Pre 1997 date, how did that come about

[bikeworkshop]

'Incompatability all over the place'
Surely this isn't limited to post 98? Fit cantis to a U-brake frame? 27. 2mm post in a 26.8mm seat tube?, 68mm bb in a 73mm shell? 1 1/8" fork in a 1" head tube? HG cassette on a UG hub? 126-130-135 axles? It's never had standards that were actually standards for long, apart from maybe saddle rails and pedal threads and even those have been messed with, it just didn't stick.

When I look at our stocks of headset bearings, disc pads, hydraulic fittings, bb standards, these "service parts" stock storage areas are now mostly 4x bigger than in 97.

 

[benjabbi]

When I look at our stocks of headset bearings, disc pads, hydraulic fittings, bb standards, these "service parts" stock storage areas are now mostly 4x bigger than in 97.

Yep, there's loads of variation of essentially the same thing, I'm just saying that that started pre 97.

 

[brocklanders023]

Agree Ben and had this convo plenty of times before, bitd the amount of 'standards' was just as annoying as it is now. At least they seem to have settled on three seat post diameters, one or two steer tube diameters and way of attaching them to a frame, one type of stem with two clamp size and a reasonable standard hub width.

Pretty much covered above but the 97 date was seen as a time full suss became mainstream, V's replaced canti's, aluminium replaced steel and rigid forks were reserved for BSO's as suspension was good and cheap. End of the golden age if you will. Hadn't happened by 95 and was well established by 2000.

 

[bikeworkshop]

Yep, there's loads of variation of essentially the same thing, I'm just saying that that started pre 97.

Historically there have been times when manufacturers strove towards standardisation, and times they have attempted to dominate with their own standards.

It's never one or the other though, apart from during war, but diversification almost certainly comes in a bike boom time.

This period represents this transition, although occurs gradually over many years.

So @Scott-S 's question is why settle on this year in particular - I think consensus leads us there, but what was happening in the early 90s was clearly established by 97, and by 2000 the new way was looking settled.

Just look at the Kona catalogues

 

[slackboy]

I think it was Tony's fault

 

[bikeworkshop]

Woah!
No politics or we'll all be banned from spouting cr4p online!

We'll have to get on our bikes, like Norman suggested

 

[highlandsflyer]

I think @bikeworkshop spoke of the exponential growth of things such as:

"Carbon
Full sus
Too many gears on the back,
(&fewer up front)
Disc brakes,
Incompatibility all over the place
Frame geometry specialisation to a specific use.
Fox Pyjamas"

With the advent of the big changes around that time, it would be hard to argue against setting a date around that time.