So many standards means no standards

DaveInDenver

Middle Income Semi-Redneck
Out of curiosity, what bike parts can't be found today for your 2008? I'm new the hobby only have ridden for the last two years.

Two years ago I did buy a Giant 29er, I like it a lot, but was supprised to learn that Giant already doesn't make 29ers anymore.
The only thing that I suspect is truly getting difficult to find are replacement higher end 9-speed components and that's only a guess because I can't say for sure.
 

fortel

Adventurer
I agree that the word standard seems to be in need of being changed to just option. But I work with editors all day at my job so word play gets crazy in a hurry.

The new plus standards don't work for me. Here's why. I'm riding real slow these days due to a detached retina that scrambled the vision in my right eye and paralyzed the dilation of the pupil. On single track if I ride more than 7 - 8 mph I start overriding what that eye can process and start messing up my lines. I'm riding a 2007 Stumpjumper Comp 29er hard tail with 2.4 inch tires which is the biggest that will fit between the stays. I want a true fat bike with at least 4 inch tires. My thinking is that for my particular vision-determined situation, a 4 inch or bigger fat bike will give me some leeway on single track when I jack up my lines and let me roll over some stuff that would otherwise grab my tire. I don't want to give up single track but I also don't want to go down hard and take a rock to the head either. I don't think going from my current 2.4 inch to a 3 inch tire on a 27.5+ bike will give me the gains I want for my situation. My LBS has a Trek Farley that I have been playing with. My favorite local trail, which is a half mile from my driveway to the trail head, is a rooty and rocky loop with a lot of steep bench and tire-grabbing rocks and I think that a 4 inch tire on the Farley or other fat bike would bring the fun back into riding for me by increase the traction and also be more forgiving when I jack up an approach to some technical stuff.

But now for the owner of my LBS who still races single track, gravel, and cross, he wants to build up a Stache as a single-speed to rip through the woods on the weekly group rides and to race when there is a lot of technical sections. For him a true fat bike is more of a novelty ride.

So I'm all for options to match riding styles, just maybe the industry needs to lay off the "new standard" term. :)
 

Christophe Noel

Expedition Leader
Fortel, just make sure the fatbike you get includes a Bluto. For me, a rigid fatbike is about as bumpy as it gets unless you ride with extremely low psi, which most don't in dry (non-snowy) conditions.
 

fortel

Adventurer
Fortel, just make sure the fatbike you get includes a Bluto. For me, a rigid fatbike is about as bumpy as it gets unless you ride with extremely low psi, which most don't in dry (non-snowy) conditions.

Christophe

Good to know about the Bluto vs rigid. I understand from what I've read that psi is pretty critical with fat tires also. But since I just wrote the check Saturday for a set of new BFG KO2s for my Frontier, fat bike funding has been delayed a while.
 
I ride about 5 PSI in my original Snowshoes on 80mm rims and love it. I weigh about 175. Drop down to about 3 PSI in the snow.

However, to the matters at hand.

I see too many standards as a wrench where I live, but for different reasons. We as a shop and a market are not big enough to stock everything, or even know/experience everything. We end up learning new stuff as it comes in and we can actually get our hands on it. Then, after researching it, we have to order parts, which can even be frustrating as our suppliers have sometimes even not known all about it! Enough people want new stuff to buy, so we bring the bikes in, but not enough people buy them that we stock spares and stay fresh in working on them. A bit of a dilemma. Also, it's hit or miss as to who has what, where you travel to. Maybe in the US it's less of an issue with bigger and more dense population, but in Canada's Maritime provinces, I find it's like owning a weird/rare vehicle. Best stock your own spares and know how to fix it!

I see a lot of people not maintaining anything hardly now, and just buying a whole new scoot. Really? Like, where does this money grow?!? Seriously, though, it's bad enough no one really rebuilds suspension here yearly, even though it's super wet and abrasive here. It's to the point they don't even like to monitor chain wear and just get a bike when the drivetrain is all toothed up! But, the bikes aren't $500 jobbies. I see XT/XTR/XO/X9?X-11-whatever equipped bikes treated like poo, and tossed aside when the next bike has had the head angle changed 0.5 degrees and it's such a better bike than the current one they have.

Even my fatbike is "obsolete", after a year. The manufacturer went from a 135 front hub to a 150 to accommodate Bluto wheels. Makes sense enough, but after being issued my third warranty frame, I have gone through two generations of frame in less than a year, changing my geometry and losing three headset spacers in the process. If I upgrade the fork, I get all the spacers back that my taller headtube ate up, but I'll need a new front wheel. The newest version went to a 197 rear hub, so if the frame kaputs, I'll also need a new rear wheel. Although I think the tighter rear end and beefed stays will be much more reliable. So, yes, the bike is better and better, but it's not like a modular upgrade, easily or inexpensively. Before this, a few bikes back, I was riding a rigid chromoly bike with cantis and 7 speed, then upgraded to 3x10 speed SLX, built some nice DT Swiss hoops up around XTR hub, etc, but the rim brakes were limiting me. And my non-suspension corrected threaded fork. I could have went carbon or something up front, upgraded my stem/bars, had disc mounts brazed on, or just got a newer bike. So, I got my 29er. A Giant XTC. Got a Talon 29er for the missus, as well. Now Giant has gone almost exclusively 27.5". Is it better? They actually seem to think so after extensive research. Maybe it is. But I remember monster trucking over everything on a hardtail. Set it up tubeless with fat rubber, and wondered how much better a true fatbike would be. So, out with the 29er, and in with the fatty. Could have kept the steely running, the 29er, or various other bikes, but they usually were upgraded before they were ever actually obsolete. Now, that said, I'm not for high end bikes that eat pivots, suspension seals, and other proprietary parts that might not be supported for long. But, a nice simple bike with "common" standards, and you can keep them going for ages, if you like. My 44mm headtube can literally accept just about anything. Threaded BB should be good for a while yet. My 190/135 hubs? Well, a fork away from a newer wheelset someday, possibly a frame, to get the "next" fat standard, but that might never actually be a worry. Cartridge bearings at both ends mean I am not scrapping hubs just because they weren't serviced in time.

Too many standards, but only the good survive. Which means there must be a fair bit of good stuff out there! As long as any crank, fork, derailleurs, wheels and post can go on, you can keep rolling.
 

jayspies

Adventurer
^ This. What a great response. It's amazing to me the "acceleration" so to speak in the number of new technologies and standards and must-haves that are coming out these days. I wrenched in a bike shop in high school (I'm 45 now) and remember when click shift was revolutionary. I still have my old Cannondale M500 back from 1989 with Suntour shifters and cantilever brakes. I have had to re-learn how to deal with hydro discs and indexed shifting systems on the new generation of bikes, and one of the main reasons that I bought my current bike (Salsa Mukluk 2) was because it was simplistic. No pivots to wear out, no suspension seals to explode on the trail or service. The LBS guy really tried (almost successfully) to put me on a FS bike, but it didn't work for me, mainly because I forsee any shiny new technology that I buy being tossed in the dustbin 3 years from now and left for dead. The jack-booted march of technology is great, but I dread a few years from now when we'll probably have bikes being 3-D printed from liquid polymer carbon blah-d-blah and just toss them when they wear out (kind of like smartphones are now). Where's the fun in that?
 

Christophe Noel

Expedition Leader
The LBS guy really tried (almost successfully) to put me on a FS bike, but it didn't work for me, mainly because I forsee any shiny new technology that I buy being tossed in the dustbin 3 years from now and left for dead. The jack-booted march of technology is great, but I dread a few years from now when we'll probably have bikes being 3-D printed from liquid polymer carbon blah-d-blah and just toss them when they wear out (kind of like smartphones are now). Where's the fun in that?

I don't really think that's true. If you look at most bikes on shop floors today, then look back at the bikes from years past, you have to reach back a solid 7-10 years before you begin to see bikes with what I would say are "old" but not outright obsolete designs. There are certain sectors of the bike industry like the recent fat and mid-fat segments that are seeing rapid evolutions, but that's largely because those segments didn't really exist 7-10 years ago.

Some of these seemingly egregious changes to standards tend to receive hyperbolic criticisms. Some suggest its the industry exploiting the consumer base. Others say its a means for certain brands to get a leg up on their competitors. From a 30 year personal journey through these "standards," few are real missteps as much as they're hated at the onset. Everyone was loathe to see BB30 and PF30 bottom brackets pervade the scene, now few think twice about them. The 1x11 drivetrain was called out as a gimmick and now...everyone is doing it. These are simple evolutions in cycling as they have happened for the last 30 years. It is true they happen more frequently as the years tick by, but keep in mind, just 30 years ago your choices in bikes were: Road bike, mountain bike, touring bike, cyclocross bike, hybrid.... There must be at least 15-20 different classifications of just mountain bikes alone these days.
 

squatch

Adventurer
From what I experienced as a field tester for Shimano's Skunk Development team (1991-2001) it is really all about jobs.Nothing to sinister about that. Shimano had a four year cycle; XTR first year, revamp XT the following year etc. By the third we would be testing the new XTR and all the competitions best offerings.Plenty of times I was thinking ******?!? It is a wasteful industry for such a simple and beautiful way to get around. I now have two bikes. a Salsa Fargo that covers a lot of duties and a Ti Mukluk with three wheelsets in 26,29,29+ all rigid and mostly all XTR 10 speed. All the bike companies have mouths to feed and we have lots of choices.
Happy Trails.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
185,541
Messages
2,875,678
Members
224,922
Latest member
Randy Towles
Top