What's In a Name?

"Now you can call me Ray, or you can call me J, or you can call me Johnny, or you can call me Sonny..."  Raymond J. Johnson Jr.

Cross bike.
Gravel Bike.
Adventure Bike.
All Road Bike.
X-Road bike.
Mixed Surface Bike.

I cannot recall a time when the marketing folks in the bicycle industry have struggled so hard to define a niche.  And believe me, this industry LOVES 'niche'.  Niche means you need yet another bike in your stable and this biz thrives on 'the next thing'.  But I digress.

Take a road bike, open it up for bigger tires, slacken the angles a bit, and tune it for comfort and stability and you have drawn a big circle around this new genre.  Now I am not poo-pooing the idea.  Far from it.  I am very much enjoying the gravel bike I have in my garage (yes, the maker of the bike calls it a "Gravel Race Bike".  So, there!).  But not everyone has such a clear vision of what they are selling.

So what's in a name?  This gravel thing was too good to stay in the rolling plains of the Mid West.  It has spilled out across those borders and founds it's way into places like So Cal where I live.  But we have no gravel, per se.  We have dirt.  And we have paved road - lots of that - that can be mixed with dirt.  So the appeal is there for a bike that can cover all kinds of surfaces (although I think "Mixed Surface Bike" is the worst name of all...sounds like a Home Depot product..."mix well and wait 24 hours before use").

"Call me what you like, just don't call me late for dinner."

But what to call them, these new bikes that are not really cyclocross, not really road, and not really an MTB at all?  No one seems to know.  Heck, even I am not sure and I find myself using one of those terms listed above in a conversation and feeling awkward about it, like I called one of my kids by the wrong name. I mean, don't I KNOW what it's called?

No.  And neither does anyone else, it seems.  At least not in the broader sense. Yet defining this in a marketing sense is important...got to get that term right so as to not exclude potential buyers.  And no one wants to miss this gravel gravy train, so you are seeing most of the bike makers getting something out there that gets them in the game.  So back to the list of name options (and I am sure as I write this, more are being thought up).

Cross bike:  In some cases it is accurate, like if I have a Specialized Crux.  But I am not 'Crossing on it (as in cyclocross racing).  Still it is a real 'cross bike, yet most new bikes coming to the market are certainly NOT a 'cross bike and calling them so would be wrong.

Gravel Bike:  Personally my favorite.  Even if gravel is not the same everywhere, it is easy to say and folks 'get it', even if you do not have gravel to ride it on.  It means (or should mean) that it is a bit lower, a bit slacker, more comfy, and bigger tires will fit compared to a typical 'cross bike.  Or at least to me it does and that is where the gravel bike and 'cross bike begin to take separate paths.

Adventure Bike:  Really?  Any bike is an adventure bike. And while you cannot deny that pretty much any bike can be ridden on a dirt or gravel road, not all of them will do it well.  And adventures, or how you experience them, are quite different. There is road based touring, fat biking (snow or otherwise), century-type road stuff, bike packing, and ...gasp...dare we say it, having an adventure on any old regular MTB.

All Road Bike:  Interesting and maybe a contender.  But is a Trek Domane with 32mm tires stuffed in there really a bike for all roads?  There are some roads that would truly suck on that bike.  Try the White Rim Trail in Utah.  It's a road.  Is this the Jack of all, master of none approach?  Not sure.

X-Road bike:  I think Giant has this one in their corporate pocket.  But I have no idea what it means.  Can I cross the road on it or what?

Mixed Surface Bike:  Saw a Ti bike called that from a big builder in that frame material.  Ick.  See Home Depot comment above.

So until something better comes along, I am sticking with Gravel Bike.  At least I have some idea what I am saying at the time.

A sign that befits the quandry, courtesy of the 4077th MASH unit.

Five millimeters.

Five millimeters.  About the thickness of a Nilla Wafer.  Likely less than an Oreo cookie.  That was how far I lowered my handlebar last night when I was setting up a new bike for the first ride.  Spinning around in the street in front of my house did not feel quite right at first and I was at a bit of a quandary as to how to get the bar lower than what it was without going to a lot of trouble.  I had the stem flipped already.  I could have turned the bar upside down and gained 5mm as the bar is designed just for that purpose but that is a lot of wrenching to do ten minutes before a ride.

But I had a 5mm spacer under the stem and then it was stem to headset direct.  Moving that spacer to the top was easier than flipping the bar so above the stem it went.  Frankly I was not expecting much of a difference.  But as soon as I pedaled out after moving the spacer I was right where I wanted to be.  Good to go.

And later on, as I was riding, it struck me that we, the human machine, are very perceptive creatures.  5mm higher was too high.  5mm lower was just right.  It also came to me that I like Nilla Wafers and it has been far too long since I had one…or two or three.

Further, it brought to mind something that is a broader subject, the macro to the 5mm micro, if you will:  stem length, rider position, 29ers, and wheelbase.  This has been a bit of a revolution for me.  At just over 6' tall, I have tended to run towards XL 29ers to get the cockpit right for my long arms and yet still stay with an under 100mm stem.  It was not always this way.  Back 'in the day', I ran a steel hard tail 26er with no suspension fork, a 23.5" effective top tube and a 150mm stem.  Pretty standard fare, really.

As time marched on, the top tubes got longer, over 25" on an typical XL 29er, and the stems got shorter.  I remember once, maybe in the mid 90s, hopping on a friends bike which was a 19" frame.  Mine was a 20.5" frame of the same exact brand and maybe was a half an inch longer all around, wheelbase, etc.  I was struck by how his carved around corners better than mine.  It was like a short ski.  Intriguing.  I never forgot that but the bike was too small for me.  Still, it occurred to me that as bikes get longer, they gain some things but begin to lose other things.

Fast forward a decade or two and I am having a conversation with an MTB project manger of a large bike company.  We are talking geometry and he mentions that he has gone back to longer stems set lower for his personal bikes as he feels it weights the front end better during turns.  Then here comes the much anticipated Ibis Ripley and they created it to turn more like a 26er by keeping the top tube shorter, the head tube angle semi-slack, and the stem longer.  It worked.  Then Turner does nearly the same thing on his new Czar.  As well, they mix in a 51mm offset fork.

Then I get in two bikes for review, a Niner RIP 9 and a Scott Spark.  The RIP is a LG size frame (a bit short for me according to the numbers on the geo chart) with a 100mm stem in a pretty long travel trail bike 29er FS and has the expected 69*-ish HT angle of it's ilk.  I was just shredding the local trails on that bike.  It turned like a dream…stayed hooked up and could drift through corners with control and poise.  The Spark is all XC with a much lower than normal (for me) 100mm stem on a slack for XC 69* HT angle.  The way it steers, even in an XL (but a relatively short overall bike for that size), is just right.  Truly balanced.

So last night, with the whole 5mm spacer deal in my mind,  I went out on yet another slightly small for me top tube bike with a 100mm stem as low as the bike would let me put it.  It felt great and carved up the hills like it was, to coin a tired old phrase, 'on rails'.

Then, I rode another bike, something I have had for some time now and enjoyed riding.  It has a longer front center/rear center and suspension travel that is somewhere in the middle of all the other bikes I mentioned.  But I am running that with a 90mm stem on an XL frame, the bar being higher in space relative to me.  I was struck by how much I was fighting the front end to stay hooked up and driving through corners.  Huh.  It used to feel great to me, now…

So all this to say that the dimensions and angles and widths and heights and settings and intentions of any bike is a black box that is filled with science and mystery.  I am beginning to think that it comes down to where the rider's weight is relative to the front wheel more than any other thing.  More than chain stay length, more than seat tube or head tube angles, more than frame size.

It also relates to how I want a bike to feel as I am not in the gravity mode where loooong front centers and shorty stems make sense to get the rider off towards the back of the bike.  But across several bikes that really could hardly be more different between them intent-wise, the longer stem in a lower position has been winning me over.

I have another test bike coming in that is 130mm travel F/R and, in an XL, and based on the charts, is just what I would always ride.  Instead I asked for a LG and will run a longer, lower stem.  Huh.  Old dogs and new tricks indeed.

Now for those Nilla Wafers.

Believe!

This message brought to you by the Hopeful Bicycle Manufacturers Association

 It has been interesting watching the 650b spin machine getting warmed up again as 2013 nears and the rush to the market with the 'tweener' wheel size begins in earnest.  At Sea Otter '12 I asked many industry wonks (off the record...if that is ever truly a reality) as to their thoughts on the movement to a third choice.  Now, it is always hard to tell just who is playing the cards very close to the vest (like some big company that starts with a red S) and who is really telling it like it is, but there seemed to be a few main points I heard over and over again and one I listed that I never heard even once.  Guess which one I never heard?

1. We had a few prototypes of our 650b ________  (insert tires, rims, forks here as needed) that were shelved due to lack of interest, now we have orders for 2013 and we are filling those orders.
2. We are not sure where it is going or if it will be received by John Q. Public, but we are keeping an eye on it.
3. What we see is a 'push' by manufacturers to the marketplace for 650b rather than a 'pull' from the marketplace by the consumer.
4. It really is not "perfectly in between" sizes and is much closer to a 26er than a 29er.
5.  We are completely sold out on the 650b concept and believe that it is the best wheel size for the majority or riders and applications.  We are so stoked to be offering that new wheel size to the future!

So, my perhaps snidely (word?) responses:

1. Money talks and we will sell anything to anyone that has a valid checking account tied to it.  Companies are in the biz to make biz.
2. Well any large bike company has to be at least 2 years ahead of the game in R&D or they will have no bikes to sell.  So if this is 2012, then the 2013 models have been finalized and are being built now and the 2014s are well along the drawing board.  Parts are ordered, sales forecast, marketing in place, etc.  Believe me, all the big players have been riding 650b test mules or I will eat my hat.  No one wants to be off the back and miss the boat like many did for 29ers, but will it be a row boat or a naval destroyer?   Will all of them jump in with both feet?  So far I hear that Scott has bet big.  We shall see if that is right.
3. I agree.  650b is waaay more push than pull.  "Who can we sell a new bike to now?"  "What will entice the happy owner of a very adequate bike to plop down the credit card for the latest thing?"  
4. Seems like that to me too.
5. No, I never heard that one, but then I hardly asked everyone.

A local to me dirt based rag has been thrashing a 650b FS lately and I ride with those guys pretty often.  I heard a gathered group of riders asking about the new 650b scoot at one rest stop in excited tones..."I heard that it is the perfect in between size!"  "I heard that it has the best of both worlds!"  "My buddy says that it will kill 29ers...waaay better."  So the reply from the magazine wonk was kinda funny and telling too.  To paraphase a bit...Well it is a great bike, very fun and it has the best of both wheel sizes.  But it feels a lot like a 26" wheel though.  Oh snap! 

I suppose that, in the early days of my journey to 29er-ness, that I may have waxed on a bit about the bennies of big wheels to anyone that was a skeptic, but then skeptics were the norm then, not the exception.  Now, not so much.  Now I don't talk about it as much and I never get into the silly debates of why this wheel size is faster or scientifically proven (leave that to the Germans) or 'better'.  I don't really care.  I know that I like it and that is enough for me.  It is not blessed of God or the end all of bike designs and there are things that will always bug me about 29ers that will never change due to the realities of things.  But I like them and so do a lot of buyers with cash in hand.  They are truly different in a dramatic, easily perceptible way.  You may not like it, but you can tell right away they are not a 26er.

I may even end up liking 650b more than I do now, which so far has been just like going back to a 26" wheel to me.  Fun, sporty, etc, but hardly earth shattering.  Maybe I will be converted over time.  Likely not, but I have no axe to grind.  I want to ride what works best for me and what I like the most, regardless of label or dimensions and I have no desire to whack others with a big stick about it either way.  Of course I have an investment in seeing 29ers do well as twentynineinches&sixfiftyb.com is a long url.  But really, there is room for everyone to play and ride happy without being so divisive.

It is odd how personal many make it on the forums like on MTBR.  On both sides of the fence, it gets kinda nasty like it really matters who 'wins'.  Sometimes the personal attacks on character against someone like GT by a poster who has never met him, sat down with him, ridden with him, or has any clue about him as a person are so transparently ugly it amazes me.  Shame on them.

I do plan on getting on some really good 'tweener' bikes in the future though, as opportunities arise.  Until then, I will watch with a mix of amusement and disgust as the market forces and the internet cowboys have the 'see who can spin the fastest' contest.  Meanwhile, I suggest this as an ad poster for 650b benefits.  You are getting sleepy...sleeeepy.  Or nauseous if you spin too much.

Where have all the long cranks gone?

Mourn their passing.

Back in the day we used to have quite a few options in crank arm length and for us tall-ish guys and truly tall guys, a step up from a 'normal' 175mm crank arm to a 180mm crank arm was a fairly common deal.  It makes sense to me...longer legs can use longer cranks.  Shorter legs can use shorter cranks like 170mm ones.  They make more than one stem length or frame size, right?

Now it was always assumed that a longer crank meant more power applied to the pedal stroke.  Scientific tests seem to point to this being un-true, but that is not really the point of using them.  Sometimes they just feel better or work better for the rider spinning them.  When I moved up to 180s about umpteen years ago, it took a while to get used to the increased pedal circle, but after that, and some sore legs, I liked how the longer crank allowed me to stay in a higher gear and turn a slower RPM.  I am a diesel by nature, not a gerbil, so I found that the slower cadence fit well with the demands of high torque-in search of traction-long climbs on bad roads mountain bike riding.

Then this testing gig comes along and NO ONE specs 180mm cranks on bikes off the showroom floor, not in any mainline brand anyway.  So I get used to spinning 175s on all the test bikes and only keep the 180s on the SS scoots.  Fine enough.  I adapt.  Just shift down a 1/2 gear or so and off you go.

And even I have some mixed feelings about longer cranks on an SS.  When the RPMs are high, the 175 is easier to spin and they are also easier to get around the TDC position and onto the next downstroke.  But here in the digital land of So Cal and its mountains, we spend so much time far underwater on a typical climb that the 180 crank comes into its own, giving me more leverage on that slow and torturous downstroke at 10 RPM.  Still, given the option, I would run long arms on the SS for sure.

But now, just try and find a big box brand crank for an SS in 180s.  Man that is getting hard.  Is there even still an XT version or just XTR?  And SRAM does not even offer a single MTB crank in 180s except the Stylo OCT SS crank and that, from what I have been told, is fading into obscurity too.  Forget about FSA or Raceface or such like.

So that leaves us with older stuff we scavenge from EBAY...sweet XTR or something...or the little guys like White Bros or Surly, E Thirteeen, etc.  And often that means running a square taper BB or putting up with someone's idea of the new mousetrap (like the Surly or E Thirteen) and discovering that it is not all that well thought out.

So why in the world can I not buy an SLX or X9 level or XT or XO level 180mm crank?  And beside that, why so few dedicated SS cranks?  Well, if you are a manufacturer or a product manager for a bike company, slapping a one size fits all crank on a bike, especially when no one is really likely to care anyway, is a slam dunk decision.  It is likely what I would do too, if that was my job. 

Then you add in the fact that the big guys seem to have no idea what to do with singlespeeders and any thoughts they might have for longer crank arm options, and you have a tiny, carbon wrapped over aluminum perfect storm of events that is stealing our easy options for a longer lever.

Now I like options and at least here, we have less than we used to.  At least, that is the way I see it.

Well, that stirred the 650B pot

Always controversial, the subject of wheel size and what is best.  My blog was picked up on MTBR and I made the mistake of commenting on it...should have just stood back and watched.

MTBR post

Some interesting comments from Walt at Waltworks on what is possible with 29" wheels and longer travel.  I have seen his, what looks like Ventana based rear FS, steel frames before.  Very creative.  And Devin Lenz has had the PBJ out there too.  So in this case the small guy works around the issues of stuffing it all in there.  I know the Lenz stuff works very well , I have no idea how the WW stuff is in FS but Walt is a pretty smart guy, so I imagine it is good too.

But.  That is a long ways from being a viable solution to the bigger bike makers woes, that of getting 29ers to make sense and behave in bigger travel designs.  His point that if a small guy can do it, then the big guys should be able to as well may be true.  I am sure that they have smart guys too and engineering resources that a garage guy can only dream of.   But the idea of bigger travel 29ers may not scale up well when it needs to work across a broad range of suspension designs and drivetrain components.  It may well be that, at the end of the day, when the prototypes are built, ridden, broken, tweaked and re ridden, that they may not be all that good, especially when you have to face the wrath of the bean counters who forecast sales numbers.   The thing is...is it WORTH IT? 

Maybe not for any real numbers of bikes, but maybe for a small builder like Lenzsport.  Meanwhile, Walt had some thoughts on big travel 29ers.

So the thing about 650B and whether it is the solution to getting the biggest wheel reasonable underneath you on a real AM/DH bike may well be the real deal, even if it is not the biggest wheel we ride.  We shall see.

650B - Finally a reason to exist?

When I first heard about 650B, I figured that it would replace 26" wheels at some point, but I did not expect 29ers to be so quick to take over XC duties, basically making 26ers antiques as far as a hardtail or shorter travel XC/Trail applications.  That rapid acceptance killed any momentum that 650B had gained.

26ers are done...stick a fork in 'em (to paraphrase a bit...sorry RC).  But where is 650B?

650B seemed to die on the vine as an XC app, offering less than the full bennies of a 29er wheel and only slightly more than a 26" wheel, but vastly complicating things for a bike shop or manufacturer who had to stock a whole bunch of new SKUs.  Then, tire selection, fork options, etc, never happened in any real numbers.  Brands that made 650B bikes were few and Haro dropped them, leaving, what, Jamis?

So here we are in 2012 and 29ers are poised to take over the hardtail to 120mm XC/Trail bike world.  But the clamor for bigger travel 29ers has been loud, even though it may be a small group doing the yelling.  130mm and above seems to be a place where the complications of a 29" wheel and tire really start to be a bother.  Forks get tall, swingarms and wheel bases get long, front ders get in the way, wheel are heavy and a bit fragile, and a true DH ready 29er tire is heavy.  Want a 6"+ travel 29er that is ready for heavy trail use?  You have one choice in frames (Lenzsport) and hardly any forks or tires to match.

But, 650B may be the solution to all that.  If the biggest wheel that makes sense for any application is the right one, then 650B as a 'big wheel' for AM/DH may just be the niche it was looking for all along.  It could allow frame designers to fill all those needs into a reasonable package as far as keeping things tidy and manageable.  It would allow for a lighter and stronger wheel/tire combo (well, it could...when they make them) compared to a 29er, but still give a bit more of that big wheel feel to the bike.

I dunno...I bet it will happen, but it will take a major player to believe in it and forge the initial cost, then the middle players and smaller builders will follow suit,  Will 2013 be the year of the long travel, 'big wheeled' bike, even if the wheels are only somewhat bigger?

I think so.  Ready for a 150mm travel 650B bike?  I might be.  Sounds like fun.

New motto:  Ride the biggest wheel that works for you.

The Rise of the 'Everybike 29er'

I was running down a rocky, rutted trail in Southern France after just enduring a short but intense ascent up a dirt road overlooking the Mediterranean Sea.  We had gotten to that point by way of a few miles of back alley riding around town.  I enjoyed the tight and responsive ride of a sample bike I rode to the trail head with nary a pedal bob or sluggish feel.  Then I had saddled up on a carbon FS and ridden the dirt section of the ride enjoying a bike that pedaled really well and was quite light despite the XL frame and less-than-Gucci parts spec. This one climbed very well and I remember thinking that I could race this bike just as it was.

Now I was on this roller coaster of a downhill ride on a longer travel feeling FS 29er with moderate trailbike angles and thinking that it was almost as good as the Specialized FSR I have on long term test, but it was more agile.  This would make a great medium to light/heavy trailbike and would do likely 90% of what the FSR does.

The thing was, it was all on the same bike.  The townie ride, the fast climb, the tricky downhill...no bike changes.  One bike, in this case a Specialized Camber Evo, a Euro spec bike, but comparable to a Camber Expert Carbon for the most part.  Carbon main frame, 110mm of front and rear travel, 70* HT angle, decently short chainstays, good tire clearance, bigger front rotor, nice 2x10 SRAM build.  Lock out fork and Propedal.  Fast but strong wheels.

And it occurred to me that 2012 is seeing the rise of the Everybike in the 29er world, that being a nearly do-all scooter that is light enough to race but tough enough, long enough (travel wise) and slack enough to trail ride.  It is a 29er bike you can take nearly anywhere and be good to go and that has not been the case until now.  Last year the Santa Cruz carbon Tall Boy caught my attention as a bike that, when run with a 120mm fork, was a pretty good do-all bike.  Light enough, stiff enough, capable enough.  Only 100mm of rear travel, but that was not too much of a deal breaker.

Now this year we see the promised Ibis Ripley, something my buddy that works at Ibis called a "Quiver Killer".  There is the Camber I was riding, the new Lenz Mammoth just announced, perhaps the Salsa Horsethief, and others to come.  So what makes a great Everybike?  Glad you asked.

Light weight -  Not crazy light but somewhere in that 27lb or less range in a XL.  25lbs would be a great target to shoot for.  Now that is a number pulled out of thin air a bit, but at that weight and with good wheels, it begins to pull itself along nicely.  Some aluminum bikes will not get there.  Some will.  The Lenz likely will as Devin is a wizard at whittling frame weights down...not sure about the Horsethief or the new Yeti SB95 but they are strong contenders.  Perhaps with the right parts.  But, in this case, carbon is king and the better Everybikes will be carbon and not cheap.


Enough travel - 100mm is not enough.  130mm is perhaps too much.  120mm is likely the sweet spot for the Everybike, but the overall balance will count for more than just the travel numbers.

The right spec - Parts need to be prudently chosen to keep the bike responsive and wheels need to be very good.  Tires cannot be a weight weenie 2.0 but on the Everybike, you can always change tires for the occasion. 


The right geometry - Just a bit slacker is better for an Everybike.  Not way into the 60*s, but 71.5* HT angles ain't gonna do it either IMO.

Now if you have a few 26ers in your garage, then you likely already have one of these 26" Everybikes.  Something like a carbon Stumpjumper or a Yeti 575 or maybe even a Ibis Mojo SL.  It is a bike that you can run on the weekends with your buds and still hang in the Team 12 hour before you head off to the Bike Park to ride the 'Blue' rated trails.  Not brilliant at anything, but very good at everything.

The Everybike 29er is here now too and they are gonna' sell a ton of them. 

Is 120mm the new 100mm?

Well the Ibis Ripley that I mentioned in the last post sure has been controversial.  There are lots of folks boo-hooing about the steepish geo of the bike once the numbers were released.  The 71* HT angle seems to mark it as a long legged XC bike more than a Heavy Trail/AM thing like a Mojo might be.

It seems that Ibis has focused on keeping this a bit tighter than that long awaited 'Mojo 29er' was imagined to be.  That, and the non-Ibis looking design will keep this out of the hands of many Ibis loyalists I bet. 

So what we seem to have gotten is a swipe at the Tall Boy more than anything, but this year there are more and more bikes coming out with 120mm F/R travel.  The Tomac Diplomat, the Trek Rumblefish, the Specialized Camber (at 110mm), the Salsa Horsethief and I am sure many others.  I opined a year or so ago that 100m was the sweet spot on 29er FS bikes, the point where you could do almost anything in moderation and have a balanced bike through it all.

But with the light and likely good pedaling Ripley, well, maybe we are seeing the needle swing towards 120mm as the new sweet spot.  Maybe.  We shall see. 

Either way, the choices for 29ers is getting pretty wide now and there should be something for everyone here pretty soon.

Bike folks are cool.

The other day JeffJ and I had the chance to hang out with these folks in their spacious and cleverly hidden fortress of solitude.

The occasion was a sneak peek of the 2012 line of nicely machined and highly polished gear for bike freaks like us.  That is all secret stuff that I cannot talk about until later this year or they will cut out my heart with a highly polished tire lever.

But beyond all the schwag and marketing gab was a bit of an inside look at a bunch of guys and gals trying very hard to make very good things that we will want to buy, use, and enjoy.  And along the way to doing that, they are making a living, raising families, paying bills, and, as much as humanly possible, riding their bikes.

There are some very cool people in the bike biz.   Bikes are very cool, and bike people, it seems to follow, are, more often that not, very cool people.

And that is one of the best things about bikes...the bike people...the people that dream them, design them, make them, sell them, ride them and live them.  It would not be the same without ya.

If Less is More, is More, More?

I have always thought that the best thing about 29ers is that they do more with less...less travel, less gearing, lesser tires, etc.  See the rise from the ashes of the hardtail as a viable mount for proof of that.

But lately I have been riding this beauty around the hills and valleys of So Cal and something interesting has been happening.  I am having a LOT of fun.

 

 What has really surprised me was how much I am using this bike.  I was a bit conflicted when I began to build it up as I was not sure how much I would use it.  I am not the type to collect expensive things I do not have a purpose for.  Seems vain and wasteful.  So I figured that I would use this bike a few times a year for harder, more techy rides, road trips to Moab, etc.  Now I find that I am riding it several times a week.  Huh...imagine that!

Now first off it makes me feel better about building it and not having it sit around.  Secondly, it has opened my eyes to what big wheels and some more suspension travel can offer, IF it is packaged well.  the FSR weighs right at 31lbs and that makes it at least 4 lbs heavier than any bike I own.  It pedals really well, has a nice compact back end so is agile, and the slacker HT angle and longer wheelbase is something that you get used to in short order.  In fact, after riding this, I always feel like other bikes are too short and nervous.  But man, it is a hoot to ride on any trail so far, at least pointed down.  I did struggle a bit on a steep climb on singletrack where the slacker HT angle and higher h-bar let the bike's front wheel hunt and peck a bit, but I think I could get used to that and compensate.

But other than that...I love pedaling it around.  It is geared low (22x34) on the granny side so I can sit and stoke along on long grinds and the de-tuned Mini Brain rear shock keeps everything buttoned down.  The slacker HT angle and longer travel makes anything but the smoothest trails a playground.  Bounce off of that rock, wheelie over the gap, preload the rear suspension and turn the trail into a pump track.  Sooooo fun.

And now I see more peeks into 2012, one of them being this 130mm travel Kona Satori.

Looks pretty similar in intent to the FSR, eh?  This is what Kona says about the bike's priorites:

  "The inspiration for the bike came from our US sales force, many of whom are die-hard 29er lovers, all of whom are extremely skilled bike handlers who like to push trail and rider limits. The design brief was to make a slacker (head tube angle is 68°), shorter, longer travel (130mm) dual suspension 29er that could find that sweet spot between plush travel and aggressive geometry, without sacrifice climbing efficiency and trail quickness. It’s purposed specifically for those who ride on rough, rolling, technical terrain where big wheels and longer travel enables you to lay to waste anything in your path."

Lay waste.  Cool.  I am still on the fence about whether biggie travel 29er bikes...150mm and more...are something that is too viable, but maybe I just need to ride one to have my vision broadened a bit.  But, I am still surprised how very close I am to making a bike like the FSR my #1 rig.  I wish it was a bit lighter.  That would take $$ in adding parts like an upper level SRAM 2x10 driveline instead of the heavier Shimano 2x9 bits I have on there.  I already have carbon bars and great wheels run tubeless.  I would not run a smaller tire or give up the Command Post, so really it comes down to new and expensive shifty bits or a carbon frame....and there is no carbon framed FSR...yet.  I bet there will be for 2012.

And add in the rumored Ibis Mojo 29er that will certainly be carbon and at least 130mm, the new Kona announced recently, the gracefully aging but a bit out of step RIP9, and the DW Sultan and there are a few bikes in this vein to chose from.  If you can afford a carbon version when they are out there to buy, or do not mind riding a 30lb bike all the time, then a long legged bike like this is maximum fun-time on trail.

Another level down is the Tomac Diplomat, a rumored Bigger Mama from Salsa, and the Intense Spider, all said to be at 120mm.  Will 120mm-130mm be the new 100mm?  Will 80mm bikes just go away, even for racing?  The new JET9 RDO carbon is set for 100mm rear and tuned to a 120mm fork iff'n ya' wanna'.  Tall boy too.

I said in the past that 100mm or 4" was the sweet spot for a 29er FS in that it is enough to still feel very fast pedaling but still ride pretty rough trails in comfort and control.  If that is true, that 100mm is the 'sweet spot', then 130mm just may be the 'fun spot'.

In fact, I bet that soon 120mm will be the bottom end of XC bikes that are not a race specific model and will be competing for trail space on the weekends against the Kona Satori and the FSR.  I am wondering if 120mm will be the new sweet spot?  Could be.  I need to try one to find out.

In the meantime, if a blue and black blur passes you on the trail and the rider is giggling like some adolescent at the cartoon matinee, it might be me.  I would have said hi, but I was having too much fun to stop and chat.

It shouldn't outta' happen.

Imagine you are at the counter of your auto tire store purchasing new rubber for the family wagon.  The counter guy shows you a few tires to choose from and then asks you what wheel type you have on you car.  Not size...not material...is it a TLR rim or a Stans?  Mavic UST?  Then based on that, he mentions that you may not have perfect luck with tires A or B, but should be 'OK' with tire C even though it is not suggested.  After all, he and his buddies have run that tire on your wheel type and it has been OK so far.  If it does not work out, you may, he warns, roll the tire off the rim when entering a steep driveway ramp or have issues with keeping air in it.

Right.  No one in their right mind would accept that.  Not on a car, not on a motorcycle...not on anything.  Except a bike.  Specifically a mountain bike.  But that is the crazy situation that we find ourselves in today.  There are several approaches at what makes for a tubeless rim.  UST, Stan's BST, Bonty's TLR, and others that either license one of those or have their own idea of what works.  Then the tires are a big bag of snakes as well.  Some are 'tubeless ready', some are 'tubeless rated', some are not suggested as tubeless (but are ok to use...wink...wink...we are just keeping the lawyers happy), etc. 

Ridiculous. 

Today I was riding down a rutted, steep trail and enjoying the fun of that, playing by going in and out of the rut, weight back over the saddle, front brake on...when the rut closed out on me and I had to transition left across the face of the trail.  That loaded the front wheel a bit at an angle and *POP* went the weasel as the front tire blew off the rim.  Seriously?  30 psi, barely past a jogging speed and a very moderate loading of the sidewall was enough to endanger my health.  I was blessed to keep it together and ride the rim to the side of the trail, but...it could have been otherwise.

It was a tubeless rated rim and a non-tubeless (but blessed as "OK" by the manufacturer in a personal conversation) tire.  It mounted up well enough and gave no indication of trouble till it just failed.

That should not be able to happen. 

There needs to be a standard or system or rating or SOMETHING that ensures parts play together well or do not play together at all.  And we should have the expectation that it just works and unless we do something really dumb like run silly low pressures, etc, it should not come off the rim unless we are so far along on the course to disaster, that a crash is just inevitable. 

This dance of whether the tire will seal or not, ghetto tubeless, tubeless rated vs tubeless ready (what does that mean anyway?)...this just needs to end.  And no, I am not convinced that UST is the answer either or at least so far the potential of it it has not been realized.

SO now I am back to wondering if the things I am supposedly OK to do are safe to do.  And, there is a lot at stake here.

I don't accept that from my car tires and I should not accept it from my bike tires either.

What is missing?

This is.  The Ibis Mojo HD.  It has a carbon fiber frame and makes for a pretty light build, has enough travel for nearly all trail conditions, pedals well enough to climb for hours, and pretty much is darn close to an all around package for the weekend warrior as one could dream of.  Well, it is not really missing since you can go right out and buy one....unless you want one with big wheels.

Then, fuggit' about it.  You can't have it, not because Ibis does not make one...they don't...yet...but you cannot have one because NO ONE MAKES a 29er like this.  This occurred to me as I was riding with a guy that works for Ibis and we were talking about his Mojo.  It was an HD 140 built up with moderate but nice components.  It had 140mm of travel, was pedaling up the paved road we were on with hardly a unwanted wiggle from the DW link rear suspension, had a beefy Fox fork, a slacker head tube angle for all around trail fun, and weighed 27lbs.

You can't buy that type of bike in a 29er.  The closest thing right now is a Santa Cruz Tall Boy and it is lacking in travel and over zealous in the HT angle department.  Riding the recently built Specialized FSR points out how much fun a slacker HT angle and more travel in a good pedaling 29er can be, but it has very nice parts on it and it still weighs 31 pounds.  Too heavy for an all around everyday bike for where I live, but still fun on the right trail.

There has been a lot of noise about more and more, bigger and bigger travel 29ers but I still have my doubts as to how many riders will embrace that.  But I bet a ton of them would ride a 27lb, carbon, FS with great suspension manners, relaxed handling and 120+mm of travel.  If someone will only make one.  26" FS bikes have gone through a refinement process that brought them from shorter travel, steeper angled designs to 33-35 pounders that were waaay overbuilt for the average Joe to something like a Ibis Mojo or carbon Specialized Stumpjumper 26er.

If I were to pick a next direction for 29ers to go, it would be that-a-way.  But so far, no one has asked me.  Till then, in my opinion, something will be missing.

The point of diminishing return?

A recent ride on the Specialized FSR 130mm/5" travel bike brought something into clarity for me.  I have been a bit of a skeptic regarding the movement towards bigger and bigger travel 29ers.  My long standing motto has been that "29ers do more with less".  That is immediately apparent in the first few rides on a hardtail 29er or even a rigid bike.  In fact, the 29er, IMO, has completely saved that type of scooter from near obscurity as purely a XC race thing or a casual putt-a-rounder, WallyMart bike.  The custom steel frame builder that does MTBs should thanks the gods of big wheels daily for breathing life into their business in a big way.

I had forever signed off on anything that was not FS in 26" wheels.  It just sucked to ride it off road.  Now, I love my steel SS hardtail and I even enjoy geared hardtails again.  Who would have thunk it?

And that magic that the big wheels bring to the trails also makes a lesser travel FS enough for most of the folks out there, truth be told.  3-4" sure feels generous when you are gittin' it down a fast, bumpy trail.  But, is that still as true when the travel gets to 5"?  6"? More?  Does the big wheel begin to lose some of its advantages, not that it stops rolling as well or loses its ability to corner faster or stability goes away, but rather are there other factors that begin to encroach into the 29ers advantages that take some of the shine off of the apple?

A recent ride on a 5" travel 29er brought that to mind.  Now this bike is not billed as an AM or DH bike, but rather a XC/Trail bike for rougher trails.  The downhill I was on was a 3 mile path of mostly sandstone and dirt with lots of ruts and odd angles worn into the rock over the ages.  Is is a complete hammer fest on anything without suspension and the ledgy and edgy surface make it a challenge to ride a clean line at speed.  I had two true AM 26" bikes ahead of me.  They were both sporting big forks in the 6" range with 36mm stanchions, 20mm thru-axles, stout tires, maybe a coil rear shock, and head tube angles at around 65* to 67* I suspect. 

I figured it would be possible to stay with them on the FSR, being that I was only giving up an inch of travel and I had the Big Wheel Mojo going for me.  After all, I regularly keep up and haunt 4-5" travel 26ers on smoother singletrack when I am on my hardtails, and even on the SS for that matter.

I got dropped.  See ya.  Well, actually, I was keeping them in sight but losing ground until I took a shot of mud in the eye and had to stop to deal with that....can't ride like Popeye all squinty and all.

So what happened?  A few things come to mind:

• Rider issues?  They were simply better than me and I was lacking the skittles to keep up.  That could be, but that was the only place all day that happened, so although they certainly were very good riders, so am I.  Still, there is this factor to consider.
• Bringing a knife to a gunfight.  130mm of travel and a 69*-70ish* HT angle do not an AM bike make, no matter what size your wheels are.  The 26" bikes were built for this type of riding.  Burly singlecrown forks,  stout tires, lighter (or as light) but stiffer wheels, HT angles that get you feeling better about high speed chunk...etc.

Were the bigger wheels helping?  I am sure they were to some degree, but it was not enough to close that gap when the trail REALLY demanded the whole package the other bikes had.  It was not the ace up my sleeve that it is on smoother trails.  Huh.

In fact, there were times when things got really intense that I felt that the big wheels were working against me as much as they may have been helping.  That trail required rapid corrections on (and sometimes IN) very rutted, bomb-cratered rocky surfaces.  In this case, how much was I giving up to the naturally more agile and easier to pick up and turn 26" wheel of the AM bikes?  Maybe not as much as I think, but I bet there was something going on there that I never even feel on a smoother trail.

So, what would happen if I get on a 29er that really was built to be a big wheeled version of the bikes that ran away from me on the devil's highway that day?  There are not too many of them right now...maybe 2 I can think of.  And there is really only one tire to choose from, so if I had one of those bikes, maybe I would have dogged them all the way down.  I sure could have used a slacker HT angle and a beefier fork.  I was using all the travel I had and I could feel the fork 'twanging' as I stuffed it into ruts in the corners.  But I would not have gained any agility, and more likely I would lose some.  As well, the bikes those guys were on were nearly as light as mine was.  A true AM fork and Dissents on wide Sun MTX rims or Gordos or whatever, plus the beef in the frame would be a heavy bike.  What would it take to toss that around at speed?  Would I be able to run through stuff that they have to tip-toe around with those tiny wheels as thus negate the increased mass there?  Maybe.

Like this Lenz Lunchbox?

I know that this guy thinks so and he is certainly in a position to know.  He is one of the main players pushing for and riding on this kind of bike done up in big wheels.

So, what is the point here?  Not too sure, but I think there is a place where the 29" wheel really, really is better, and that is where it allows a rider on a simpler, lighter bike to ride with more confidence and carry speed like a mad man on the average trail, whatever that may be.  I think that the advantage may begin to narrow a bit as the intensity of the trail demands a bigger, tougher, stiffer, slacker, hammer.

One thing for sure though, we have not seen the limits of where 29ers are going in this direction.  If the weight can be held to a reasonable place and the components like forks and tires  become readily available, then I just may get a chance to prove myself wrong and I am always ready to give that a try.

T.R., have I told you lately...

...that I loved your bikes?  But, sadly, it was an unrequited love.  When I began riding MTBs, there were two brands that I remembered as being prized above all:  Ritchey and Fisher.  Gary Fisher was still doing some fillet brazed stuff like the Mt Tam but was moving fast toward outsourcing to TIG'd assembly line frames.  Tom Ritchey's work was the I-Ching of bikes IMO.  The Timbercomp was my dream bike.  I even loved the name.  It sounded like something you would want to just disappear on over the horizon, dashing and dancing through the Aspens.

There was a local guy that was the Ritchey 'dealer' and he would do these CRAZY big rides back then...50 to 100 milers when we could barely ride ten miles.  He was a small 'g' god.  Even the production P23s and P21s were very cool, even though they were a bit racing focused for me.

But now we have this:  The Ritchey P-29.  Oh baby.

There is a lot of controversy right now on an MTBR thread on just how pure and authentic this is since it will be made on some assembly line instead of being birthed by hand by Tom Ritchey hisself.  Bah.  TIG is just fine.  Brazing is nice for artisans and allows for some give and take in tubing spec, but really it is not an issue.  If Tom actually designed the tubing, and the P-29 is not the realization of some quirky idea that 29ers need to be sporting some super steep and quick handling geo, etc, then this thing will be at the top of my wish list for a steel hardtail.

Why?

• Well, for one it is just drop dead gorgeous.  Some bikes just look right.  Some do not.  No odd bent top tubes like some broken backed camel, no weird angles or twisted sister tubes...just pure triangles of graceful steel.

• I hope that TR, at this point in time, is not just a bandwagon jumper for the 29er parade.  If he has been on big wheels (and I think he is a pretty tall guy), then I have to believe that he knows how to do it up right.  He sure has the pedigree.  I learned more about bike/frame design in 30 minutes of talking with Joe Breeze then I had learned in years of hanging around other folks.  These guys know what is going on down there and why.

• Pure emotion.  I love the fade color.  Man, that just takes me back.  And somewhere in the back alleys of my psyche is a signpost that says "Ritchey Parking Only.  All Others Will Be Judged Accordingly."

I will never have a Timbercomp, but the dream just got a bit of a B-12 vitamin shot just seeing the P-29.

Lead to where, exactly?

I was recently alerted to a 'think piece' (not sure if it is an editorial as it is not credited) in the April 2011 issue of Mountain Bike Action magazine, page 20, (may not be on the stands yet) that is titled "Lead Instead of Follow".  I will not try to copy all the text here, but I have to comment on what I think is a poorly thought-out and misguided proposal.

The basic idea is that, due to the great strides made in technology on MTBs, and specifically the longer travel 'downhill' bikes, it has allowed them to be ridden beyond the typical trail conditions that the average MTB can handle.  This has encouraged illegal trail cutting on public lands in order to keep the thrill level up, being that the typical user friendly trail is "not fun to ride" on a DH (Downhill Bike).  So, in order to police ourselves, we should allow enlightened individuals to decide what just exactly a DH bike is and then mandate that a head tube badge or label be affixed on the bike to declare it fit only for racing courses or dedicated DH trails.  We are urged to do this before the guv'mint does it for us.

Seriously?

I want to touch on a few specific points and respond.

• Certainly technology has enabled bicycles to be ridden in terrain that is far beyond what would have been survivable (or practical at least) just a few years ago.   I can see how that type of capability can lead one to look 'off course' for terrain that gives the rider an adrenaline shot.  That happened when the typical Jeep 4x4 trail rig grew into a tube chassis rock buggy and drivers were emulating the comp guys on public lands.  
• The article makes a statement that the issue arising from this is not user conflicts on multi-use trails (as DH bikes are not ridden there...too boring basically), but rather it is individuals creating new and un-authorized trails that give them a hard-core experience.  In response to this trail building, land managers will react by closing trails to all MTBs regardless of the type of bike it is.
• So it is upon our shoulders to label these 'type' of bikes appropriately so that they will be...well, not sure exactly...labeled as for competition only or for dedicated DH trails only, etc.
• This will keep the government from making those decisions for us.

There is more, but that is the gist of it.  So let me think about this a bit.  For certain, technology has leapt forward to where the modern MTB has great brakes, suspension, tires, etc, and is strong and amazing in what it can do in the hands of a good rider.  But just how do you decide what is a DH bike for Comp only?  Is it bigger brakes than 'normal'?  Bigger tires than 'normal'?  Slacker angles, slammed saddle, shorter stems, wider bars?  Is it 6" of travel?  7"?  8"?  I have seen guys riding terrain on a hardtail with a stout fork that I could not ride on a Knolly big bike.  Is that a DH bike now, a HT with a 120mm fork and beefy rims?  Is it what it can do or what it 'is'?

The author suggests that the govt cannot be trusted to accurately label a DH bike, nor can the manufacturer or the Land Access agency (IMBA, etc).  Rather, it should be judged by a jury of its peers; folks who show up for trail building sessions and grassroots MTB efforts.  Well, I am qualified then, based on my past experience, to label your DH bike as not suitable for public use on open trails.  Do you want me doing that?  My "definition and identification" of what is a DH bike would not agree with others just as qualified.  I guarantee it.  Who decides who is on that panel of Illuminati?  What standards do they use?  I have to disagree with the statement in the text that it would be a "not too difficult task".  Pretty grey area.

Who enforces this new exclusionary ruling?  Will there be a ranger standing at the trailhead looking for labels?  Then what?  If 150mm of travel is too much, can I reduce the travel on my fork and be OK to ride?  There is no way to enforce it, and if there was, what is the penalty?  A fine?  What?  Is there a code for this? We have enough rules and laws now that cannot be enforced.  Will you be the one to tell me that I cannot pedal my DH bike down a flat trail with my family just because I want to ride it (even if it is not "fun").  Trust me...somewhere, someone will take this as a 'qualified' reason to keep you off a public land somewhere.  I mean, "can't you read the label, son?"  "Says right there that this bike is only for...yada yada..."

Will the bike makers want to market something that I cannot ride down a normal trail or dirt road, but only on a race course or dedicated trail?  How many riders live near one of those?  Who can make them put the badge on the bike when it rolls of the factory floor?  Congress?  Can a dealer sell one and be held responsible for it being improperly used?

A label like this only benefits the lawyers.  Think that some trial lawyer would not love to represent the 'victim' of a multi-use trail user conflict that was harmed at the hands of a rider on a bike labeled 'for competition only or dedicated DH trails"?  Oh yeah.  Payday.

So then we are expected to believe that land managers will respond to all this 'responsible thinking' on our parts and rise up to build us dedicated DH trails.  Create a need and fill it, I suppose.  What a vision.  I am skeptical.  The bikes already exist.  The trails do not, for the most part.  A label will not change that as far as I can see any more than labeling a street motorcycle the same way would result in road courses being paved in the town near you.

"What is the alternative?", it asks in the end of the article?  Well, as always, it just comes down to responsible behavior.  That, common sense, and courtesy.  And you cannot legislate that. 

We have too many labels already.

Is Carbon Fiber the answer?

And if so, what are the questions?

I have been a bit of a CF (carbon fiber) skeptic, based mostly on past performance and some recent performance of one brand of bike in particular.  But a recent conversation with a bike company owner that is making inroads into CF frames and components was interesting in the absolute statements in the discussion.  He said that a well built CF frame will last waaaay past the life span of an alu frame of the same type.  Not just as good or maybe as good, but speaking to failure related to fatigue cycles...and that is the typical killer of alu frames...CF was so far beyond that as to be impossible to break due to just pedaling it to death.  Basically, the thought here is that it is beyond the ability of a human powered motor to ride it long enough and hard enough to get beyond the fatigue failure point.  Then we looked at a new CF handlebar they have coming to market and he said basically that the CF bar was so much stronger than the alu version that it was just off the charts....lighter, too.

Now taking crash damage out of the equation, that is a pretty strong statement and came as a response to my musing that I like a metal frame because I tend to keep my bikes a long time.  The reply was, in that case, that CF is the material of choice for guys like me too and not just a one season, race day frame.

Now, like any material that bike frames are made from, the devil is in the details.  Just because it is glue and cloth stuck together does not make it Kryptonite.  His comment was assuming a well engineered and well built frame that did not try to be the lightest and/or cheapest thing out there on the market.  If there is any one of the materials that require intense QC, it is CF.  They all look good on the outside, but the insides are where it all comes together.  The way the bladder works to keep wall thickness and shape correct, the quality and alignment/layering of the cloth, the heat applied, etc. And I am a complete novice and may have not gotten even the terms right, but just about anyone can pick up a dozen sticks of steel and get a reliable steel frame.  Even alu is easy.  Just keep it to thick pieces of tubes, stick it in an oven, and it will do fine, pretty much.  Ti is a bit trickier.

So there really seems to be a minimum standard here.  Remember the old adage:  "Light, Cheap, Strong...pick two."?  That really seems to apply to CF over any other material.  It sure can be light.  I am riding a CF Breezer 29er HT in an XL size and the frame weight is purported to be 2.5lbs.  Wow!  It also pedals like nothing else I have ridden that was not CF.  According to the previously mentioned bike company owner (and others), it sure can be strong, if they are to be believed.  I was talking to a buddy that works for Ibis Cycles and I asked him how CF has been for them as far as warranty or failure on the well liked Mojo and Tranny bikes.  He just flat out said it is not an issue and they rarely see a failure, even under very hard riding conditions.  Sure, stuff breaks, but they have no more and likely fewer issues than if they were making alu versions.  Their frames are not cheap, but they are lasting and lasting.

Another thing I hear from product mangers is how CF will never get that much cheaper due to the high level of labor and time involved in making it.  It is easy to pop out thousands of expanded 'beer can' alu frames one right after another and robot weld them in fixtures.  CF is hand made for the most part.  And, since I want my CF to last and NOT break, I am sure looking for a builder who had someone perform the due diligence of proper engineering and QC all along the creative process.  I also assume that all that QC attention takes time and money. That leads me back to the adage of "...pick two".

Most of the CF is coming out of China.   And now, direct to the consumer from the manufacturer, are CF frames that are are light and cheap...really cheap.  Some of that cheap is from eliminating the middle man...I get that, but ya gotta wonder who is looking out for the end user here?  Ibis is looking out for the Ibis bike buyer.  Niner is looking out for the Niner bike buyer...Specialized, Giant, Breezer, etc.  Who is looking out for you from the China-Direct factory?  Will they answer the phone, and if so, what would you say?  Can you talk to the product manger?  Scary?  Maybe so.  Time will tell.

However, if the cheapy CF frames do hit all three of the points in that adage, then watch the big dog's prices fall on CF frames.  They will have to just to keep the informed enthusiast on board.

But, I digress.  I still love my steel SS.  It is not costly, it is smooth riding, fun, and will last for years.  But this new CF frame I am on is impressive.  It rides very well, not quite like the steely, but not harsh at all.  It is at LEAST 2 lbs lighter.  That is a lot.  It pedals like nothing in steel can do, IMO.  Crazy responsive and just rock solid at the BB.  It has shapes that can be tweaked to get just what the designer wants in the way of performance.  And, as long as I do not punch a rock through a tube or chain suck it to death, it may outlive me.  I bet it will outlast the alu HT frame I have 10-1 based on the amount of flex in the alu frame I see and it is probably lighter still.  Flex kills alu.

Crazy.  And hard to ignore.  I already would prefer a good CF h-bar.  I trust them.  I sure see the bennies of a CF frame (I can't imagine racing anything else but CF) and a may yet come to trust them.

So, I still have questions.  But more and more, CF is providing the answers.

Information Is Power and the Race to the Bottom

A recent event on a 29er based website was amazing to watch.  A press release went out about a new carbon fiber bike frame from Europe.  The pricing reflected a premium product, near $1800.00.  Two years ago, that would have been a marketable price, though still high, but CF 29er frames were priced at that level for the most part, if you could get them at all.

Then, over that last year, something changed all that.  There are not many places where a CF bike is made.  Pretty much all of them are overseas/Asia and a lot of that is now in China.  Aside from the major players like Specialized, Giant, Trek, etc, who may have special arrangements and proprietary molds/specs/designs, basically anyone with a checkbook and a marketing plan can ring up China and order their own branded CF frames.  How many do ya' want?

Now that is still not all that remarkable, but what happened next is...the Chinese factories began offering these CF frames direct to the end user for a very cheap price.  It was not at all unusual to see a frame that was identical down to the frame bosses, etc, offered for a third of the cost of the original frame as was sold by the company that developed the CF frame initially.  This could be the EXACT same frame...or maybe not, but it was something that I am not sure that bike companies expected.  Now I have not seen a complete copy of a Specialized Stumpjumper Carbon S works and I doubt you ever will.  But if you were the kind of small to mid size company that shopped from the catalog of CF frames that were somewhat pre-designed and expected to have a certain profit margin in that product, you may just have the composite rug pulled right out from under you.

That brings up the original mention of the thread about the Swiss offered CF frames and what happened there.  The post was made, the readers let out a collective guffaw at the inflated cost over what was offered here for a huge discount, and the raspberries rang out over the innerweb.   The challenge was thrown out to the company marketing the Swiss bike..."tell me why I should pay that much for what looks to me to be the SAME product?"  Good question.


Lesson number one:  "Information is power".  The internet empowers the consumer in ways that companies are struggling to keep up with and anticipate.   The end result of this example?  The Swiss bike will be re-priced before it is even launched.  Wow.  That is remarkable.

Lesson number two:  "The Race to the Bottom" has begun.  And, I am not so sure that is a good thing.  Follow along here for a minute.  A bike company spends money and resources to develop a CF frame and have it manufactured by a Chinese company.  They expect a certain financial result from their efforts.  Customers enjoy a quality frame with a proven warranty and or dealer network with support in case of any issues.  The pricing of the product reflects all this assumed cost and all is well.

Now the Chinese (in this case, anyway) begins selling what looks like a very similar product both in style and performance for a 50 to 70 percent discount direct to the consumer.  It may not be the same frame.  Was the product cheapened in any way?  How much QC was actually put into this?  No one knows for sure.  But that cheap price will entice many to buy them anyway.  Now the consumer is empowered and the other companies will have to prove their worth to justify the increased cost of their offerings, but if they cannot forecast a reasonable enough profit to make it worth their while, they may just pass on developing anything further.  Now the consumer still can buy a cheaper frame, but do the smaller companies still offering the CF stuff have the resource dollars to continually refine the product?

Not likely.  That is not good for the consumer.

Race to the bottom=Walmart CF bikes?  Shudder!

Will it happen that way?  Maybe not.  Maybe the quality will be very high for all those bargain bin frames.  But I always remember something an engineer for a very significant American company told me after they had exported all the technology and intelligence to Asia for their manufacturing:  "They (the Chinese) have no trash cans."  Meaning?  Well, what we may reject for our standards is just fine for you to buy directly from the 'Perfect Joyous Butterfly' factory in the Land of the Dragon.

And, if the cheap frames begin failing and the customer experience is not that high after all, and the cost of improving that requires an increase in costs to make up for that...we will likely see an upswing in pricing from the direct sellers too.

Either way, what once was looked at as a 'premium' product...that being a CF MTB frame...will never be the same now and may just become a commodity to the lowest bidder.

What cost, progress?

Titus, the bike manufacturer is no more.  R.I.P Titus.  They made some cool bikes over the years;  the Moto Lite, the Racer X, the Ti hardtails, and especially the Exo Grid frames.  Beauty, eh?

But a soft economy, poor capitalization, and mis-management seems to have broken the camel's back.   I have to wonder if we are partly to blame?  In the rush to have what is new and exciting, year after year we seem to demand something different than last year; something 'better' or shinier or lighter or faster or...something.  To meet those demands, the bike makers spin up the factories and push out a new bike with new components and new fabrication techniques with new materials and we rush to buy it, being sated for a year or so, and then next year it all begins again. 

The price of this lemming-like consumer rush to the cliff's edge, peering into the abyss of tomorrow, is being paid by us as well, and maybe ultimately in failures like the one that befell Titus.  Bikes are costing too much.  Six thousand or nine thousand dollars is a fine price for a used car, but a bike?  Wow. They are not always that much better, and sometimes they are worse than before, all in the sake of new-ness.  Take the replacement for the Racer X 29er  (a bike that many consider to be dated due to its FSR rear suspension),  the Rockstar.  The Rockstar came in a Ti front or Alu front end and a carbon rear.  Sexy looking, but costly.  It took forever to get it to market and then it was not well received with poor performance from the carbon fiber rear end and some early breakage issues.  What happened there?  For a company on the ropes, a bust like that will kill ya in R&D costs and warranty repairs. 

So, let us take a look at the Racer X as an example.  It was an older design, for sure.  It had limited travel (90mm on a good day).  Early ones needed more rear tire clearance.  It also hardly ever broke.  It was stiff, solid and pedaled like the wind.  It handled well and was an endurance racers and light weight trail riders friend.  It had no surprises.  It just worked, even if it did need pro-pedal to be at its best.  You absolutely knew what you were getting.  What did the folks who bet $$ on the Rockstar get?

I was discussing this with a group of riders Sunday and a guy chimed in with, "Yeah, but it had that old FSR design which is waaaay out of date compared to the new DW stuff.  You are paying too much for old technology."  Now I took him to task a bit, though I did it kindly, but what I could have said was "You are riding a bike (a VPP wonder-bike) that cost more than the Racer X, is not lighter, is not as stiff,  has anti-squat issues...it is not even a DW bike."  It is more something, for sure...supple, longer travel, etc, but it is not all that and a box of crackers either.

I am no business guy, but it looks like Titus was wearing britches too big for themselves.  Here is my plan, retro to a few years ago, that I would have done steering the helm of Titus.  Looking at an unsustainable economy, keep it simple and slim it down.  Make a few bike models that people can rely on.  Refine, not replace.  Keep things as close to the US as possible for quality and production times.  Once you jump into carbon, you are at the mercy of too many other's timelines in distant lands.  Do what you do well and has perceived value to the customer.  The Exogrid stuff was very cool and distinct, but even the normal Ti hardtails were very nice.  Keep those and weld in-house if you can.  Make it personal...keep the customer service brilliant.  Do not re-invent the wheel every year or those costs will kill ya.  Yes you have to stay current, but last year's bike, if it was a very good one, will still be a very good bike this year too and maybe we can sell it cheaper than the newest thing from the competitors.  The FSR is still a great platform despite all the hoopla over the shortlink bikes, some of which are very good and some of which are not so very good.  I will take a proven bike with a platform shock 'crutch' over this year's (soon to be replaced by next year's improved) roll-of-the-dice any day. 

Now, I know that some improvements are just really good and I do not want to stop innovation, but beware of change for the sake of market share only.  They are, after all, just bicycles.

But then who I am to be so bold as to think I have all the answers?  No one in particular.  I, often enough, are just another lemming jonesing for a look over the cliff edge in search of 'the new'. 

I deserve what I get.

Men on a Mission and other things of national importance.

Guitar Ted is on the right, me on the left.  Pretty sure.

Well pretty soon here Guitar Ted and I will descend on LV-town like two men on a mission, not like a mission from God, but a mission to seek out the goodness of what is new in 29er stuff on display at Interbike.

I doubt we will look as cool as the two righteous dudes in the pic and my Suburban is certainly not the chariot that theirs is.  Regardless of all that, we will do our best to suffer through the few days of bike riding and walking the show, taking pics, talking bike stuff, arranging tests or product, etc.

It is fun and I would not miss it for all the tea in China (which, I take it, is quite a lot...I dunno).  But it is a lot of work.  Relaxing it ain't and it is just part of the job of keeping your finger on the pulse of the 29er world.

This season will see huge interest in Europe for big wheels.  The coverage by c_g on twentynineinches.com was pretty deluxe and the difference between last year over the pond and this year is stunning.  It seems to be mostly hardtails, as everyone tests the waters with biggy toes dipped in 29" deep pools of water. There is a lot of carbon right off the bat, something that took a while here in North America.  The Euro market seems very, very performance focused, like everything has to be weighed and engineered within a fraction of a nano-gram or it is verboten.  Interesting.  Is everyone over there a hardened (or wanna be hardened) racer?  Maybe.  Don't they just ride for fun?

I wonder if, in order to get around the lingering impressions that 29ers are slow and heavy, that they are overcompensating with euber-stiff and light bikes to get folks looking and riding?  I mean, where are the EU versions of a Vassago Jabberwocky?  I imagine they are there, somewhere, but maybe not getting the press right now.

The boon to 29er riders will be huge from this.  Already there are getting to be a lot of tires that I have only seen at EU-Bike.  Some of them will stay over there, but not all.  More bikes to put parts on means more reasons to invest in new parts and products, things that we will get to buy as well, perhaps even resulting in falling prices, but I would not hold my breath for that.

I am going to I-Bike in waaaay less than prime shape.  My fitness is OK, but my mobility and strength is nowhere near Bootleg Canyon ready.  Shame, that, but it is what it is.  I will do what I can do.  Maybe I will need to be a bit more selective in my riding or take more pics/vid than ride bikes. 

The Rockhopper SL 2011 SS frameset is going back to the mother ship as testing is wrapped up on it.  Even though I had limited time on it, Ed the Tall came in and pinch hit for me, logging multiple hours of trail time.  He had some kind words for this budget frame as he compared it to his much beloved Selma SS.  No, he is not stepping off his Selma for the Rocky, but it was not a huge loss for the $440.00 frame from Specialized.  I wanted to see if I could solve the twisty steering issues the 2010 complete bike had, and I did.  the Recon fork and my own decent quality wheelset made a huge difference in ride performance as far as coloring between the lines with confidence.  I was actually considering making this my primary SS ride to replace the Jabber, but I just have not been able to feel the love from either of the alu SS frames I have spent time on.  There are good things about them, but I just cannot get past the ride and nearly intangible quality of steel over alu.  I guess I am set in my ways.  Until Ti romances me or I give in to carbon, I doubt an alu hardtail is ever going to be my dance partner.

This showed up on the doorstep the other day.  A 140mm Reba RLT Ti 29er fork with 20mm Maxle Light.  Wow.  Surprise, surprise, surprise.  Now I am working on obtaining suitable test platforms.  A Lenz Moth is in the works, but that will take a while.  Not sure what will be up first, but I sure would not mind building up a Speshy FSR frame.

I kinda consider the 140mm Reba a long travel XC/AM fork rather than a real heavy Freeride fork.  Lots of room for forks like this Reba.  I can totally see having a bike like this in the quiver; something at 30 lbs with long legs and the hope of riding to the top of a hill.  Moab, baby.  It would be a killer bike for Burro Down. 

What is interesting to me is the continued interest in bigger duty 29ers.  MC's thoughts on the MTX-33 rim and bikes like the Lenz Lunchbox and especially the PBJ are pushing the limits of 29ers as DH bikes.  If there is a rim now, and perhaps even a tire like the WTB Dissent that will survive, the Manitou Dorado fork converted and the White Bros 150mm are pretty much the only game in town.  I am not sure if that will change at I-Bike.  I bet we will see a longer travel fork from Manitou in some way or another to compete with the Reba 140mm, but anything bigger?  Not sure.  Where is Marzocchi?  They are the AM/Freeride guys, aren't they?  We shall see, now that White Bros is re-doing their forks for 2011.  Maybe there is a surprise there.  I bet this will not hit harder till 2012, but I could be wrong.  I have been a skeptic regarding 29ers and 7+ inches of travel as a good idea.  It looks like I will be eating crow.

Speaking of skeptics, the belt drive is once again seeing improvements and refinements from Gates.  I hope this gets sorted out, even though I take issues with many of the talking points that the belt drive proponents spout, I would like to see it actually work for the masses, should they choose to use it.  Hopefully I can swing a leg over one at Demo Days.  I am not sure that this channeled belt and cog is that much of a change as there still are the issues of tension, racheting, cost, 'cog' selection and sizing, and getting a frame built around the girder like chainstay specs that Gates calls for.  I dunno.  It still sounds like a lot of trouble to just NOT have a chain.

Well, more later from the quest for knowledge, knobbies, and schwag at I-Bike.