Bicycle suspension is evil

[ultrazenith]

It's a good read and the basic reinventing the rigid 90's MTB with gravel bikes etc and road 'plus' sized offroad tyres

But if you didn't read it and think it's just about suspension, then read it as it's not really about suspension.

I really do like the one bottle and little food rule.

I did read it (and several other posts by the same writer) and I largely agree. Some of his (or her?) points are things I've thought myself, such as the weird glut of 99.99 full suspension bikes that are everywhere now, and which mean the cheapest MTBs are now a lot WORSE than the cheapest MTBs back in the fully rigid era.

I also have felt for a while, helped especially by retrobike and the ability to buy and compare drivetrain components, that there is basically no difference in the function of the different drivetrain levels. I've been very happily riding my Acera-equipped Fatbike for almost 1 year now, and the drivetrain works as well as any of my higher-end ones.

 

[legrandefromage]

XTR will make you ride faster - FACT

Dura Ace will make your Strava times look amazing - FACT

Full suspension, a full face helmet whilst being followed by a unrelated small child about to overtake you on a rigid Isla bike will destroy how you look to a bunch of old blokes on old bikes - FACT

 

[FluffyChicken]

It's a good read and the basic reinventing the rigid 90's MTB with gravel bikes etc and road 'plus' sized offroad tyres

But if you didn't read it and think it's just about suspension, then read it as it's not really about suspension.

I really do like the one bottle and little food rule.

I did read it (and several other posts by the same writer) and I largely agree. Some of his (or her?) points are things I've thought myself, such as the weird glut of 99.99 full suspension bikes that are everywhere now, and which mean the cheapest MTBs are now a lot WORSE than the cheapest MTBs back in the fully rigid era.

I also have felt for a while, helped especially by retrobike and the ability to buy and compare drivetrain components, that there is basically no difference in the function of the different drivetrain levels. I've been very happily riding my Acera-equipped Fatbike for almost 1 year now, and the drivetrain works as well as any of my higher-end ones.

That was more an open statement (to THM etc).

Either way I'm utterly gutted to have missed the peaks ride from being ill (that and I don't like puking up very spicy Chinese food, although it was oddly still quite tasty).
It's my sort of ride that Longun put on.
No suspension needed there, yes you could ride faster, stay in contact with the ground easier, probably ride for longer. But who cares really. Distance and speed isn't everything.

 

[Titiritero]

Re:

I did read it (and several other posts by the same writer) and I largely agree. Some of his (or her?) points are things I've thought myself (...)

It's a "he". He posts nearly daily in a blog of the same name (bikesnobnyc) plus occasional collaborations in magazines like Outside, Bicycling, etc.

He's particularly popular because he doesn't give a sh*t if he offends someone, so his reviews are particularly refreshing as he will call bullsh*t whenever he sees it. Carbon wheels at 2000 EUR per wheel, chains "professionally lubed" for 150 EUR, etc. Everything falls in his radar and gets trashed.

I think the main point of his article is that, unfortunately, the suspension has taken over the whole cycling world, not only mountain bikes where it could be often justified. Most hybrids and urban bikes also have now suspension forks (super-sh*tty short travel ones). Even Cannondale has tried repeatedly (and unsuccessfully) to push a Lefty on some of their cross/gravel models. And many beginners that buy a 400 EUR bike will get a crap suspension fork instead of decent wheels and components for the same price. Forks that have 60mm travel, rust in 2 days, and make it impossible to add mudguards or a rack for those using the bike to commute...

But sure, YOU NEED suspension. First comment from my mother in-law when I got a beautiful Trek 950 ('91) for my wife was "what, no suspension?". And that is from someone that doesn't leave the asphalt ever.

 

[Silvergoat]

Re:

"What, no suspension?" Are riders becoming too spoilt/coddled with the tech now? Unless you're doing rockeries or insane drop-offs or mega-downhills, a decent traditional frame/wheel/tyres combined with well-crafted riding technique will cover most things, possibly. Never forget installing the Rockshox to my old Marin – it felt like I'd tethered an anvil to the front. Never missed them when I went back to rigid bike.

 

[ultrazenith]

Re: Re:

I did read it (and several other posts by the same writer) and I largely agree. Some of his (or her?) points are things I've thought myself (...)

It's a "he". He posts nearly daily in a blog of the same name (bikesnobnyc) plus occasional collaborations in magazines like Outside, Bicycling, etc.

He's particularly popular because he doesn't give a sh*t if he offends someone, so his reviews are particularly refreshing as he will call bullsh*t whenever he sees it. Carbon wheels at 2000 EUR per wheel, chains "professionally lubed" for 150 EUR, etc. Everything falls in his radar and gets trashed.

I think the main point of his article is that, unfortunately, the suspension has taken over the whole cycling world, not only mountain bikes where it could be often justified. Most hybrids and urban bikes also have now suspension forks (super-sh*tty short travel ones). Even Cannondale has tried repeatedly (and unsuccessfully) to push a Lefty on some of their cross/gravel models. And many beginners that buy a 400 EUR bike will get a crap suspension fork instead of decent wheels and components for the same price. Forks that have 60mm travel, rust in 2 days, and make it impossible to add mudguards or a rack for those using the bike to commute...

But sure, YOU NEED suspension. First comment from my mother in-law when I got a beautiful Trek 950 ('91) for my wife was "what, no suspension?". And that is from someone that doesn't leave the asphalt ever.

That all rings true to me, why would anyone need suspension on a commuter bike unless they're riding the pot-holed streets of a 3rd world country? And this trend for gravel bikes, which are basically just drop bar rigid MTBs, would be amusing if it wasn't such an obvious marketing scam. I personally don't even get the difference between a CX and gravel bike, to be honest.

 

[cce]

Re: Re:

I personally don't even get the difference between a CX and gravel bike, to be honest.

about £300?

 

[xerxes]

Re:

That all rings true to me, why would anyone need suspension on a commuter bike unless they're riding the pot-holed streets of a 3rd world country?

That confirms it, Britain is a 3rd world country. On the main road through my town there are some really bad pot holes, one is so large and deep that it has a weed growing in it.

I'm not suggesting that suspension is required, but you certainly need to keep your wits about you to make sure you avoid the worst holes, which are probably bad enough to cause you to fall off if you hit them unawares, or possibly break a component. Many years ago I snapped the stem on a road bike, leaving me holding handlebars that were no longer attached to the bicycle, when I hit a pot hole that I hadn't spotted at full tilt.

I personally don't even get the difference between a CX and gravel bike, to be honest.

Geometry, rack and mudguard mounts. Much like the difference between a road racing bike and a touring bike.

 

[dirttorpedo]

Re:

great article - he's such a good writer. I'm sympathetic to his thesis and am currently in the process of switching from a hardtail zaskar to a fully rigid cinder cone. I hate obsolescence - except when it involves me.

 

[gradeAfailure]

Re:

And the rebuttal..
;-)