I have a "gravel" bike with drop bars [1] and I love it. I ride it on roads and a variety of trails. Doesn't have a suspension, but I don't miss it. Not doing super technical rocky stuff. Having drop bars is great though, I can vary my hand positions quite a bit and I seem to have plenty of steering control.
I ride a Kona Sutra Ltd, also a drop-bar, fat-tire, 1x + disc rig and I love it. It's funny how old the idea is, though. There were CX events in the 1970s where guys were riding drops and fat (for the time) tires, and Gary Fisher was selling a mountain bike with drops before they sold the company, back around 1990. And of course Gary Fisher invented mountain biking on a Schwinn, wearing jeans and a denim jacket, basically giving zero fucks about the kit. The original "riser bar" mountain riders were the people putting BMX bars on Schwinns.
FYI, "fat tire" generally refers to tires that are at least 3.75in wide. Your bike doesn't quite qualify for that :)
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.
Well, “fat” meaning “too big even for motorcycles” is a recent thing. Decades ago a 43-size tire like the Rock ‘n Road raised questions about clearances. Bikes with a fork and brake that could accommodate the size were desirable for off-road use.
If a gravel or all-road bike was an option, it's what I might have purchased when I got my road bike so many years ago. I considered putting drops on a hybrid frame, but that was a lot more work and was living in an apartment with few tools at the time.
The article is actually talking about something different - the 90s style mountain bikes that were precursors to gravel/cyclocross bikes had what is comparable to bullhorn handlebars.
Maybe I’m too young, but I remember everyone removing the bar ends because they were understood to be undesirable on a mountain bike.
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 bought my first MTB in the 90s, and bar ends was something that I bought in addition, they were not standard from the factory. That was before downhill biking became a big thing, geometry was still very classical (triangle, either no suspension or just front wheel) and we were mostly doing more mild uphill/downhill riding on forest roads. The bar ends were helpful for the uphill part, because you could push the bike left-right more easily standing up while pedalling.
I have a Load 75 (fairly large front-loading cargo bike) with bar ends, and I use them daily. And adore them.
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.
I think the claim about de-emphasizing climbing is BS. I just looked at Trek, Giant and Specialized websites and -all- of their mtn bikes ditched the front derailleur and use small-rings in the front. If climbing was passe, why the crazy low gearing?
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 think the claim about de-emphasizing climbing is BS.
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.
Seat tube too. I have a fixed fork mountain bike with 67/74.5° head tube vs seat tube angles and a gravel bike with the classic 71/73° or what used to be classic on XC bikes. The gravel bike climbs really well with a higher gear but I wouldn't tank over bumpy terrain with it, the mountain bike is really stable on descents and on flats, climbs okay. Of course a MTB with 63/78° like the new Marin El Roy probably doesn't climb that well?
You should try some of the newer bike geometries. It's amazing what they can get away with.
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.
> Or perhaps aesthetics play more a part of mtnbike design than functionality?
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.
The few years when everyone was using curved and tapered main tubes was like shag rugs and paneling, IMHO.
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. :|
Disc brakes are exactly this. For racing they are stupid because you don’t need better brakes and spare wheels no longer fit. Only ineos seems to have held out because for stage racing and gt the costs are so much higher. Quickstep used discs first because in one day racing a puncture at the wrong time always meant you lost, so discs didn’t make a material difference.
Disc brakes have their use on road bikes in bad weather conditions. Descending at 90km/h on wet roads with rim brakes is not fun, especially on full carbon rims. I wish I had them in my race days.
Another use: on my oldests bmx race bike, he has a disc brake setup. It is like 300% easier to work on. Pull the axle, and the wheel falls out. No futzing with the caliper to get the wheel off the frame, not concerns about getting the wheel on the exact correct spot.
Isn't adjusting disc brakes a lot easier too? Adjusting rim brakes seems like a never-ending exercise, and the wheel needs to be perfectly true or it will rub. And changing the brake pads with that nut and stack of weird washers is tedious and error-prone. And the squeaks and squeals—I've tried so hard to get rid of them but they always come back.
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.)
What I heard is the biggest issue ties in with mentioned (perhaps inadvertently): carbon rims. Asking them to be the braking device (with associated heat-sink requirements) can cause them to catastrophically delaminate. They can’t safely perform that double-duty like aluminium rims can.
This is easy to objectively disprove. Disc brakes offer better braking power, don't wear as quickly, and don't fade on long hills. They also keep the braking and structural parts of the wheel independent, so a dented rim doesn't prevent the brakes from working, and wear from braking doesn't structurally compromise the wheel.
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.
I wasn't saying anything about discs for general use. Specifically for racing, though, you are wrong: many pros are on the record as saying the braking makes little to no difference in a race and the cost of time lost when you can't get a wheel change is huge. It's already happened in multiple races.
> 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...
I'm not trying to start a flame-war, or accuse you of being a luddite. I was just saying that you were: maligning disc brakes, and didn't like change.
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.
This is true for pretty much all sports products. There might be a big tech leap that all manufacturers copy, then stagnation for years masked as incremental improvements that add up to some big change when they really don't.
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).
Hiking products have this problem. They look good in the shop and tick boxes. But a lot of the features are just bad ideas. Weirdly shaped backpacks with small access points that are difficult to get things out of. Light weight zippers that fail easily. "Technical" fabrics that lack permanent water proofing. Expensive boots which will just increase fatigue for most people. With looped lace holes that just degrade.
A couple of things I can think of: bars are a lot wider than they used to be which make it impractical add bar ends to, and bar ends increase the likelihood of hooking vegetation on a descent.
Got a Trek Xcaliber 8 this year and the 1x drivetrain turned out to be like godsend. I can climb much better, not much hassle while cleaning/mantaining the bike and it's a little less weight from it.
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.
Today, maybe, but in the late 90’s when bar ends were popular there was a huge shit from cross country to downhill. Thats when we say full suspension get popular, and ski hill lift assisted runs getting more common.
Now i see more people shifting back to cross country.
Single front chainrings came about from having wider and wider ranges on the rear and suspension designs being made possible by ditching the front derailleur. Yes, there's some top end lost but the range is more the same than different than doubles or even triples.
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 ...
Good question. I grew up mountain biking (did my first race 31 years ago) and it was an eclectic mix of people who seemed to enjoy back country single track the most, which included both the climb up and the descent. I'm still in that camp - I don't enjoy 'shaped' (jumps, drops, banked corners etc...) trails as much as more natural looking ones.
Check out the xbiking subreddit. Dedicated to "adventure biking" which is the entirety of off-road riding that exists apart from fast downhill technical single track.
I think it’s because bikes have got so much better that downhills are now fun, rather than just sketchy and dangerous. For me it’s just evened things out so I now love doing both.
Personally, I'd say this is a point of view, or a framing, that is relative. IMO, it's not that climbing specifically has been de-emphasized, it's just that the downhill experience has been emphasized more. Glass half full, etc...
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.
I find this to be the case of cycling in general. I love to climb, way more than descending. I think it's because descending is easier, and what's easier sells more bikes.
In all fairness, the mountain bike was invented to go downhill on Mount Tamalpais in California.
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.
The movie Klunkerz is free on Amazon Prime right now and has a lot of interviews with the people who were there back then. It's worth a watch if you like bikes.
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.
Question about single front chainrings... doesn't that decrease the clearance under the rear derailleur? I just looked at some of those new models and the derailleur droops scary low. I can see it getting banged up on rocks/rut walls a lot.
I think gp got it the wrong way round. Single front rings came in because front mechs were always a reliability weak spot as unlike the rear they must shift chain under tension. Also if you ditch them you can run narrow wide chain rings which hold the chain better on rough ground, and you get more clearance under the bottom bracket.
After we realized we didn't need 30 gears, new suspension designs also became possible.
You're right that rear mechs frequently die though.
It does, but at the same time as chainrings dropped from 3 to 2 to 1, the wheels grew from 26 to 27.5 to 29 inches (for the most sold bikes), so I imagine in the end perhaps the difference is not so big?
The rear derailleur is protected by the presence of the wheel. The bigger danger is getting the front gear caught on things and tipping over on logs or sharp drops. Moving to a smaller front gear gives more clearance for the more likely snags
This is an interesting question. I just went out to look at two bikes I've got, both Santa Cruz, one of them a 26" Nomad from ten years ago, and the other a new Hightower 29er.
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.
Aside from the front chainring being more exposed than the rear derailleur, the rear derailleur also tucks away quite dramatically when you upshift. Nobody is in the biggest gear on the way down.
In my experience you actually don’t need additional traction on the front tire during ascents. You want more traction on the back tire, so leaning forward is more likely to cause slipping. Wider bars makes balancing easier and frames designed to keep the back wheel on the ground (by distributing more weight to the back tire) make it easier to climb.
Back in the days of 26" hard-tails you definitely needed weight over the front wheel to keep it on the ground - there was a fine balancing act of keeping enough weight over the front to not lose control while keeping that back wheel from spinning out.
Modern bike geometry is so so much better! (having tires 2.3+ inches wide helps with traction too!).
Yup, I needed to use a travel-adjust fork on my 26" full-suspension to get up steep inclines without looping. The 29er with today's geometry makes looping on a steep section so much less likely.
Pull on the bars in the direction of the rear tire/ground contact patch. This leads to more rear traction and makes a big difference in sketchy steep climbs.
(1) bars are significantly wider. Like 30+ cms in some cases. This focuses on skeletal alignment vs. muscular; think wide push-up position vs. narrow. Putting bar ends on these bars would make for an odd posture.
(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.
There's also a significant trend in frame design towards steeper seattube angles. This shifts the center of mass forward, especially when pointed uphill which helps keep the front wheel from wandering.
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.
Another thing to note is that with the introduction of the dropper post you can have geometry that is both friendly to climbing (rider seated directly above the chain-ring with full leg extension) and going downhill (rider out of seat and weight back above the rear wheel).
There is an important change in the angle in your hip, so leg vs torso.
Modern MTB geometry puts you in a more upright position, and that opens the hip angle. This means for climbing you use more of your glutes and less your quadriceps. This is great, because glutes are the ultimate athletic muscle.
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!
Another reason you want to be seated on climbs is fewer issues from pogoing on the rear suspension. When everything was a hardtail, a quick uphill sprint out of the saddle made more sense.
I'm a road biker and not a mountain biker but I do have bar ends on my urban bikes and bar ends are great for control and leverage, at least for me. But I don't get that. How is it any more likely to catch a bar end on a branch than it would be for wider, riser bars?
The issue isn't whether it'll hit a branch, it's whether it will let go once it happens. Get a branch inside your bar ends, and you're going down no matter what. Smack it with your regular bars, and you have a decent chance of recovering.
And the recovery is basically to turn your bars in the direction that helps the branch slide off the end, which would be steering toward the brush except that a quick torque at speed will counter-steer, taking you away from the brush.
No, at a minimum the bar has to be moved farther than the bar end length to get the branch loose. That leads to a much larger deviation in the wheel. Now add in that you are moving forward while this is happening. It all combines to make it much, much harder to come off the branch.
If you catch a branch with a bar end while moving you are going to eat some dirt.
Its funny you say that because the seated/not-seated climb was actually a debate in my cycling club long ago. The agreement was: road = seated, offroad = not seated. Heh, back then (1987?) I rode a cannondale with a 26" front and 24" rear wheel with a gear ratio so low that my cadence had to skyrocket or i'd fall over from lack of momentum, but I sure could climb!
With no rear suspension and tall gearing, it makes sense to stand. But when you have suspension in the back & a big rear sprocket, you get more grip & have more endurance seated.
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.
A big factor is the geometry of modern bikes tend to have a steeper seat tube angle and longer top tube (longer reach). This allows the rider to climb comfortably and more efficiently in a seated position. I think bar ends are more helpful when standing on your pedals while climbing.
I'm a casual rider of a mountain bike, almost always on streets. So I'm no expert. But this guy's reasoning doesn't make sense. I looked up what a "drop bar" is, and it goes DOWN; this lowers your posture profoundly and is NOT a substitute for an extension that goes UP from your handlebars.
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.
Drop bars also have brake lever hoods that function sort of like bar ends. Most my road bike riding is done from the hoods. Both give you a neutral hand position.
Surly still makes a lot of all purpose bikes. The big brands also have a model or two, Trek has the 520 and the current 920 but they're drop bar models, also Giant with their Tough Road line. But they're not really that marketed since then one wouldn't need multiple bikes.
There are some great tyres out there now too. Pretty slick in the middle and knobbly on the sides, so both road and trail work.
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.
I had to replace all my drive components and the new ratio is lower. I spend way more time in the upper gears than before.
It was pretty cool learning all about the various components. Less cool getting through only one step per day before finding out I had to order ANOTHER goddamned special tool to unscrew something. In the end, the bike works great. But I didn't expect the gearing ratio to change.
>Then the idea of only going downhill. Is this really a thing? That seems lame.
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 ;)
The size of a chain ring doesn't matter, it's the gear ratio, which are larger than ever, making climbing significantly easier. Front Deraillers were ditched because they're (a) now rednundant to get huge ranges and (b) technically inferior (weight, tuning, etc).
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.
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".
> Think about it, in any scenario where someone is being hit forcefully by 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.
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.
Road bike handlebars have the same problems due to the brake hoods. That got a little safer when cables started routing under the handlebar tape instead of sticking up and slightly out.
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)
Me and the kids race BMX bikes, and you’re actually far more likely to take a bar end to your own self, rather than another rider. You typically bang elbows more than you’re hitting a bar on a competitor.
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.
> I think the claim about de-emphasizing climbing is BS.
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
Are powertrains really much better? I have retro shimsno lx on one bike and it’s really not much different to current slx in terms of shifting perf. Ratios not so good admittedly and triples look fugly!
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.
The new "crazy-low gearing" isn't crazy at all - new hub designs allow the smallest gear on the cassette to be 10 tooth instead of 11, so a correspondingly smaller front chainring can be used to get the same gear ratios as before.
The article is missing a lot of information. Bar end are significantly inferior to extended width bars and last I check iOS/android didn't preclude you from reading existing text on the web (yet) so this information should be freely available.
If you commute by bike, get them (or a bar-end mirror that sticks out)! They will save your hands in a crash!
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!
Handguards with wrap-around metal guards are a must on my dirt bike and commuter motorcycle. There is a small chance in an over-the-bars crash I could get a wrist caught in the guard, but this is unlikely and the more common incident I have is either a drop on a loose or cambered surface or hitting something like a bush or low branch and knocking it out of the way in a narrow gap.
Also totally anecdotal: I put my stomach into the uncapped end of a straight bar crashing and got a nice o-shaped bruise for my laziness of not replacing the cap. It isn't just bar ends that'll get you. Fortunately I was going pretty slowly at the time and didn't cause any damage.
And as with so many articles, the reader might ask, what is this thing you are talking about? What is a bar end?
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.
This has always been a problem with news aggregation, and it drives me nuts just as much.
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...)
The solution is to not be lazy and define a term on first use.
HN posters love to put obscure abbreviations or proper names in headlines as if everyone is supposed to know what it is. That comes off as douchey and pompous.
Why do we naturally place this burden on the content creator? Of course they're welcome to optimize or chase more eyeballs however they want, but the idea that the reader has to do some work (or not!) was once accepted but not in the era of limitless access to specialized content.
The majority of readers might very well find it inefficient if words are wasted on explaining things they are familiar with.
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.
I addressed this in another comment. Skipping over a known definition is something our eyes and brains do very quickly and easily. It's not going to slow down a reader who already knows.
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.
Exactly. It isn't the fault of super niche blog for not giving an elementary intro to the subject. Indeed, that would be infuriating for experts to read every time. Insofar as this missing context for social-media-linked novices is a problem, it's one that needs to be solved on the social media side.
That would actually be really cool, especially for HN.
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?"
I actually like this idea, but discovered early on that functionality did not exist, I wondered why but assumed it was for a good reason and forgot about it.
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.
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 think your comment is thoughtful but I want to say, the item in question is the topic of the entire article.
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.
It isn't a problem. If you're interested in the article because you know about the subject, there's no need to for you to waste time reading it. If you don't know about the subject but you're curious about the article anyway, you can search for it. I think it's a reasonable assumption for an article writer that is a quick Duck Duck Go away for someone who isn't the primary audience of the article. It's too bad for someone who is using Read Later, but I'll point to this:
Maybe if they are writing for Reader's Digest or some other generic media, but anyone talking about the details of bar ends is writing for a specific audience; they are far better to focus on their core demo and alienate the masses than try and get everyone up to speed. Readers don't deserve special treatment, it's completely at the discretion of the author. And a quick image search for "bar ends" literally gives you hundreds of pictures of exaclty what they are talking about.
That’s the standard (and sadly mistaken imho) answer for this everywhere.
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.
This isn't gatekeeping; it's simply acknowledging that an article written for a certain audience may assume a certain level of background knowledge. People who are interested and want to learn more are free to look up any words and concepts they don't know. Nobody's going to shame them for doing that.
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 agree with most of what you said. However, I also think you've done a good job in showcasing some extreme examples of how my suggestion could be taken too far. Such an extreme take would be undesirable. But it could be done with moderation, as appropriate, such as when an entire article is about why a thing has gone away (and, since it has gone away, almost by definition there will be interested readers who do not know what it is). There are always tradeoffs to be made in good writing.
Compare bar ends to 3.5mm headphone jacks. You don't see them around that much anymore, but it wasn't that long ago that they were common. You'd expect someone who has basically any level of interest in audio equipment to be aware of their existence, even if they've never personally used one.
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 addressed the picture already in my comments above.
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.
If you search for just "bar end", you will get a bunch of different things from different domains. If you image search "bar end mountain bike" in order to narrow the domain, you'll get pictures of nothing but the thing the article is talking about.
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.
I actually don't think I went too far. I think that, perhaps through unfamiliarity, you have massively over-estimated how technical the term "bar end" is in the context. That's honestly the only way that I can reconcile your characterization of the examples I gave as "extreme" while continuing to maintain that suggesting the same be done in this article is perfectly reasonable. Within the respective contexts of those articles, "bar end" is a much more well-known term than "pythonic." "Font proof," I suppose you could argue it depends on whether you define the target audience for the article as programmers or specifically people who deal with fonts. But either way we can at least say that it's specific to a very fine context, that, at the very least, is only a subset of the topics covered by the blog where it was written. Unlike this biking article.
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.
I think the issue is the stylized photo; it would be more obviously a bolt-on addition if the photo was higher quality.
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
A definition, or a product photo, even a link to rare backstock bar ends on eBay wouldn't hurt anyone.
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.
Could handlebar makers’ fear of lawsuits play a role? Bar-ends have to be tightened with much more torque than ordinary grips (8Nm for bar ends, as opposed to 4–5Nm for ordinary grips). However, makers of many popular MTB handlebars don’t want to certify their bars for that much torque, and so they just tell their customers that the bars are not compatible with bar ends.
Not currently into mountain biking (I like the current structural integrity of my collarbones tyvm) - have ebikes revolutionized the sport? Seems like they'd increase accessibility by making the hard part (long arduous biking uphill to get to the drop) quite a bit more tolerable. Although as a hiker/climber I do appreciate that putting in real effort makes the payoff all the sweeter.
Yes, this is one of the biggest complaints I have with ebikes (though I just try and keep my mouth shut). Rleatively healthy, able-bodied people use ebikes to get into terrain that is way above their pay grade. I love the idea of physically limited people being able to ride offroad, but they are a rare exception to what you normally see.
They have revolutionized the sport to the extent that they're banned in some popular mountain bike areas. That said, I think a lot of studies have shown they don't cause any more trail damage than a traditional bike.
I'm personally convinced that there's no justification for banning eMTBs (or any other negative sentiments toward them really) beside gatekeeping.
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.
I generally agree with you. I don't personally find eMTBs to be bothersome, and fully expect to be riding one when I'm not physically able to ride an acoustic MTB. And I definitely agree with you re. bystanders, where regular MTBs are fast enough to be dangerous.
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.
Yes. Tons and tons more people are biking now, especially those that weren't able before. Older and also overweight people can now bike much more easily. All anecdotal, but Denver has seemingly many more bikers.
Anecdotal as well, but Switzerland has loads of them too. I appreciate the fact that it gets more people on bikes, but I'm a bit concerned about them going on terrain way above their level (as noted above) or risking accidents with hikers.
If the amount of 50+ year olds on e-MTBs smoking me on the uphill is any indication I'd say yes. I just checked and they've also gotten remarkably more affordable (at least for a sport where 3k for a bike is considered low-end) - like the cheapest model from a reputable brand is 6000 bucks (Kona Remote 160) compared to just under 10k for most models last time I checked.
My first MTB had bar ends but I quickly ditched them after too many snags (uphill and downhill). Riding my 2021 MTB with modern geo and modern bars I'm noticing this same problem. However, the snagging is way more of an issue navigating tight corners and uphill switchbacks. End of the day I'm sure I'm still snagging at a rate on my modern bike as I was with my retro bike but just the sight of bar ends brings back some bad memories.
Read the title wrong and thought they meant bar end shifter..
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.
Moderate to high speed contact with tangly vines or brush are enough to warrant a somewhat dangerous tug on the jersey or directly on the skin and consequently a semi-violent jerk to the handlebar. Now multiply that with the hooking power of an aluminum J-shaped tube sticking out of the front of the bike and now you get why bar ends disappeared quite fast from modern mountain bikes.
Also worth noting, compared to the 90s, bars are much wider (5+in ) , making it more dangerous: catch more vines and when you catch one, more leverage for a disaster.
Not to mention the bikes are WAAAYYYYYYY faster over just about all terrain (suspension design, tire design, etc), and even more so going downhill. Instead of hooking bars at 10mph, you're doing it at 20mph+.
Bar-ends are just another place to put your hands for comfort.
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).
It is worth noting that there is a lively sub-culture within the MTB scene (at least in the U.S.) that favor "non-traditional" bar designs. Jeff Jones' bar design[0] has become a favorite for bike packers and recreational cyclists. The bar permits a more natural wrist position than the typical riser bar, as well as multiple hand positions. I doubt the design will ever overtake risers (or sweep bars) on the race circuit (which, for better or for worse influence design for most major brands), but I see more and more bikes on the trail with a Jones (or Jones-like) bar.
Yeah, for longer distances, multiple hand positions are nice for recruiting different muscles (hence the traditional popularity of drop bars for touring).
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.
In the 90s I had these funky Scott mountain aero bars that had the typical mountain straight section, a good bar end like extension, then they looped back around to meet in the center for the front part of the aero bars. Forearm cups and all.
Don’t remember what they were called, but I wonder if they’ll come back into style.
I just went to butterfly (trekking) bars, replacing my drops on a touring bike. Arthritis on my neck hit me bad, and that change allowed me to ride again. I tried a lot of different bar types after getting arthritis, those are by far the best.
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.
Now I miss my 90s cheap MTB. I remember me as a teenager buying and setting up the bar ends. It felt so cool. For a kid it was like the ultimate performance improvement.
But well, right, they were so 90s. That wouldn't really fit at all with the current super posh MTBs out there.
Cyclocross and gravel bikes are the modern equivalent of the 90s MTB and ride very similarly. A bit tough and dangerous on downhills, just like the good ol days.
One thing I love about this post: you read the grey tldr; and you get 80% of the gist and the main idea. This optimizes for the reader rather than for the author's ego.
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.
> Lower awareness. Aside from some alternative shapes, bar ends do not increase the width of the handlebars. However, bar ends come with another severe downside – they are not covered by nerve endings (the rider’s hands) most of the time because one cannot shift or brake from that position.
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.
I got a road bike for commuting (Giant Rapid) with bar ends 10 years ago and it felt really useful, you could get lower when grabbing them reducing air resistance (big deal in this flat windy country) and they've protected my hands a few times from accidents
I just bought a friend's (used) Specialized StumpJumper FSR Carbon whatever-thinggy and it doesn't have the bar ends, which saddens me, so I'm adding some immediately.
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.
You bought a bike that's meant to go through gnarly technical terrain and do it as fast as possible. Bar-ends are a hazard. If you're actually planning on mountain biking with it you'll get laughed at because no serious biker uses them. I realize what other people think about you isn't that important but seriously they provide zero benefit for actual mountain biking.
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.
The reason is that your hand position is supposed to be 1 finger on the brakes ready to stop with the other 4 fingers trying to hold on to dear life. There would be no reason to have the hands in that ergonomic position.
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
Bar ends were never very popular. Maybe 5-10% of riders used them. I don’t think a single manufacturer adopted them in a shipped from the factory setup.
I remember it being because they were dangerous on group rides and on more technical routes. I seem to remember they were also banned in racing - so no incentive for manufacturers
345 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 350 ms ] thread[1] https://www.bikes.com/en/bikes/solo/2019
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 :)
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.
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.
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)
https://youtu.be/4zvP4DQgwQE?t=568
(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.
It was pretty cool learning all about the various components. Less cool getting through only one step per day before finding out I had to order ANOTHER goddamned special tool to unscrew something. In the end, the bike works great. But I didn't expect the gearing ratio to change.
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.
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!
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/D86jDhirxSY/maxresdefault.jpg
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...)
HN posters love to put obscure abbreviations or proper names in headlines as if everyone is supposed to know what it is. That comes off as douchey and pompous.
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.
These are set up wrong, they should be angled more forward. But clear picture nonetheless.
* 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.
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.
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).
[0] https://www.jonesbikes.com/h-bars/
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.
But well, right, they were so 90s. That wouldn't really fit at all with the current super posh MTBs out there.
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!
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.
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