has everyone lost the passion?

[MJN]

By and large the major manufacturers are mearly producing what the marketing men have told them will sell,if you look at the small custom shops such as those mentioned;Kish,IF etc they still build nice looking kit,you pays your money.....

 

[utahdog2003]

Whoah! Aren't we all forgetting something? Mountain bikes are designed to perform a function. Go over rough ground. Go down STEEP rough ground FAST. 1980's technology restricted how well they could do this. 2000's technology means they can do this better. As a result of this they look DIFFERENT. Our tastes and fixations , as a group , I suspect, were formed in the Eighties and Nineties . If I wanted to look at a bike -I would take the early Rocky Mountain. If I wanted to ride a bike( or needed to be competitive ) - I would choose the latter..... Just sayin'........

You would only be right if these design decisions were made in the name of ride improvement. A good many characteristics on modern bikes have nothing to do with trails and everything to do with profits.

Hydroformed Tubes on $3500 Stumpjumpers welded in China, anyone? The proliferation of Asian carbon fiber and titanium? The new Ibis? These decisions weren't all made to improved the experience of riding a bicycle... these decisions were made to make people some serious cash.

If you think you need that Rocky Mountain so you can ride your locals trails and have fun, then you are lost. (granted, if you lived in Whistler BC, maybe... but for the rest of us? I'll take a Blizzard in 853 steel, thanks.)

 

[Wold Ranger]

Lookers

Nah, there are plenty of really sexy looking moderns out there! The new 2009 Orange R8 in 853,(in fact the whole Orange range looks pretty drewl inspiring) the Genesis 853, On One's, Charge, Cotic's, NS, Commencal's two Ti offerings, plenty out there to please really.

 

[2wheels4ever]

Hydroformed Tubes on $3500 Stumpjumpers welded in China, anyone? The proliferation of Asian carbon fiber and titanium? The new Ibis? These decisions weren't all made to improved the experience of riding a bicycle... these decisions were made to make people some serious cash.

If you think you need that Rocky Mountain so you can ride your locals trails and have fun, then you are lost. (granted, if you lived in Whistler BC, maybe... but for the rest of us? I'll take a Blizzard in 853 steel, thanks.)

The new Ibis Mojo ROCKS, I have one I've ridden a lot of full suspension bike (Turner Spot, various Santa Cruz models which were all good) but this took it to another level, a true XC FS that can take some big hits. With the Lopes link the rear end stays on track. This bike is not hype - it doesn't hurt that it looks sweet. I'm one happy camper.

 

[Kestonian]

The new Ibis Mojo ROCKS, I have one I've ridden a lot of full suspension bike (Turner Spot, various Santa Cruz models which were all good) but this took it to another level, a true XC FS that can take some big hits. With the Lopes link the rear end stays on track. This bike is not hype - it doesn't hurt that it looks sweet. I'm one happy camper.

I put "Ibis Mojo" into google to see what it looked like. It came back with the Ibis site .... http://www.ibiscycles.com/mountain/

Instinctively, I clicked on the Ti Mojo Ltd .....

I don't doubt the Mojo is good. I have a Moots Zirkel which no doubt some will think is not the prettiest, but I love it. Does it have soul? No. Not yet. Will it ever?

 

[hondamatic]

Whoah! Aren't we all forgetting something? Mountain bikes are designed to perform a function. Go over rough ground. Go down STEEP rough ground FAST. 1980's technology restricted how well they could do this. 2000's technology means they can do this better. As a result of this they look DIFFERENT. Our tastes and fixations , as a group , I suspect, were formed in the Eighties and Nineties . If I wanted to look at a bike -I would take the early Rocky Mountain. If I wanted to ride a bike( or needed to be competitive ) - I would choose the latter..... Just sayin'........

Hydroformed Tubes on $3500 Stumpjumpers welded in China, anyone?

Hey, I just bought one! (It was $2100 Canadian, granted).

You know, I've had a lot more compliments on my 2008 Stumpjumper from non-bike people than on my 1999 Stumpjumper. People find it attractive.

I also believe that someone who rides beefy trails (1' drops, rocks and scree, etc) would have a better time on a 5" all mountain bike than on an early '90s hardtail with a Judy. There's little climbing penalty with a platform shock, and the traction, braking, shifting, geometry, etc would make up the difference.

Don't take this the wrong way, I still love retro bikes from the '90s. I don't NEED my new bike to enjoy riding; I just find it's a better tool for the job.

 

[MJN]

Whoah! Aren't we all forgetting something? Mountain bikes are designed to perform a function. Go over rough ground. Go down STEEP rough ground FAST. 1980's technology restricted how well they could do this. 2000's technology means they can do this better. As a result of this they look DIFFERENT. Our tastes and fixations , as a group , I suspect, were formed in the Eighties and Nineties . If I wanted to look at a bike -I would take the early Rocky Mountain. If I wanted to ride a bike( or needed to be competitive ) - I would choose the latter..... Just sayin'........

Hydroformed Tubes on $3500 Stumpjumpers welded in China, anyone?

Hey, I just bought one! (It was $2100 Canadian, granted).

You know, I've had a lot more compliments on my 2008 Stumpjumper from non-bike people than on my 1999 Stumpjumper. People find it attractive.

I also believe that someone who rides beefy trails (1' drops, rocks and scree, etc) would have a better time on a 5" all mountain bike than on an early '90s hardtail with a Judy. There's little climbing penalty with a platform shock, and the traction, braking, shifting, geometry, etc would make up the difference.

Don't take this the wrong way, I still love retro bikes from the '90s. I don't NEED my new bike to enjoy riding; I just find it's a better tool for the job.

Funny but most stuff I ride now is done on an ss and the amount of folks you have to overtake riding 5" 'all mountain' bikes is embarrassing,up and down hill,don't think they're worth the weight penalty and complexity for the majority of riders,its the marketing men :twisted:

 

[utahdog2003]

You know, I've had a lot more compliments on my 2008 Stumpjumper from non-bike people than on my 1999 Stumpjumper. People find it attractive.

I think that proves my point. New shop floor available bicycle designs are made to inspire excitement in people that have little to no understanding of bicycles. I'm not saying that your Specialized is a POS, because its not. I am saying though, that aesthetics mean too much today, and computer managed asian manufacturing is generating bicycle shapes that in my opinion have little to do with their function. Some of the best small builder suspension designs available today, say Ventana's for example, don't have hydroformed 'S' bent tubes...why do Treks?

Don't take this the wrong way, I still love retro bikes from the '90s. I don't NEED my new bike to enjoy riding; I just find it's a better tool for the job.

I just think that the message of cycling is lost for me, in modern designs. Do I need a 5" travel bike to take big drops and stuff? Nope. My 1994 EWR has been doing that for years. Am I slower thatn I'd be were I to have 5" travel? Sure. Do I need to pay particular attention to my line, and bike placement, and balance, and momentum when on my EWR? Sure! That's called riding. If I wanted a bike that could ride the trail on its own, It would be KTM orange.

I rode with a guy back in college that had a ProFlex 856 at a time when the rest of us were using Klein Rascals and Pinnacles, S-Works M2s, Zaskars and various steel Konas and Breezers. The dude was a little older than us, as we were students then, and I was amazed at how closely he could follow our group through the gooey and sloppy technical trails of Florida. Then I rode behind him and it was revealed to me how he did it...the man never coasted, never stood up, never went wround obstacles, never picked a line, never did anything but steer through the trees and pedal. To me, that just seems like cheating. Again...if you're going to remove that much rider involvement, then go KTM orange.

The new Ibis Mojo ROCKS, I have one I've ridden a lot of full suspension bike (Turner Spot, various Santa Cruz models which were all good) but this took it to another level, a true XC FS that can take some big hits. With the Lopes link the rear end stays on track. This bike is not hype - it doesn't hurt that it looks sweet. I'm one happy camper.

I'm sure it rides great, but I'd stop short of calling it an Ibis. I don't mean that as harsh as it may sound, but if Chris Chance came out of the massage business and started selling imported carbon frames sporting names like Wicked and Monster under the Fat Chance banner, then I'd say the same thing.

Here in the states, it looks like we may lose Chrysler as an auto manufacturer. Three years from now, if the Dodge Charger name comes back on a line of rebadged front wheel drive Kia sedans, well then I'll be there to call foul on that one too, no matter how fast the thing is on the highway. :cry:

 

[velomaniac]

Reading the replies in this thread just makes me feel like a sad old g**.
I agree with what most have said !!!!!
We are just turning into our parents with the classic refrain 'kids today, they know nothing !'
All this new hydroformed stuff may not be to our taste and all looks the same but..........
To someone from today the classic diamond frame that made up the majority of bike designs from the past just looks the same !
In 15 years time there will be a load of folk going on about those wonderous hydroformed alloy bikes and how brilliant they were compared to the electromagnetic force field machines they call bikes today !
Bicycles are brilliant in concept, someone will always like some of them but not all of them.
Right now where did I park my proper Stumjumper

 

[hondamatic]

Funny but most stuff I ride now is done on an ss and the amount of folks you have to overtake riding 5" 'all mountain' bikes is embarrassing,up and down hill,don't think they're worth the weight penalty and complexity for the majority of riders,its the marketing men :twisted:

I rode with a guy back in college that had a ProFlex 856 at a time when the rest of us were using Klein Rascals and Pinnacles, S-Works M2s, Zaskars and various steel Konas and Breezers. The dude was a little older than us, as we were students then, and I was amazed at how closely he could follow our group through the gooey and sloppy technical trails of Florida. Then I rode behind him and it was revealed to me how he did it...the man never coasted, never stood up, never went wround obstacles, never picked a line, never did anything but steer through the trees and pedal. To me, that just seems like cheating. Again...if you're going to remove that much rider involvement, then go KTM orange.

I rode a hardtail until 2006, by which point most of my friends had gone dual suspension. I did have some good rides against them and beat them, even on some rocky technical trails. Riding is 90% rider, probably more.

Or, take it this way... if you love the purity of riding, go get an '80s bike with roller-brakes, an 18" wheelbase and non-index shifting. Go rigid and ride bear-traps.

It's hard to deny that technical improvements in biking have merit. If you can keep up without them, good for you!

I think that proves my point. New shop floor available bicycle designs are made to inspire excitement in people that have little to no understanding of bicycles. I'm not saying that your Specialized is a POS, because its not. I am saying though, that aesthetics mean too much today, and computer managed asian manufacturing is generating bicycle shapes that in my opinion have little to do with their function. Some of the best small builder suspension designs available today, say Ventana's for example, don't have hydroformed 'S' bent tubes...why do Treks?

Point one: sexy bikes sell before un-sexy bikes, so yes I'm sure there's a marketing component.

Point two: there is a small amount of technical merit in hydro-forming bike tubes. In the case of the Specialized bikes, it allows them to center the mass of the bike low, near the pedals, and helps cornerning a bit.

I haven't spent the time on my Stumpjumper to figure this out, but I can tell you that my Demo 7 cornered awesome for this reason - better than my friends' Santa Cruz VP Free, my old Cannondale Gemini and Norco DH bikes. Granted, there's other ways to make a low-CG on a downhill bike, or on any bike.

Hydro-forming tubes also allows you to make right-angle junctions at the head tube and BB, giving a little more weld area. Again, these aren't critical, but they may be helpful.

There's a reason why small custom builders don't hydro-form - it's tooling-intensive and probably isnt' worth the bang for the buck.