without a bar end: the same thing. You'd hit the bars or your knuckles and get the same result.
I do miss the extra hand position sometimes. I installed a pair of Togs (https://togs.com) to help with "thumbs resting over the bar".
I have memories of the bike magazines (Mountain Bike Action) declaring the bar end on a riser bar a style no-no. MTB takes style direction from motorcross and you don't see bar ends on motors.
I've hooked my new 760mm bars on far more trees than my old narrow ones. While the idea of catching a bar end sounds frightening, think about what would happen without a bar end: the same thing. You'd hit the bars or your knuckles and get the same result.
I do miss the extra hand position sometimes. I installed a pair of Togs (https://togs.com) to help with "thumbs resting over the bar".
>The usual buyers are people who want to add another hand position to their handlebars due to joint discomfort and numbness.
My eBike comes with barends and I love them for this reason. (Funnily my eBike is an eMTB with full suspension - so according to the article it shouldn't have bar ends).
My eBike comes with barends and I love them for this reason. (Funnily my eBike is an eMTB with full suspension - so according to the article it shouldn't have bar ends).
I just bought a friend's (used) Specialized StumpJumper FSR Carbon whatever-thinggy and it doesn't have the bar ends, which saddens me, so I'm adding some immediately.
The thing is: even if it's a mountain bike, there's some moments where I'm riding on a regular, flat, land (path or road) and I do really prefer to have the bar ends then. If I find it way more comfortable: doesn't even have to be for climbing. Just anything that's not "going down" and a bit repetitive: I simply prefer the position with the bar ends.
The argument I've heard against them is indeed what several people mentioned in this thread: you wouldn't want one of the bar ends to hook something and be the cause of a bad fall.
The thing is: even if it's a mountain bike, there's some moments where I'm riding on a regular, flat, land (path or road) and I do really prefer to have the bar ends then. If I find it way more comfortable: doesn't even have to be for climbing. Just anything that's not "going down" and a bit repetitive: I simply prefer the position with the bar ends.
The argument I've heard against them is indeed what several people mentioned in this thread: you wouldn't want one of the bar ends to hook something and be the cause of a bad fall.
The reason is that your hand position is supposed to be 1 finger on the brakes ready to stop with the other 4 fingers trying to hold on to dear life. There would be no reason to have the hands in that ergonomic position.
Having a extra flipping over liability on the bike just makes no sense for bikes that are "specialized" for this niche style of riding.
The stumpjumper is like the McLaren of the mtb world. It'd be like complaining about how uncomfortable the bucket seats and race harness is and saying the first thing to do is to replace them with a comfy heated seat with lumbar support. I mean, you can, but there's a reason the McLaren comes with those things
Having a extra flipping over liability on the bike just makes no sense for bikes that are "specialized" for this niche style of riding.
The stumpjumper is like the McLaren of the mtb world. It'd be like complaining about how uncomfortable the bucket seats and race harness is and saying the first thing to do is to replace them with a comfy heated seat with lumbar support. I mean, you can, but there's a reason the McLaren comes with those things
You bought a bike that's meant to go through gnarly technical terrain and do it as fast as possible. Bar-ends are a hazard. If you're actually planning on mountain biking with it you'll get laughed at because no serious biker uses them. I realize what other people think about you isn't that important but seriously they provide zero benefit for actual mountain biking.
I would recommend you just get a commuter or road bike for paths and roads. It'll faster and more enjoyable than riding something that was built explicitly for off-road use. The weight difference alone makes it worth it.
I would recommend you just get a commuter or road bike for paths and roads. It'll faster and more enjoyable than riding something that was built explicitly for off-road use. The weight difference alone makes it worth it.
> Lower awareness. Aside from some alternative shapes, bar ends do not increase the width of the handlebars. However, bar ends come with another severe downside – they are not covered by nerve endings (the rider’s hands) most of the time because one cannot shift or brake from that position.
I found this part interesting. When playing ping pong I'm certainly aware of where the paddle is. I guess I could be aware of where the bar ends are, but there isn't nearly as much to train me to be aware.
I think my awareness of where my fingers are, which sometimes extends into connected objects, is based on where the nerve endings are, because over time it creates spatial awareness.
I found this part interesting. When playing ping pong I'm certainly aware of where the paddle is. I guess I could be aware of where the bar ends are, but there isn't nearly as much to train me to be aware.
I think my awareness of where my fingers are, which sometimes extends into connected objects, is based on where the nerve endings are, because over time it creates spatial awareness.
Bar-ends are mounted in the handlebar tube by friction alone. On any decently bumpy trail, they have a pretty good chance of twisting (forwards and down) and you could hit the handlebars with your face.
They are useful for one of the reasons curved bars are useful on a road bike, it's a change of position to give you a rest, and potentially a better climbing position but I doubt it.
I had bar ends on my bike in high school 'cause they were cool but I've ridden cross country and downhill MTB for a couple of decades now and bar-ends are not something I would consider adding to my bike.
They are useful for one of the reasons curved bars are useful on a road bike, it's a change of position to give you a rest, and potentially a better climbing position but I doubt it.
I had bar ends on my bike in high school 'cause they were cool but I've ridden cross country and downhill MTB for a couple of decades now and bar-ends are not something I would consider adding to my bike.
Are friction mounts ever a good idea for critical applications?
Perhaps not, but you don't have a lot of options on a handlebar. You could drill holes and bolt it I guess. I think they are OK for gravel tracks but if you are taking big bumps it's gonna be an issue, and modern MTB is all about big bumps 'cause we have suspension now <3
There are lots of alternatives to flat bars in the MTB world. Moloko bars, Jones H bars, Velo Orange Crazy bars, etc.
I have a Load 75 (fairly large front-loading cargo bike) with bar ends, and I use them daily. And adore them.
Among the reasons mentioned in the article, the only one that fits my use case(s) are increased leverage out of the saddle (the importance of which correlates with the amount of weight out in the front of the bucket).
I also use them to overcome positional fatigue, much like road bike riders use drop bars. However, drop bars are less practical on a cargo bike because, depending on the load (which sometimes includes an adult passenger), they can impact the load when sharply angled.
Among the reasons mentioned in the article, the only one that fits my use case(s) are increased leverage out of the saddle (the importance of which correlates with the amount of weight out in the front of the bucket).
I also use them to overcome positional fatigue, much like road bike riders use drop bars. However, drop bars are less practical on a cargo bike because, depending on the load (which sometimes includes an adult passenger), they can impact the load when sharply angled.
I did a cross-country ride in the 90s on a mountain bike, and I ended up putting bar ends on my bar ends. I liked the strength of a mountain bike for the occasional gravel road, but I needed to get hunched over for long days with steady headwinds. I ended up using the first bar ends for climbing, and the second bar ends for tucking into a wind. I'd never trust those second ends with any vertical force though.
These days, I'd just do that kind of trip on a well-specced gravel bike.
These days, I'd just do that kind of trip on a well-specced gravel bike.
In the mid-2000's I commuted on a late 80's Specialized Rockhopper. For reliability and simplicity in all weather/temperatures, I had a custom wheel built with fixed gears (17/19T) and ran 1.75" 26" semi-slicks with kevlar built in. That thing was a tank. TANK. I only had one bad wreck on it.
I was in traffic and all the cars were backed up. For better or worse, I was in the shoulder and filtering toward the stoplight when I saw a car 2-3 cars ahead in the shoulder. I was deciding what to do when my handlebar bumped the mirror of a car to my left. Just barely. The car was fine. I broke my left hand somehow in the melee and landed hard on my right shoulder and elbow, skidding several feet.
Was I using bar ends? No. I had got rid of them and was using what's often called a "trekker" bar or "butterfly" bar. The width is what killed me. I would have been better off on my narrow bars and the bar ends, which are still shown on FGG:
http://fixedgeargallery.com/2006/feb/RyanFlowers.htm
Of course it's understandable that nobody wants them on new bikes. The reasons given are solid.
I was in traffic and all the cars were backed up. For better or worse, I was in the shoulder and filtering toward the stoplight when I saw a car 2-3 cars ahead in the shoulder. I was deciding what to do when my handlebar bumped the mirror of a car to my left. Just barely. The car was fine. I broke my left hand somehow in the melee and landed hard on my right shoulder and elbow, skidding several feet.
Was I using bar ends? No. I had got rid of them and was using what's often called a "trekker" bar or "butterfly" bar. The width is what killed me. I would have been better off on my narrow bars and the bar ends, which are still shown on FGG:
http://fixedgeargallery.com/2006/feb/RyanFlowers.htm
Of course it's understandable that nobody wants them on new bikes. The reasons given are solid.
> The width is what killed me.
A broken hand and falling hard on your shoulder sounds terrible, but did you really die?
A broken hand and falling hard on your shoulder sounds terrible, but did you really die?
LOL touché
I still see bar-ends all the time...on mountain bikes being used as commuters in the city, which I suspect is the majority of the "mountain bike" market, at least if you include 2nd-hand sales. They're still an obvious ergonomic upgrade for people who are just riding a mtb for the more upright posture or (...perceived) ability to handle poorly-maintained city streets.
I use drop bars on my commuter bike. The only advantages I can think of for flat bars are a safer hand-on-brake position, and more reliable shifters (drop-bar brifters have to route cables around tiny pulleys, causing the cables to fray too quickly). Drop bars are comfortable for all-day riding.
I used to want bar ends for my mtb. It was mostly related to fatigue in my lower back. it was only recently my hip angle was the cause. Instead of pivoting my hips for a more neutral back posture, I was hunching over. As soon as I adjusted my hips it felt so much better.
Bar ends are a lifesaver! I got pretty bad RSI a few years ago and anything I did where my palms are down meant pins and needles in my arms. And as a cyclist, I quickly learned drop bars were best - but when I wanted to mountain bike, drop bars were the difference between being able to do it, and not. A vertical mouse also helped (at work).
The very wide bars are something that's really impractical if you're using the bike for commuting. You are close to hitting pedestrians and other cyclists. And especially if you live in an apartment building and store the bike in the cellar with other bikes, it takes so much space and is annoying to retrieve and store. There's a reason why the fixie people have really narrow handlebars.
I understand the control is good on snow and ice though with studded tires and suspension.
I understand the control is good on snow and ice though with studded tires and suspension.
Totally anecdotal but I had a friend in the 90s who fell, landed on his bar end, and had to have an emergency appendectomy.
Also totally anecdotal: I put my stomach into the uncapped end of a straight bar crashing and got a nice o-shaped bruise for my laziness of not replacing the cap. It isn't just bar ends that'll get you. Fortunately I was going pretty slowly at the time and didn't cause any damage.
Caps are a mandatory safety part. That thing could have cored you.
On buying my new MTB (a Specialized Stumpjumper), the 1st thing I did was trim 3/4" off each end of the bar, and add bar-ends. Trends come and go. IMHO the current "wider is better" fashion took it too far, the default bar felt like it was 3 feet wide. (shrug)
I remember in the 90's there used to be a replacement bar for mountain bikes that was sort of like a long oval with one portion in the middle that, once installed, pointed forward. So it provided multiple new hand positions. I haven't seen that in years.
I still have one bike with bar ends. A single speed mountain bike. I use the bar ends (plus clipped in pedals) for leverage when climbing. My other full suspension bikes are all large handle bar, no bar ends.
Bar-ends are just another place to put your hands for comfort.
But you don't _really_ need them even for so-called technical terrain. Cyclocross bikes with wider-than-usual traditional drop bars (like on a road bike) are used all the time in "pee-your-pants" terrain. To be fair, I would say riding "on the hoods" in a traditional drop bar is superior to using bar-ends on a flat bar both in terms of control (because you have immediate access to brakes and shifters), and comfort (you have padding from the tape and hoods).
But you don't _really_ need them even for so-called technical terrain. Cyclocross bikes with wider-than-usual traditional drop bars (like on a road bike) are used all the time in "pee-your-pants" terrain. To be fair, I would say riding "on the hoods" in a traditional drop bar is superior to using bar-ends on a flat bar both in terms of control (because you have immediate access to brakes and shifters), and comfort (you have padding from the tape and hoods).
Dutch native here. As a casual user (school, commute, etc) I owned 3 MTBs in my life. One I bought second hand, other two new (1 of which got stolen). The former was a lower quality one, the other two certainly had bar ends. And I liked and used them.
I never used a helmet, except when I went on survival hiking. That was in the Ardennes, and was all pro material though I don't remember regarding bar ends.
I am actually in disbelief about them disappearing. What is the source? Where is the data based on?
I never used a helmet, except when I went on survival hiking. That was in the Ardennes, and was all pro material though I don't remember regarding bar ends.
I am actually in disbelief about them disappearing. What is the source? Where is the data based on?
I may have missed this in the existing discussion, but one thing that bar ends and the briefly fashionable aero bars (I even saw them on mountain bikes occasionally) have in common is that you have to move your hands to access brake levers. In a panic stop situation you simply don't have time for that. The bar ends were for hard climbs, and the aero bars for time trials. Not for general riding.
Luckily both have gone out of fashion.
Luckily both have gone out of fashion.
My first MTB had bar ends but I quickly ditched them after too many snags (uphill and downhill). Riding my 2021 MTB with modern geo and modern bars I'm noticing this same problem. However, the snagging is way more of an issue navigating tight corners and uphill switchbacks. End of the day I'm sure I'm still snagging at a rate on my modern bike as I was with my retro bike but just the sight of bar ends brings back some bad memories.
Read the title wrong and thought they meant bar end shifter..
Added bar ends to my hybrid for 'defensive driving' purposes.
If you are in an urban/ suburban environment, a set of bar ends that curves over the hands just a touch is killer to protect the hands from trashcans/ cars, other bikes, kids, guys on mopeds.
Its like a little hand guard for random whatever. Plus gives you an upright hand position for extra torque if you need to go fast faster.
Added bar ends to my hybrid for 'defensive driving' purposes.
If you are in an urban/ suburban environment, a set of bar ends that curves over the hands just a touch is killer to protect the hands from trashcans/ cars, other bikes, kids, guys on mopeds.
Its like a little hand guard for random whatever. Plus gives you an upright hand position for extra torque if you need to go fast faster.
Not currently into mountain biking (I like the current structural integrity of my collarbones tyvm) - have ebikes revolutionized the sport? Seems like they'd increase accessibility by making the hard part (long arduous biking uphill to get to the drop) quite a bit more tolerable. Although as a hiker/climber I do appreciate that putting in real effort makes the payoff all the sweeter.
Yes, this is one of the biggest complaints I have with ebikes (though I just try and keep my mouth shut). Rleatively healthy, able-bodied people use ebikes to get into terrain that is way above their pay grade. I love the idea of physically limited people being able to ride offroad, but they are a rare exception to what you normally see.
They have revolutionized the sport to the extent that they're banned in some popular mountain bike areas. That said, I think a lot of studies have shown they don't cause any more trail damage than a traditional bike.
At least here in NorCal, it's not trail damage that's the issue. It's:
* people riding beyond their ability (too fast, too technical) and getting injured
* batteries overheating and stranding the rider somewhere they can't climb out of, requiring heli rescue and risking wildfires
I also don't like to be overtaken by someone who isn't suffering as much as I am [1] and it makes me feel bad.
[1] Not really, I also ride a road e-bike which strokes my fragile ego.
* people riding beyond their ability (too fast, too technical) and getting injured
* batteries overheating and stranding the rider somewhere they can't climb out of, requiring heli rescue and risking wildfires
I also don't like to be overtaken by someone who isn't suffering as much as I am [1] and it makes me feel bad.
[1] Not really, I also ride a road e-bike which strokes my fragile ego.
I'm personally convinced that there's no justification for banning eMTBs (or any other negative sentiments toward them really) beside gatekeeping.
There's nothing about eMTBs allowing people to venture in more difficult trails than with normal MTBs. Most terrains that are too hard on a normal MTB will be even harder on an eMTB because you loose some agility and the ability to carry the bike over unrideable sections.
I often see people complain about "how fast eMTBs go in some climbs, which is dangerous to bystanders". This is the most ridiculous argument, completely unrelated to eMTBs. Regardless of the terrain (uphill, downhill, flat, ...) I always slow down to ~walking speed when passing someone if the trail isn't wide enough to put at least ~1.5 meter between me and them. Meanwhile the same people who complain about eMTBs being dangerous bomb down the hill past hikers at 25+ km/h. Anyway, a long rant to basically say that any argument about speed is only ever relevant if brought up in the context of educating people to be more courteous riders regardless of the bike they ride.
Finally, you're orders of magnitudes more likely to be stranded because you punctured and forgot your repair kit (or whatever other damage to your bike that can't be fixed trailside) than due to overheating battery or whatever improbable scenario people come up to justify hating on eMTBs.
There's nothing about eMTBs allowing people to venture in more difficult trails than with normal MTBs. Most terrains that are too hard on a normal MTB will be even harder on an eMTB because you loose some agility and the ability to carry the bike over unrideable sections.
I often see people complain about "how fast eMTBs go in some climbs, which is dangerous to bystanders". This is the most ridiculous argument, completely unrelated to eMTBs. Regardless of the terrain (uphill, downhill, flat, ...) I always slow down to ~walking speed when passing someone if the trail isn't wide enough to put at least ~1.5 meter between me and them. Meanwhile the same people who complain about eMTBs being dangerous bomb down the hill past hikers at 25+ km/h. Anyway, a long rant to basically say that any argument about speed is only ever relevant if brought up in the context of educating people to be more courteous riders regardless of the bike they ride.
Finally, you're orders of magnitudes more likely to be stranded because you punctured and forgot your repair kit (or whatever other damage to your bike that can't be fixed trailside) than due to overheating battery or whatever improbable scenario people come up to justify hating on eMTBs.
I generally agree with you. I don't personally find eMTBs to be bothersome, and fully expect to be riding one when I'm not physically able to ride an acoustic MTB. And I definitely agree with you re. bystanders, where regular MTBs are fast enough to be dangerous.
The only point where I disagree is:
> There's nothing about eMTBs allowing people to venture in more difficult trails than with normal MTBs
If you want to go down the hill, you need to climb up the hill. This is a skill and fitness gate, normally; you're not going to tackle a difficult or extended descent if you don't think you can climb out again.
Soquel Demo Forest, one of the very popular Bay Area spots, bans eMTBs. It might be reasonable in this case due to the elevation profile. From the car park you need to climb for 20-40 minutes. You descend. You then have another long climb back to the carpark. It's a worst-case scenario for batteries, and because the area is so popular, it tends to attract people riding beyond their limits already.
I don't personally care, and I don't want to tell people not to enjoy an activity, but I can understand the reasoning in some cases.
The only point where I disagree is:
> There's nothing about eMTBs allowing people to venture in more difficult trails than with normal MTBs
If you want to go down the hill, you need to climb up the hill. This is a skill and fitness gate, normally; you're not going to tackle a difficult or extended descent if you don't think you can climb out again.
Soquel Demo Forest, one of the very popular Bay Area spots, bans eMTBs. It might be reasonable in this case due to the elevation profile. From the car park you need to climb for 20-40 minutes. You descend. You then have another long climb back to the carpark. It's a worst-case scenario for batteries, and because the area is so popular, it tends to attract people riding beyond their limits already.
I don't personally care, and I don't want to tell people not to enjoy an activity, but I can understand the reasoning in some cases.
Yes. Tons and tons more people are biking now, especially those that weren't able before. Older and also overweight people can now bike much more easily. All anecdotal, but Denver has seemingly many more bikers.
Anecdotal as well, but Switzerland has loads of them too. I appreciate the fact that it gets more people on bikes, but I'm a bit concerned about them going on terrain way above their level (as noted above) or risking accidents with hikers.
If the amount of 50+ year olds on e-MTBs smoking me on the uphill is any indication I'd say yes. I just checked and they've also gotten remarkably more affordable (at least for a sport where 3k for a bike is considered low-end) - like the cheapest model from a reputable brand is 6000 bucks (Kona Remote 160) compared to just under 10k for most models last time I checked.
Could handlebar makers’ fear of lawsuits play a role? Bar-ends have to be tightened with much more torque than ordinary grips (8Nm for bar ends, as opposed to 4–5Nm for ordinary grips). However, makers of many popular MTB handlebars don’t want to certify their bars for that much torque, and so they just tell their customers that the bars are not compatible with bar ends.
A core part of the Mint Sauce aesthetic:
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/0e/f4/3a/0ef43a1d3656587beaef...
...a cult cartoon sheep and his friends from the most popular UK mountain bike magazine in the 1990s.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/0e/f4/3a/0ef43a1d3656587beaef...
...a cult cartoon sheep and his friends from the most popular UK mountain bike magazine in the 1990s.
Maybe I’m too young, but I remember everyone removing the bar ends because they were understood to be undesirable on a mountain bike.
I always thought they were installed from the factory to make the bikes appeal to road cyclists who were familiar with road bike geometry and riding style. Like training wheels for road cyclists coming to mountain biking.
I always thought they were installed from the factory to make the bikes appeal to road cyclists who were familiar with road bike geometry and riding style. Like training wheels for road cyclists coming to mountain biking.
I bought my first MTB in the 90s, and bar ends was something that I bought in addition, they were not standard from the factory. That was before downhill biking became a big thing, geometry was still very classical (triangle, either no suspension or just front wheel) and we were mostly doing more mild uphill/downhill riding on forest roads. The bar ends were helpful for the uphill part, because you could push the bike left-right more easily standing up while pedalling.
I love MTB bar ends. They let you adopt a more efficient position for the inevitable road sections between trails.
Why did you find them undesirable (unless for more modern handlebars, for the reasons in the article)?
I definitely found them useful for climbing with the old flat handlebars.
I definitely found them useful for climbing with the old flat handlebars.
I have bar-ends, and i find them highly desirable!
29” and 27,5” new wheels necessitate longer handlebars in order to have more steering angle at low speed, so larger handles make less useful the bar ends.
Plus the new XC circuits are more nervous and you have less time to put your hands in a more relaxed position on the bars ends, you always need to touch the brakes/gears
Plus the new XC circuits are more nervous and you have less time to put your hands in a more relaxed position on the bars ends, you always need to touch the brakes/gears
I mountain bike 5x days a week during season. As much as I wreck and eat shit, I would _not_ want to land on those!
Reading about bar-ends made me think about the Brompton P-type, which (alas!) Brompton recently discontinued:
https://www.bikefolded.com/brompton-s-m-p-h-type-handlebar-d...
Anybody tried bar ends on a Peloton? I find that when the instuctor wants you out of the saddle there's not enough resistance to merit the change. This might be because I ride high in the saddle and focus on consistent cadence using the up motion from the clipless pedals.
In case someone is wondering what is a bar end:
https://www.reddit.com/r/bicycletouring/comments/ae657i/bar_...
https://www.reddit.com/r/bicycletouring/comments/ae657i/bar_...
Yes ... would have been nice to have some sort of explanation for what they actually are (and what the differences between all the "ends" are).
random pet peeve:
> A set of riser bars that I purchased a while back. They are 810mm (or 5 piano octaves) by default. I plan to cut them down to at least 740mm for a future project.
They are already "at least 740mm", being 810 mm, which is more than 740. You mean "at most".
> A set of riser bars that I purchased a while back. They are 810mm (or 5 piano octaves) by default. I plan to cut them down to at least 740mm for a future project.
They are already "at least 740mm", being 810 mm, which is more than 740. You mean "at most".
In this case, he's saying cut them down to at least 740 mm [or smaller—implied]. The usage is correct.
The LEAST is the smallest. The word "least" means "smallest" At least, at the least, at the smallest. "at least": Not less than, at the minimum. It doesn't make sense for "at least" to mean "or smaller than". It literally means "or bigger than".
You can say instead: I plan to cut them down to at most 740mm for a future project.
I suppose you could say "I plan to remove at least 20mm".
You can say instead: I plan to cut them down to at most 740mm for a future project.
I suppose you could say "I plan to remove at least 20mm".
I think "at least" refers to how much they'll cut off ("cut them down"), not the resultant size, even if they specified the resultant size.
Similar to "it was at least -40° outside last winter". The implied direction means -40° or colder, even though colder temperatures are lower.
Of course, English is a flexible language. What you suggest as an alternative is not necessarily wrong, but to me it feels awkward. The intended meaning is obvious either way.
Similar to "it was at least -40° outside last winter". The implied direction means -40° or colder, even though colder temperatures are lower.
Of course, English is a flexible language. What you suggest as an alternative is not necessarily wrong, but to me it feels awkward. The intended meaning is obvious either way.
Right, "at least -40 outside" also does not make any sense at all. "At most -40 outside" would. Or else, how can "at least -40" and "at most -40" mean exactly the same thing, when "least" and "most" are antonyms?
The quality being described is coldness. "At least -40°" means that was the least cold it was, but it might have been colder.
For the handlebars, the quality is shortness. "Cut them down to at least 740 mm, maybe more" means that that is the least short they will be, but they might end up shorter.
> How can "at least -40" and "at most -40" mean exactly the same thing?
Context. Language is stupid that way.
For the handlebars, the quality is shortness. "Cut them down to at least 740 mm, maybe more" means that that is the least short they will be, but they might end up shorter.
> How can "at least -40" and "at most -40" mean exactly the same thing?
Context. Language is stupid that way.
Now I miss my 90s cheap MTB. I remember me as a teenager buying and setting up the bar ends. It felt so cool. For a kid it was like the ultimate performance improvement.
But well, right, they were so 90s. That wouldn't really fit at all with the current super posh MTBs out there.
But well, right, they were so 90s. That wouldn't really fit at all with the current super posh MTBs out there.
I got a road bike for commuting (Giant Rapid) with bar ends 10 years ago and it felt really useful, you could get lower when grabbing them reducing air resistance (big deal in this flat windy country) and they've protected my hands a few times from accidents
I read the article and comments and still can't work out what the hell bar ends are...
They clamp to the end of the handlebars and provide a grip that is at an angle to the handlebar, and a bit further forward.
Thank you kind sir! :-)
https://coresites-cdn-adm.imgix.net/dirt_new/wp-content/uplo...
These are set up wrong, they should be angled more forward. But clear picture nonetheless.
These are set up wrong, they should be angled more forward. But clear picture nonetheless.
I remember it being because they were dangerous on group rides and on more technical routes. I seem to remember they were also banned in racing - so no incentive for manufacturers
This whole post could have been just two pictures. But no, it only includes one picture, of bar ends, not what they’ve been replaced with. I guess I’ll never know.
Depending on who you ask, the whole ergonomic bar category replaced bar ends.
Sheldon Brown wrote about them:
"These are mountainbike/hybrid bars with built-in bar ends. They weigh less than the handlebars alone on the typical mountain bike or hybrid, and they give lots of hand positions.
The ends sweep forward in a nearly 180 degree curve, and the whole curved area is usable to vary the pressure points on your hands. These are much better than staight bars with bolt-on bar ends."
https://www.sheldonbrown.com/scott.html
Personally, I have enjoyed riding the AT-4 Pro for a decade: http://www.bikepro.com/products/handlebars/scott_combo.shtml
Sheldon Brown wrote about them:
"These are mountainbike/hybrid bars with built-in bar ends. They weigh less than the handlebars alone on the typical mountain bike or hybrid, and they give lots of hand positions.
The ends sweep forward in a nearly 180 degree curve, and the whole curved area is usable to vary the pressure points on your hands. These are much better than staight bars with bolt-on bar ends."
https://www.sheldonbrown.com/scott.html
Personally, I have enjoyed riding the AT-4 Pro for a decade: http://www.bikepro.com/products/handlebars/scott_combo.shtml
They didn't get replaced. You can read why in the article.
Still got my bar ends! They are not going anywhere, except up a hill slightly faster than I would otherwise be going up it.
I thought it was about not catching trees on the bar end? The new wide bars can deflect and recover a lot easier.
I really liked the bar ends on my Trek Fuel back in the day. It just felt better pulling myself up a hill.
Wow, I completely forgot about those! We had them because they looked cool, obviously.
I knew I became old when I purchased my last MTB and upgraded it with bar ends :)
Older demographic, less climbing. Same reason why racy xc geometry went away.
One thing I love about this post: you read the grey tldr; and you get 80% of the gist and the main idea. This optimizes for the reader rather than for the author's ego.
Too often authors try to keep suspens up and make for a big reveal at the end. This format instead conveys information and then develop on it if you want more.
Good job!
Too often authors try to keep suspens up and make for a big reveal at the end. This format instead conveys information and then develop on it if you want more.
Good job!
Bar ends were never very popular. Maybe 5-10% of riders used them. I don’t think a single manufacturer adopted them in a shipped from the factory setup.
Many of the big mountain bike makes of the day (1990s) included bar ends, Specialized and Trek among them.
They also "hooked" bushes and tree branches etc. which is "not a good thing" at speed and the reason why I dropped them.
This is covered in the article.
They look goofy. I ditched mine in the late 90’s. Bars now are much wider than they used to be during the heyday of bar ends.
Trees.
[deleted]
And anyone who is out on the trails with headphones... you still won't hear a bike bell, but then you won't hear a rattle-snake either.