Why did bar ends go away from mountain bikes?
brainybiker.com
brainybiker.com
And anyone who is out on the trails with headphones... you still won't hear a bike bell, but then you won't hear a rattle-snake either.
But you know what would be even nicer? If bikers had the curtesy to slow down a bit when the trail / path is crowded.
I also love riding fast. I understand that crowded paths are annoying. But when I see that the path is full of people, I don't start ringing my bell, or hollering "on your left" or "attention" at the people in front of me, I just slow down. There is no curteous way to pass someone with delta V of 15km/h on a narrow path.
If I want to ride fast, I pick a time when the paths aren't crowded. I don't understand why everyone wants to race their bikes on multi use paths on a sunny afternoon at 3PM when everyone else is outside too.
Try riding eg. Saturday at 7AM and you'll have the world to yourself and you can go as fast as you like.
That said, I have an always-on bell that rings as I ride over bumps. I like it for multiple reasons - for one bikers hear me coming for a long time, and know that I'm not going agro right behind them. For two, hikers and dog-walkers appreciate hearing it from far away, and often thank me for it.
I have nothing against hikers (would be hypocritical as someone who trail-runs) and blasting past people on a crowded path (or at all) is an idiot move. But on a single track trail people can come up on you really quick, 10km/h is a brisk jog so a 15km/h (4m/s) delta V isn't exactly fast.
My local trails are way quieter at 3pm (most people are in work and temperatures are still hot) than at 7am (pre-work dog walkers and exercisers). Saturday 7AM is literally the worse time in SoCal - big groups of riders and local running clubs all hit the trails Saturday morning. Guess it is varies by region but no matter the time I'd want to give other trail users the maximum oppertunity to know I was there so we can all be safe.
For the record I don't want to ride my bike fast on multi-use paths at any time of the day, not sure why you thought I did. If I ride fast it is on bike focussed routes (accessed via the multi-use trails).
This is horrific, so much unnecessary noise pollution.
The only - very few - occasions when this tactic did not work were usually hikers coming in the opposite direction and being actively hostile. There was an angry lady once who refused to move even an inch to the right, so I had to move to her left, which was a large field of nettle... To this day I don't know what her problem was, but this happens sometimes.
Or maybe the question is: in retrospect do you have any wishes or regrets about how you handled it? Did you think of anything you should have done differently to defuse the situation? Do you have any strategies for avoiding or resolving the rare but possible next hostile confrontation?
Multiple times in the past I have goofed and reacted to someone’s aggression with return fire, and I don’t think it’s ever made anything better, usually it’s worse. I would like to have some prepared strategies in my mind for handling it smoothly.
Hikers and animals (dogs and horses) have right of way over bikes at all times on the trails I ride, is that true for you too? I’ve bumped into an angry hiker or two also, but on the whole they’re almost always super friendly and contentious. For me it’s more common than not that hikers are apologizing and getting off the trail before I even have a chance to yield, sometimes so much so that I feel bad about it. Anyway, I think we should take stock of all the nice hikers and lucky interactions, because it’s perfectly okay and reasonable for a hiker on a shared trail to not expect to yield. It’s definitely unkind if they refuse to make any room to pass, you do sound very patient, and the angry hiker experience totally sucks - triply if you got nettle all over. But at the same time, if we as bikers aren’t yielding first as much as we can, it’ll only get less fun for everyone and we can lose trails, right?
I do agree it adds noise to (potentially) tranquil trails but imho its a good safety trade-off. Way better than people who insist on blasting music from their phone speakers or conference call while walking.
I feel like any naysayer hasn't actually been out on the trails much or haven't run into a bike while doing so.
>music from phone speakers
Now those are unjustifiable noise.
Hahaha. These comments are funny. It's not a cowbell, that was just an analogy. It's a bike bell with an off switch.
https://www.google.com/search?q=timber+bell
It's not "noise pollution" in any meaningful sense, except to the rider while it's on. :) But it is a good safety measure and is kind to other people on the trail.
A loud hub isn't a particularly good replacement for me since I'm running into other riders and hikers just as often while pedaling as while free-wheeling or downhilling. Maybe even less often downhilling since we're getting more and more one-way trails these days. I even watched my friend who has a loud hub have a slow mostly harmless head-on with a climber coming around a blind corner last season. Climber got angry but hadn't made any attempt to be noticed whatsoever, it would have been completely avoided had he made any noise, like, you know, had a bell...
My positive experience with it is very similar to what this guy describes, multiple people on the trail thanking me for using a bell. I've never once had a complaint about the noise, but occasionally I want it quieter for me. And I also found his 'secret' trick for keeping it slightly quieter, in addition to aiming it downward. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tD63c5pgHcU
A bell that clangs as you walk is also common for back-country hikers to keep bears and others away too.
Because 'Life finds a way.'
BASTA!
https://calgary.ctvnews.ca/parks-canada-officials-endorse-th...
In Japan, hikers are advised to use bells and many do. People here have been using these trails for hundreds of years. They know what they are doing.
> The flaw with bear bells is their sound means little to a bear. “They just don’t make enough noise and they don’t make a bear aware that you’re human. A little tinkling noise doesn’t necessarily tell a bear that there’s a person nearby.”
> To prevent a negative encounter with a bear, Stuart-Smith recommends:
> Making noise when travelling on a trail
This advice contradicts itself. Bells make noise, and are louder and carry further than a human voice at normal conversation levels. I've never heard a serious hiker/backpacker warn against a bell... and the bear spray this guy recommends using only works when the bear is within 10-15 feet of you, and hopefully not startled into an attack. Bears can run a lot faster than you, and can climb a lot better than you. It's really best to avoid that situation entirely.
The advice of singing loudly, or yelling your name is unrealistic. Nobody that's hiking in backcountry will be able to sustain that for long, it's exhausting, particularly on all-day or multi-day hikes.
I do agree, the small bear bells often sold at REI are not the best though, the cowbell type OP mentioned is far superior.
Rarely do bears and other wild animals go out of their way to interact with humans... the bell just lets them know something is coming so they aren't startled by your sudden presence.
You don't want to sneak up on a bear.
And many hikers use them too. The ones I encounter are no louder than a dog-collar.
Where I live we have a wonderful bike/pedestrian path which is heavily frequented whenever there's good weather. The worst offenders are racing bike drivers. Well at least those who like to LARP as such. (50yo, wearing cloth like they would be competing in the Tour de France).
They don't have bells on their bikes because "aerodynamics" (my guess) and they drive like absolute madmen down the path (they compete on Strava).
I myself got yelled at several times which I usually shrug off or tell them to f** off. But what gets my blood boiling is when those people go out on a Sunday when there's sunny weather and start their BS on a crowded path.
The path is frequented by families on weekends and I have seen multiple times how those 40yo/50yo "gentlemen" yell at little children because the kids have the audacity to have fun with their little bikies and thus ruin the racer's Strava times.
Our local mountain biking (we're not really mountain terrain yet we still have some single trails) community is completely different. They're nice, they always make room when you meet them in the woods. No problems there.
/rant
I ride a lot of bike paths. I don't like hollering or ringing. I just slow down and let people hear my hub if need be. They can take their time.
It is like some bikers forget they have breaks on their devices, instead just yell and curse the other people on the sidewalk that happen to be on the bycicle lane for whatever reason, after all it is just a different colour on the sidewalk.
A lot of my fellow cyclists (all of them kitted to the nines) thread the needle at 20mph. It's bullshit.
I'm Canadian, and as the saying goes "we say sorry 50 times a day, and we're sorry we can't say it more", but still...I don't understand why you're apologizing rather than giving warning, and is ringing a bell really any better in this instance?
The local racing biker etiquette here seems to be yelling "AUS DEM WEG" (make way) in a very rude tone. "Hi there" or even "sorry" would be a definitive improvement over what we have now. ;)
I wouldn’t know what these were supposed to mean!
Are you telling me that you’re going to pass on my left or are you telling me to move onto my left? How do you expect people to know?
They should say it when you have a bit of time to take a look and assess, but there are some who say it a couple of feet behind you
If something is "on your left" <side>, I'd hope it should be easy to realize that you should either move to the right, or be aware of someone passing "on your left".
Lol I'm English.
> If something is "on your left" <side>, I'd hope it should be easy to realize that you should either move to the right
But it could just as likely mean 'please step off the path on your left so I can pass by your right side'.
People make up these conventions and then assume everyone else knows them!
Ideally I'd say don't cycle where people are walking in the first place!
(The main alternative used in competition is “track track track!” which is distinctly less helpful.)
You should not assume that the other person will understand it and act immediately, but it’s absolutely the correct thing to say in this scenario. You just also need to slow down to be able to respond if they don’t.
How about 'I'm passing you on your left'?
The Air Zound isn't a polite way of telling a pedestrian or cyclist you're passing them. It's more like yelling "move over, jackass!" I can count on one hand the number of times I've used mine on a trail—only when folks were (perhaps deliberately) unaware of more subtle attempts at communication and blocking me from passing and/or doing something reckless. In the few cases I did use it on a trail, people involuntarily jumped in response.
On the other hand, the Air Zound is a way of telling cars "I'm here" / "be careful" / "don't do the stupid thing I see in your eyes". I use it in that way almost daily. (Maybe as much a commentary on the drivers around here as anything else.) A bell just wouldn't work for that at all. They really wouldn't physically hear it.
(I'm a road cyclist and the trails I ride are paved urban creek trails rather than mountain bike tracks, but I think the etiquette is similar.)
How so? You can say something in the same scenario where you'd ring the bell.
> It also can be heard earlier than a biker's speech (assuming the biker doesn't continually give verbal warnings for 15 seconds as is true for basically all bikers on earth).
I don't quite understand the point you're making here - most bikers don't continually ring a bell for 15 seconds except if a pedestrian is obviously not paying attention, and speech is more effective in that case. Maybe a bell is louder than typical speech, but since it's not acted on reliably by pedestrians, that doesn't help much - you always have to be prepared for the worst case.
My personal optimization is also to not make noise at all, if I can clearly and safely pass without warning i.e. the pedestrian is not moving erratically and there are no small children. On rare occasion this elicits anger from (usually elderly) pedestrians though.
For some humans, sure. The trouble is that maybe 1/3 of people simply won't process the "ding" at all, which makes it so unreliable as to be useless in practice, IME. (You can ring repeatedly and people eventually notice, but overall that's less effective than saying something).
Oddly, here in the Netherlands the reverse seems to be true- it is illegal to ride a bike without a bell on public roads, but bikes are often sold without them...
So sad to see their design being ripped off by copycats.
Gary Fisher and Charlie Kelly decides to build mountain bikes. This was in 1979? Well both were roommates, who loved bicycles, and loved the outdoors
Both got started on old Schwinn frames tricked out with knobby tires, and such.
They used an old WW2 truck to take a bunch of guys up Mount Tamalpais, and other Fairfax mountains. The main trail down Mt. Tam was called Repac. Why? Because they needed to regrese the rear bearings after a decent.
Well the roommates decided to build mountain bikes, and formed a company.
Both were liberal, and were I guess called hippies back then. Neither knew if people would even like moutan biking.
Gary had some money. Charlie was the fabricator, and inventor. Both had their strong points, but Charlie was the talent.
By the eithties, the business was not thriving. I used to walk by it in high school, and was suprised it was still operating. I loved my mountian green bike though.
One day Charlie decided to leave the business. He just left. I believe their was a fight? Charlie was never about money.
Fisher stayed, and a bit later sold the business to a huge bike company. Fisher is now a multimillionaire. It was luck. It was just the right time, and he stuck it out.
My point in telling this story us don't walk out on any new business.
Don't walk unless you really don't care about money. Charlie was not about the green. I have always admired the way he lived his life.
Mountian biking was started in Fairfax Ca, by about a 12 guys who loved to ride.
I tell this story because Charlie always gets left out of mountian biking history.
Again--Charlie was the talent.
Boy did I feel a bit special on my Hi-fi duallie 11 years ago. :) Still have this bike today, they're built to last.
Bar-ends were add-ons for at least a decade (late-80's early 90's) before they became standard. They provide better control and stability because the radius/ulna are not crossed like they are in the standard position. I think they disappeared because there was too much risk of hooking another rider (think packs of riders shoulder-to-shoulder grinding uphill), and not enough climbing or stability benefit.
Or perhaps aesthetics play more a part of mtnbike design than functionality?
I agree. Downhill is more popular than it was previously, but it hasn’t displaced regular biking. People doing shuttle runs and lift-served are a tiny minority.
Modern bikes climb better than ever. Bar ends were more of a holdover from road biking that quickly went away when everyone realized how undesirable they were on the mountain.
I'd take a modern slack head tube geometry over an older bike for climbing any day. I've owned plenty of bikes through the years and I'm not going back.
Nailed it. This is true for almost all bicycle endeavors save actual professional racing. Even then, a pro rider that isn't Egan, Sagan, or Froome is going to ride what the factory says to ride. If they (Specialized, Cannondale, Canyon, Etc.) need to pimp a new product, those dudes will pimp the product. Money talks.
I miss the big fat cannodale brazes, or the Tom Richie flourishes on the headtube and dropouts. But I don't miss needing massive rework to replace a rear derailleur dropout after every crash. :|
I'm considering upgrading my hybrid road bike to one with disc brakes just so I never have to deal with rim brakes again. (I currently have a 2015 Trek FX which I otherwise like a lot.)
In my 20's I learnt to ride motorbikes with associated disc brakes.
Then later a mountain bike with rim brakes. Nope, no way, never going there again.
Any bicycle I or my family has from now on is disc brakes. They are it, until I die or we find something better.
Better capability, easier servicing, more robust in terms of sidestepping rim warp. Better for the rider, better for the mechanic.
(Edit: clarity)
There is a lot of fud about discs in the road-biking circles, but it doesn't really hold up to scrutiny.
If you have rim brakes, and you like them, then great! Don't malign them because you dislike change though.
> Disc brakes offer better braking power, don't wear as quickly, and don't fade on long hills
These things are true, but in my experience the limiting factor is almost always grip. I've never been unable to lock up both wheels on road tyres (this is definitely not true off road where the advantage is obvious). This is even more the case in the wet, where disc brakes are touted as even more of an advantage. I do think people often use the straw man of crap cantis or centrpulls on steel rims. On maintenance I think it's less clear cut — if you don't maintain discs regularly they can get sticky and there is _nothing_ more annoying than disc rub, and this is worse on the road than off-road where a bit of grime in discs is to be expected and tolerated (and no worse than mud fouling rim brakes).
> Don't malign them because you dislike change though.
You've jumped straight to accusing me of being a luddite. I actually don't like the _look_ of discs on road bikes but will get them on my next bike for the increased tyre clearance. But I do have them on all my mountain bikes...
The post you replied to was about change for change's (and profit's) sake, to which you responded that that was the case for disc brakes, along with calling them stupid for racing.
Again, if you prefer them, aesthetically or otherwise, that's fine. They're not stupid though, or are they a money grab.
Golf clubs are notorious for actually moving irons down the numbers to fool you into thinking brand new clubs are so much better. You go to a shop and hit your 6 iron on the golf simulator, then you hit a brand new 6 iron and see you hit it further, then you buy the new club thinking all your shots will go farther thanks to modern technology. What you don't realize is that what is called a 6 iron in your new set actually has the exact same specs as your old 4 iron, and might not really go any farther at all when you compare it to your old 4 iron.
It's the age old trap of selling beginners gear instead of practice (which makes manufacturers nothing).
If any, 1x drivetrains would de-emphasize going on flat terrain - sometimes you feel like that 30x11 ratio falls too short for a flat road.
Now i see more people shifting back to cross country.
At least where I live.
As someone who has been mountain biking for over 25 years I would say the statement that uphill has been de-emphasized over downhill is absolutely correct. Enduro racing (where the uphills aren't even timed) is a nice example of that.
Why is that? I used to do mountain biking and I loved the challenge of climbing a large hill more than the adrenaline of descending it, which I found a bit too risky to my liking :D ...
Downhill issues have gotten a ton of attention, because there were problems to solve. Suspensions and geometry are making bikes a lot more stable feeling on descent. Try renting a 29er with a longer wheel base and a six inch suspension, and go down one of those previously risky feeling hills, you'll be surprised how much less risky it seems now.
Uphill issues have gotten relatively less attention, because, perhaps, a climb is a climb. There's little that can be done to improve climbs. Except suspensions are pretty good at firming up on the fly. And dropper post seats are amazing at being able to switch from descent to climb instantly.
In other words, climbing on today's mountain bikes is better - slightly better - than it used to be. Going downhill today is much better than before.
Also, in my opinion, the tailgate pad has made it practical to run [downhill] shuttles using pickups. Prior to that, you had to get a roof rack + 4 trays = $600+. A Dakine pad is $125. Without the shuttle, you have to climb.
I think it's a bit more complicated too: they liked to go downhill, but they needed to get back up, and wanted to not have to maintain the bike after one trip down (repack), so bikes that could climb were desirable.
Ah! Excellent example.
After we realized we didn't need 30 gears, new suspension designs also became possible.
You're right that rear mechs frequently die though.
I'm pretty sure the derailleur clearance is actually lower on the old 26" bike! The geometry of the derailleur has changed, and when it's on the biggest rear sprocket, the old Nomad derailleur's center of mass is below, lower than the large sprocket. On the new 29er, the derailleur is mostly above the bottom of the largest sprocket. It seems like derailleurs have improved in order to allow the larger sprockets that single front chainrings call for.
The idler (lower pulley) on the 29" is almost certainly further from the axle than on the 26", however the larger wheel means that clearance from the ground is about identical.
I don't think I've ever hit my derailleur on either bike for lack of clearance -- even though I have caught my pedal on a rock or branch multiple times. I have hit the derailleur during a crash, but mainly because the bike was flying around and smacking into things. I'm guessing because the derailleur is behind and inside the path of a pedaling foot, it's mostly protected.
Also, first time you catch a bar end on a branch and get sent over the handle bars you will ditch them. (at least I did)
(2) bikes are way longer than they used to be with much slacker head tube angles. this allows you to keep more traction on the uphills in a seated position; standing (which was always less efficient) is not required as much.
Older geometry frames tended to pop the front wheel, if the rider remained seated and wasn't using bar ends (or just leaning really far forward).
Modern frames are longer overall, with wider bars, so the balance point feels longer and it's easier to remain seated without lifting the front wheel.
Seated climbing is better when possible - the rear suspension can help provide traction, rider just needs to provide the engine.
Geometry matters. My 2020 35lb enduro bike with 170/160mm travel climbs at least as well than my 2002 28lb XC bike with 125/115mm travel. That's with a frontend that is almost 5 degrees slacker and probably 100mm longer reach. And flat pedals.
Been riding since 1988...bikes are absolutely better now than they've ever been.
Of course, you have to get used to this position, which is markedly different to the road bike / track bike leaning ahead and closing your hip position. It also gives you great front-back balance and easier control on your bike. Easier to jump (or just shift weight), and you have the wide bars for greater leverage.
Seriously, if someone has not tried a MTB with a modern geometry, they definitely should, they will be blown away by how much better it is than the old ages. Add to this the dropper seatpost, and you have a winner!
If you catch a branch with a bar end while moving you are going to eat some dirt.
As soon as you look at them, the potential for hooking should be obvious. In very average use you won't see many incidents because mountain bikes are often like SUVs and don't see much dirt. As soon as you push them closer to the extremes of close riders, or terrain, then they are an immediate liability.
I would posit that the (professional) riders driving the fashion are also some of those most likely to experience the issues. They'd still have a desire for ergonomics which drives whatever alternative was suggested.
Then the idea of only going downhill. Is this really a thing? That seems lame.
I get approving comments on my early-'90s Trek 920 every time I take it out. I was curious as to why, and a guy at a bike shop said that nobody makes an all-purpose bike like that anymore. To me the over-specialization is antithetical to the go-anywhere promise of a mountain bike.
I am mystified by standard gearing on newer bikes though. It may be due to my height or a dumb riding style, but I basically only use the top 4-5 gears.
Giant Tough Road feels a lot like a modern take on a 90s mountain bike.
Going downhill is a lot (A LOT) of fun. Way more fun that going uphill (for most I would say). So many people just want to skip the uphill part and only go downhill.
I have an eMTB so going uphill for me is fun. But there's people who would never drive an eMTB so they use bike lifts ;)
Mountain bikers raarely (never?) group together in packs on climbs. Even in an XC race you might get one or two riders but even this is odd on a technical climb.
I think it's redundant with wider, riser bars, you can't cover the brakes which you should be at almost all times, and they look terrible.
My new Mountain bike has a 5.4:1 gear ratio at its highest setting. Back when riser bars were popular we were happy to have gear ratios of 2:1.
I don't think so. Freak accidents aside, I think it would have been well documented if that were the case.
Think about it, in any scenario where someone is being hit forcefully by a bar-end there's also another rider and a bike behind that bar-end. At speed, a bruise from bar-end is the least of their problems.
> Or perhaps aesthetics play more a part of mtnbike design than functionality?
Oh, hell yes.
There was a time from the mid-90's up through a some years ago when almost every mass-market bike had to have "suspension". What this meant in practice was a crappy useless fork suspension that did nothing but add weight and subtract from the overall quality of the bike. Ironically the category of "mountain bike" had the perception of toughness when it was anything but tough especially for street riding.
In the last decade or so, it seems more people are using bikes for real practical uses. They realize they don't want a 45lb "mountain bike" with flimsy doodads like fork suspension and cheap grip shifters. It's now possible to get a simple street bike in the mass-market with not too many frills that is good quality and will last longer and have easier maintenance than a "mountain bike".
I think GP's point about hooking another rider might be about the bar end acting as a hook and getting caught in something, as opposed to just hitting.
So yeah, of course behind the bar end there's the rest of the bike and the rider, but what could be just two riders "touching" (and, granted, possibly falling), can turn into a worse situation if the bars of one bike catch something on the other bike (say a backpack strap) causing the first bike to steer abruptly and bringing both bikes down together.
Not sure how often this happens, but I wouldn't be surprised of this possibly happening when I see the way people ride bikes around my city, bunching up one against the other, turning unpredictably, etc.
The consequences of entangling might be a little higher on a mountain bike, but that depends on the situation. Mountain bikers aren't being crowded by semi trailers as often as road bikes, but road bikes aren't flying off embankments into trees very often.
I see that there are more than a couple of models of MTB bar-ends that look like brake hoods. That's probably pretty close to the best compromise you can do, without staging a major educational campaign about how human grip strength works (middle, ring and thumb do nearly all of the work)
I’ve actually seen a kid get impaled in the chest from his own bar end.
And the comment about aesthetics is 100% spot on with a majority of the bike crowd.
Depends on what you use. Cross Country have much less compromise than enduros. On these, descent is the priority though, that's why you get slacker and slacker frames every year, heavy suspension systems and large tires that weigh the same as a dead elephant. The best sign that they're getting closer is that I'm feeling fine with going to the bike park in Whistler with my enduro, which I'd never have tried 10y ago.
Of course going up is always important and all these are not an entire sacrifice, powertrains are much better than they used to, locking sus actually works, and don't get me started with droppers!
But try to go up on a light hardtail retrobike sometimes, and then down. These were optimized for ups
- You can shift under load (usually)
- Shifts are a little faster
- Clutches give less chainslap
- Narrow-wide rings hold the chain freakishly well
If this really was the case they should have made a backwards-steering bike like this instead: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fx1V5KT1Lwo
With bikes with straight handlebars, if you graze a fence with the handlebar, the bike will steer INTO the fence, whereas if you have backwards handlebars the bike will auto-steer away from the fence or whatever you bump into.
Reverse steering would just trip you into the obstacle.
But maybe the real reason is if you ride with bar ends today, chances are you and your bike are old already, you have a front derailleur, no tubeless tires, no disc brakes unfortunately being part of a population that is going slowly but certainly extinct.
For marathons though they offered a change of hand position. But their modern version comes as smaller hooks for the thumbs.
Newer isn't always better - especially for those who are time-rich but money-poor. Old bikes can be maintained with a minimum of parts - grease, new bearings, brake pads, tired/tubes and one new chain are all the parts I've had to replace on my 38 year old bike in the last fifteen years. Touched up scratches with almost-matching nail polish. And I've learned everything about how a bike works along the way.
Mountain bike technology has advanced in weight reduction as well, but suspension technology is orders of magnitude better than 20-30 years ago. Modern mountain bikes are incredibly advanced and they're loads of fun to ride (and I say that as someone riding a bike designed about 10 years ago).
Earlier this year I bought my first 29er (Production Privee Shan No.5) and it's way bigger than my 26er bikes. It makes my DH bike (224) look small!
Road bikes haven't changed as much as mountain bikes.
> Newer isn't always better
That may be the case in road bikes, but mountain bikes have gone through a huge transformation in the past decade. The new mountain bikes are night and day different than mountain bikes from a decade ago.
Suspension technology alone has advanced by leaps and bounds. Not relevant to road bikes, but it's a game changer on modern mountain bikes.
You can still ride track on an old mountain bike. The specific technologies listed have all been part of the changes for road bikes as well (disc brakes, better derailleurs, tubeless tires, suspension (mountain) and frame materials (carbon for road bikes)). And in both cases the outcome is the same - better performance at the cost of more expensive purchase and maintenance.
And the snobbery from "elites" who think they own the road or trail are damn similar, and the same across other sports I've done (skiing, snowboarding, surfing, sailing...) too. All I'm saying is that the peak performance isn't really relevant to having a good time, and other considerations may be different for different users.
Edit: in good faith I'd guess your argument may come more from a competitive view of mountain biking? Even if competing with friends via strava segments etc?
All the commenters here have been talking about how new geometry has changed the game. But unfortunately, you cannot find "modern" geometry on older MTBs built before ~2013 unless the frame was an odd custom. Even the king of retrogrouches Grant Petersen of Rivendell has been tweaking his frames to offer longer chainstays for off-road riding.
On the otherhand, road bikes haven't changed their frontend geometry since the 80s (72º~73º HTA, ~60mm of trail). For the most part roads haven't changed, but wider tires help with the lack of investment in infrastructure.
I ride a full suspension trail bike these days. It's really comfortable and I can go on much longer rides and hit all kinds of gnarly terrain. But I still like to get scrappy on my old hardtail sometimes :)
I see a few guys riding full rigid, but they are generally either exceptionally talented or relish Type 2 fun.
Another note: my bike came stock with drop bars (only year for that model) that the lower bar flairs out. I can't count the number of times those bars have caused me to ricochet off obstacles where flat bars would have hooked. I would not trade them for modern flat bars, but my cycling has turned more cross than technical so old still works for me.
- geometry: slacker head angles and longer reach, steeper seat tube
- wide handlebars
- dropper seatposts
^^^ these 3 above fundamentally transform your ability to descend or ride technical terrain. A very skilled 90s rider could have attempted some of todays enduro tracks, now they are very reasonably accessible by medium-skilled riders.
- tubeless tires
- suspension tech in general
- 1x drivetrain
- disc brakes becoming ubiquitous
- 29inch wheels, wide tires, tire material...
I mean, now that I think about it, I can't think of a single part of a modern mountain bike that was not revolutionized in the past 20 years (maybe the saddle?).
Comparing bikes from the 80s/90s versus the bikes of today is like comparing cars from the early XX. century to cars of today. Yes, they mostly all have 4 wheels, but...
Which is not to say you can't love your old bike, and ride it to your heart's content. But if you haven't tried an MTB from today, you are missing out. Just sayin'...
(Just kidding, your point is well taken.)
I mean chains are a relic of the past. The future is carbon belt drives.
(See, I can be snobby, too).
TBH I don't really get it, because I can put my hands in the same position (grabbing the ends of my bar with a rotated wrist) without the bar-ends just fine. Yes, the leverage is a bit smaller, but I can do this for "resting", and I can even pull some.
Mind you, ever since we had these crazy low gears (even on 1x now) there is no need for the extra leverage a bar-end provides. Maybe that's the reason they went extinct.
I also biked with crazy people, so that was probably issue #1.
If races you race in ban bar ends it's a local rule.
[1] https://www.uci.org/docs/default-source/rules-and-regulation...
The idea of lift-served downhill biking never crossed our minds. You needed suspension to do any real woods singletrack because the roots and rocks were too numerous. But suspension put the price of a decent bike closer to 1000 bucks rather than <500 and four digits seemed to be a bridge too far for most of our parents' huffy-anchored understanding of "bicycle cost" let alone budget in the 90s.
So we bought bar ends for 30 bucks of saved up lawn mowing cash and told ourselves that they helped for climbs.
That bike looks nice! I am in the process of building a similar looking gravel bike, but with a titanium frame instead of steel.
Interestingly, gravel bikes are now starting to have suspension, such as the Cannondale Topstone Lefty and Lauf True Grit. The line between gravel bikes and mountain bikes is getting more and more blurred.
Drop bars will never go away :)
It's interesting the author of the article didn't mention bar-ends returning in the form of inner bar-ends: https://www.sq-lab.com/en/products/innerbarends/sqlab-innerb...
Due to MTB handlebars getting extremely wide, having something narrower and in a vertical wrist position helps change things up. Especially if one is riding miles on gentle terrain.
Also, endurance riders like Lael Wilcox, who's won the Trans-Am and Tour Divide, are now mounting aerobars, normally found on tri-bikes, on their bikepacking bikes for both aero benefits and to rest the muscles.
Don’t remember what they were called, but I wonder if they’ll come back into style.
https://www.mtbr.com/threads/modified-scott-at-4-pro-bars-li...
Third pic down with the yellow bar tape, but with the forearm cups on the flat section as well.
But, going fast on a downhill and quick cornering, takes a bit of practice.
Some people like the “inside the grips” bar end set-up as it resembles the popular Velo Orange crazy bar which has an integrated bullhorn section for smoother roads and headwinds.
To know if this set-up will work for you, you’ll just have to try. It’s not a popular choice, though.
A sort of half-measure is available with TOGS thumb grips.
I have a bike mirror that's structurally like a bar-end. I got right hooked by a driver: he didn't look nor signal, just yanked the wheel while I was in the bike lane next to him. The mirror/bar-end left a dent and then deep scratch all the way down the side of his SUV. That could have been my fingers!
Going from a road bike to a mountain bike is hard because you get basically ONE body position with a flat bar.
On my road bike I constantly change positions - on the center of the bar, on the hoods, on the drops, etc. This lets my back and shoulders move around and not get stiff.
On a mountain bike with a flat bar, it kills my back and shoulders the more time spent riding. You're stuck in one position.
You can alleviate it a little bit by moving around on the saddle or standing up, but not too much.
But bar ends help with this shortcoming.
Having a big silly piece of metal sticking forward on your bars while you're trying to speed down a steep techy piece of single track is just asking to get hurt. It'd be as dumb as putting a kickstand on your mountain bike.
The only reason they used to be there is because mountain biking was so new it hadn't completely separated from the roadie culture. Older mountain bikes have skinny tires, narrow bars, long stems etc. All of this stuff has been proven to make downhill riding harder and less enjoyable.
Been mountin biking for 35 years, I have a kickstand on my bike. What argument against them is there?
* the geometries of bikes have changed dramatically. Bikes are longer, with slacker headtubes, longer reaches and steeper seattubes. 29" wheels are finally being crowned as "the" standard, with 27.5 and 26" wheels being relegated to speciality bikes.
*The style of riding has shifted from XC, where distance and ups/downs are to be expected, to more Enduro-style, where you go up to go down. The downs are what your bike is oriented to do. The downs are also getting more 'extreme' in the sense that you're seeing lots more flow/jump trails or simply highly technical sections.
Kickstands are not used (I haven't seen one affixed to a modern MTB in a decade or more) because they're heavy, they're a moving part, and most of the routes I ride they'd be an annoyance. They might be useful for you, but you're not going to find any manufacturer touting them as standard equipment (or even compatible) today.
Respectfully, I have to ask what you consider mountain biking? I'm not trying to be mean but I have a suspicion that you're not doing real mountain biking and maybe just riding on gravel roads or tame dirt paths. Do me a favor and look up the Whole Enchilada in Moab, UT and let me know if that's even close to what you're doing while mountain biking. I think it'll make more sense.
They're extra weight that can get caught on things and break your frame or you. I've never seen a serious mountain biker riding with a kickstand.
I realize a picture of the front of a bike was provided but it looked pretty normal to me, and I see where the bar ends, but that’s not making it any more clear.
Gradually through reading between the lines I can get an inkling, but readers deserve a short definition up front, beyond just saying they are an emblematic retro accessory.
In this case, if you're an avid brainybiker.com reader, it might not any sense to define the term, any more than a JavaScript blog needs to explain what IE is. Or even link to the IE Wikipedia article (or else every other word would turn into a link).
On the other hand, when a story gets picked up by a wider audience, people like you and me don't have a clue what the subject of the article even is.
I wish there was some kind of solution to it, but I don't see one.
(It's not like authors are given some urgent phone alert that their article from an hour ago, or two years ago, is getting picked up and they ought to add a prefacing paragraph for general readers in the next 5 minutes...)
All of us google stuff all the time so that’s not a huge burden either.
It’s just more efficient for one person to write a quick definition than it is for 10 or 1,000 people to go look something up.
It can also turn people off the content. If an article on woodworking (my hobby) explains what a cap iron is, I’m likely to move on because I don’t think I’ll learn anything new there.
As far as turning off some readers, on the one hand, that's natural and unavoidable, if the reader detects the article isn't of interest. There's no obligation that all articles should be interesting to all readers. But defining the basic topic is table stakes.
And on the other hand, the case here is slightly different from what you describe, as well. It's an article about why something went away. So even if it started with saying what that thing is, the main content might still be interesting to someone who already knew what that thing was.
Imagine if HN submissions allowed an optional field with a link or short description for "additional context" that the submitter could fill in.
I mean, I can't count the number of times there's been a post on the front page that's just a link to a newly released version of something many readers have never heard of, and half the commenters are like "I've been waiting for this for so long, congrats!" and while the top-voted comment is "what is this exactly? Can someone explain?"
An alternative I often see is an "author here" or "OP, I posted this because..." comment that sometimes is but as often is not the top item.
Have you tried googling the terms you don't know?
Quite often terms are made of common words and Google returns more common contexts. If something is a niche usage, it can be quite challenging to find other terms to add to the search to try to narrow in on the right domain.
Other times it's easy to find the term but that still doesn't give you the "debate" or "significance". E.g. whenever a programmer says the words "except Internet Explorer" we all know exactly what that means. But a non-programmer isn't going to have an easy time figuring that out with Google.
I do see a solution, the tried and true art of defining what is being talked about.
Some jargon mentioned in passing? Probably no, in many cases, because the tradeoff of defining ALL terms would be stifling. But the actual topic? Worth it.
https://signalvnoise.com/posts/347-youre-not-on-a-fucking-pl...
It’s a kind of gatekeeping reaction (the article is not meant for you) that doesn’t acknowledge that people today read far and wide.
The Google thing is a fair point, but having a text definition inline is literally hundreds of times faster, and zero touch, and friendly for screen readers, and doesn’t slow in-the-know readers down a bit because our eyes and brains are so good at flitting past that stuff.
It's simply not realistic to expect every author to anticipate and try to fill every possible reader's intellectual lacunae. I mean, imagine if that other article on the front page today, "Writing Pythonic Rust," had to explain what Pythonic means, and what Rust is, what an API and a wrapper is, what type foundries and font proofs are, and oh my goodness that's just the technical jargon I wouldn't expect a general audience to understand from the first 4 sentences.
I suppose I don't spend much time talking to very young mountain bikers, so maybe there's a generational thing going on, but I would assume it's the same there. And, like 3.5mm headphone jacks, new equipment may not have them, but they're not gone gone. I saw some people riding with them last time I was on a trail.
Also, this complaint seems just a little bit forced given that the title image on the article is a picture of a bar end. Even someone who's not familiar with mountain biking should be able to take a look at that picture and hazard a pretty successful guess.
I really can't tell what's a bar end in that picture.
I even did an image search and the images are all over the map. The shapes of what is shown in the search are incredibly diverse and don't clarify much.
Point is, I just don't get the resistance here. I mean, the belief that articles should not explain the basic thing that their topic is about, just blows my mind. I'm not talking about every term in the article. I'm talking about the main item that is discussed.
I think the resistance here is that what you're saying comes across entitled. It sounds like you're trying to put the onus on anyone who writes an article ever to try and cater to your needs, on the off chance that a fairly technical article they write on their highly topical biking blog might, in some black swan event, end up on the front page of Hacker News and attract your attention.
This article is under no more obligation to explain what a bar end is than an article about SOLID design is to define the term "object." Heck, if I did something like that every time I used those terms here on Hacker News, people wouldn't think I'm being helpful, they'd think I'm insulting their intelligence.
To me, it's not the end of the world, but a recurring annoyance. And I definitely do not feel "entitled" so I am wondering how I came off that way.
[edit: I see, I said "readers deserve," ok]
I absolutely agree there is no obligation for authors to write in a particular way. That's one of the prerogatives of being a writer, they get to choose.
But: I do think there are courteous things that can be done, within reason. And you make valid counterpoints, when you don't go too far, about how some such things that I see as courteous could be a downer for other readers.
BTW plenty of people agree with me. My top level comment was one of my highest upvoted comments ever on HN. And I don't assume these people feel entitled. I think they just want writers to, well, write stuff that the reader wants to know. Again, no entitlement, no obligation, it's just what some readers want.
There is a skill in writing to mixed level readers. Many people do it very well without anyone feeling insulted. I do wonder if there's a trick to that. It's interesting how it can happen with one author, but not another. Certainly I understand not wanting to fall into the group of authors that seems to insult their readers… not a good way to increase readership.
Also, yes, it does come across as entitled. For example:
> And I don't assume these people feel entitled. I think they just want writers to...
Right there, the direct object of the sentence, "writers." That's the problem. This isn't just wanting to know something, or deciding that an article doesn't suit you and deciding to move on. Both of those would be fine reactions. This is expecting another person, someone you don't even know, to do extra work and tailor their creative output to your tastes, for no other reason than that you feel entitled to ask them to do so.
Anyway, sort of ironic here on HN where every article is about mashing together 27 frameworks that haven't been out for more than 6 months and won't be around in another 18 months
What would hurt me most would be if, to make it approachable, the first two paragraphs were a short description of breakfast and their disappointing ringtone, a character sketch of the person who just-now-texted which reminded the author that they had asked to borrow a wrench, that the author had to use to repeatedly tighten a left bar-end that would slip after any real use, then dramatically flex their wrist and continue on with the entire essay while still not once defining bar-end.
Granted, it's probably a matter of every rider having different requirements, and you can eventually find a bar that's comfortable and performant for your body and riding conditions. But that means trying out different bars, having to remove all of the controls, possibly lengthening the cables, etc.
Or you can add a simple accessory that will at least provide a resting position, that can be attached with minimal tools and effort.
In my own case I ended up with swept bars on all of my bikes. Even a moderate amount of sweep, and the resulting change in wrist angle, is night and day for me in terms of long term comfort.
I have memories of the bike magazines (Mountain Bike Action) declaring the bar end on a riser bar a style no-no. MTB takes style direction from motorcross and you don't see bar ends on motors.
I've hooked my new 760mm bars on far more trees than my old narrow ones. While the idea of catching a bar end sounds frightening, think about what would happen without a bar end: the same thing. You'd hit the bars or your knuckles and get the same result.
I do miss the extra hand position sometimes. I installed a pair of Togs (https://togs.com) to help with "thumbs resting over the bar".
My eBike comes with barends and I love them for this reason. (Funnily my eBike is an eMTB with full suspension - so according to the article it shouldn't have bar ends).
The thing is: even if it's a mountain bike, there's some moments where I'm riding on a regular, flat, land (path or road) and I do really prefer to have the bar ends then. If I find it way more comfortable: doesn't even have to be for climbing. Just anything that's not "going down" and a bit repetitive: I simply prefer the position with the bar ends.
The argument I've heard against them is indeed what several people mentioned in this thread: you wouldn't want one of the bar ends to hook something and be the cause of a bad fall.
I would recommend you just get a commuter or road bike for paths and roads. It'll faster and more enjoyable than riding something that was built explicitly for off-road use. The weight difference alone makes it worth it.
Having a extra flipping over liability on the bike just makes no sense for bikes that are "specialized" for this niche style of riding.
The stumpjumper is like the McLaren of the mtb world. It'd be like complaining about how uncomfortable the bucket seats and race harness is and saying the first thing to do is to replace them with a comfy heated seat with lumbar support. I mean, you can, but there's a reason the McLaren comes with those things
I found this part interesting. When playing ping pong I'm certainly aware of where the paddle is. I guess I could be aware of where the bar ends are, but there isn't nearly as much to train me to be aware.
I think my awareness of where my fingers are, which sometimes extends into connected objects, is based on where the nerve endings are, because over time it creates spatial awareness.
They are useful for one of the reasons curved bars are useful on a road bike, it's a change of position to give you a rest, and potentially a better climbing position but I doubt it.
I had bar ends on my bike in high school 'cause they were cool but I've ridden cross country and downhill MTB for a couple of decades now and bar-ends are not something I would consider adding to my bike.
Among the reasons mentioned in the article, the only one that fits my use case(s) are increased leverage out of the saddle (the importance of which correlates with the amount of weight out in the front of the bucket).
I also use them to overcome positional fatigue, much like road bike riders use drop bars. However, drop bars are less practical on a cargo bike because, depending on the load (which sometimes includes an adult passenger), they can impact the load when sharply angled.
These days, I'd just do that kind of trip on a well-specced gravel bike.
I was in traffic and all the cars were backed up. For better or worse, I was in the shoulder and filtering toward the stoplight when I saw a car 2-3 cars ahead in the shoulder. I was deciding what to do when my handlebar bumped the mirror of a car to my left. Just barely. The car was fine. I broke my left hand somehow in the melee and landed hard on my right shoulder and elbow, skidding several feet.
Was I using bar ends? No. I had got rid of them and was using what's often called a "trekker" bar or "butterfly" bar. The width is what killed me. I would have been better off on my narrow bars and the bar ends, which are still shown on FGG:
http://fixedgeargallery.com/2006/feb/RyanFlowers.htm
Of course it's understandable that nobody wants them on new bikes. The reasons given are solid.
A broken hand and falling hard on your shoulder sounds terrible, but did you really die?
I understand the control is good on snow and ice though with studded tires and suspension.
But you don't _really_ need them even for so-called technical terrain. Cyclocross bikes with wider-than-usual traditional drop bars (like on a road bike) are used all the time in "pee-your-pants" terrain. To be fair, I would say riding "on the hoods" in a traditional drop bar is superior to using bar-ends on a flat bar both in terms of control (because you have immediate access to brakes and shifters), and comfort (you have padding from the tape and hoods).
I never used a helmet, except when I went on survival hiking. That was in the Ardennes, and was all pro material though I don't remember regarding bar ends.
I am actually in disbelief about them disappearing. What is the source? Where is the data based on?
Luckily both have gone out of fashion.
Added bar ends to my hybrid for 'defensive driving' purposes.
If you are in an urban/ suburban environment, a set of bar ends that curves over the hands just a touch is killer to protect the hands from trashcans/ cars, other bikes, kids, guys on mopeds.
Its like a little hand guard for random whatever. Plus gives you an upright hand position for extra torque if you need to go fast faster.
* people riding beyond their ability (too fast, too technical) and getting injured
* batteries overheating and stranding the rider somewhere they can't climb out of, requiring heli rescue and risking wildfires
I also don't like to be overtaken by someone who isn't suffering as much as I am [1] and it makes me feel bad.
[1] Not really, I also ride a road e-bike which strokes my fragile ego.
There's nothing about eMTBs allowing people to venture in more difficult trails than with normal MTBs. Most terrains that are too hard on a normal MTB will be even harder on an eMTB because you loose some agility and the ability to carry the bike over unrideable sections.
I often see people complain about "how fast eMTBs go in some climbs, which is dangerous to bystanders". This is the most ridiculous argument, completely unrelated to eMTBs. Regardless of the terrain (uphill, downhill, flat, ...) I always slow down to ~walking speed when passing someone if the trail isn't wide enough to put at least ~1.5 meter between me and them. Meanwhile the same people who complain about eMTBs being dangerous bomb down the hill past hikers at 25+ km/h. Anyway, a long rant to basically say that any argument about speed is only ever relevant if brought up in the context of educating people to be more courteous riders regardless of the bike they ride.
Finally, you're orders of magnitudes more likely to be stranded because you punctured and forgot your repair kit (or whatever other damage to your bike that can't be fixed trailside) than due to overheating battery or whatever improbable scenario people come up to justify hating on eMTBs.
The only point where I disagree is:
> There's nothing about eMTBs allowing people to venture in more difficult trails than with normal MTBs
If you want to go down the hill, you need to climb up the hill. This is a skill and fitness gate, normally; you're not going to tackle a difficult or extended descent if you don't think you can climb out again.
Soquel Demo Forest, one of the very popular Bay Area spots, bans eMTBs. It might be reasonable in this case due to the elevation profile. From the car park you need to climb for 20-40 minutes. You descend. You then have another long climb back to the carpark. It's a worst-case scenario for batteries, and because the area is so popular, it tends to attract people riding beyond their limits already.
I don't personally care, and I don't want to tell people not to enjoy an activity, but I can understand the reasoning in some cases.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/0e/f4/3a/0ef43a1d3656587beaef...
...a cult cartoon sheep and his friends from the most popular UK mountain bike magazine in the 1990s.
I always thought they were installed from the factory to make the bikes appeal to road cyclists who were familiar with road bike geometry and riding style. Like training wheels for road cyclists coming to mountain biking.
I definitely found them useful for climbing with the old flat handlebars.
Plus the new XC circuits are more nervous and you have less time to put your hands in a more relaxed position on the bars ends, you always need to touch the brakes/gears
https://www.reddit.com/r/bicycletouring/comments/ae657i/bar_...
> A set of riser bars that I purchased a while back. They are 810mm (or 5 piano octaves) by default. I plan to cut them down to at least 740mm for a future project.
They are already "at least 740mm", being 810 mm, which is more than 740. You mean "at most".
You can say instead: I plan to cut them down to at most 740mm for a future project.
I suppose you could say "I plan to remove at least 20mm".
Similar to "it was at least -40° outside last winter". The implied direction means -40° or colder, even though colder temperatures are lower.
Of course, English is a flexible language. What you suggest as an alternative is not necessarily wrong, but to me it feels awkward. The intended meaning is obvious either way.
For the handlebars, the quality is shortness. "Cut them down to at least 740 mm, maybe more" means that that is the least short they will be, but they might end up shorter.
> How can "at least -40" and "at most -40" mean exactly the same thing?
Context. Language is stupid that way.
But well, right, they were so 90s. That wouldn't really fit at all with the current super posh MTBs out there.
These are set up wrong, they should be angled more forward. But clear picture nonetheless.
Sheldon Brown wrote about them:
"These are mountainbike/hybrid bars with built-in bar ends. They weigh less than the handlebars alone on the typical mountain bike or hybrid, and they give lots of hand positions.
The ends sweep forward in a nearly 180 degree curve, and the whole curved area is usable to vary the pressure points on your hands. These are much better than staight bars with bolt-on bar ends."
https://www.sheldonbrown.com/scott.html
Personally, I have enjoyed riding the AT-4 Pro for a decade: http://www.bikepro.com/products/handlebars/scott_combo.shtml
Too often authors try to keep suspens up and make for a big reveal at the end. This format instead conveys information and then develop on it if you want more.
Good job!