What was the biggest advancement in mountain biking this decade?

[Josh Matta]

ugh again past decade. Surly Pugley was 2008, with many custom built fat bike existing prior to that.

 

[Primoz]

You must like chains falling off..... any time I ride a 2x off road the chainbreaks as I try to pedal when’s it come off the front.

Josh you should use equipment from manufacturer that is able to produce normally working derailleur, not the one that is not capable producing something 50+ years old and working normally for everyone else, and then goes and "invents" best thing after white bread... 1x system. Something that negates every things cyclists through history were streaming for (lower resistance, smaller differences between gears...) With Shimano I honestly don't remember when I dropped chain for last time. And with latest versions of their derailleurs (at least XT and XTR) they change gears even on front with pretty much full power on pedals.
As for original question... I honestly don't know. Maybe 10kg full suspension bikes at sort of normal price range?

 

[Josh Matta]

I dont think a 1x system has any higher resistance and as someone who rides SS quite a bit I could care less if my rear cassette only jumps a gear or 2 when I shift, I want to have gear spread not make sure my cadence stays at 90rpm....

I have used some fairly high end front shifting(XTR and XO) and I havent tried with a clutched derail but I always had jumping problems in rough terrain. The reality the geo that most modern trail bike use is built around never having front gears. My Honzo again as far as I know was the first MTB from a major manufacture that was designed to never run front derail and simple could not due to its 16.3 chainstays and 29 inch wheels.

 

[Lauren]

More access/availability/marketability...trail access, trail maintenance, mainstreaming it on TV/YouTube/social media/etc.

When I started, I don't feel like there was the same "following" as there is now. Maybe this is an illusion because I'm now more immersed in the culture, and didn't know much about it before that.

I got my first "real" mountain bike in 2010 and started getting into it a year or two later...but I remember only having a couple trails to choose from in my area. Now there's a lot more. Plus there are ways to find those trails other than the "I-know-a-guy" route (MTB Project, Trail Forks, as-seen-on-Instagram, e.g.). There's more groups than ever posting on social media about group rides, trail maintenance days, and so on. More high schools are starting teams and competing at some level. There seems to be a lot more going on in the sport than there was a decade ago.

I don't know if the sport has gotten more mainstream because there are more advancements in the tech (droppers, shocks, geometry, etc). Or if the tech has gotten better because there is more demand. Chicken or egg?

 

[trailtrimmer]

ugh again past decade. Surly Pugley was 2008, with many custom built fat bike existing prior to that.

1 year off, and obscure experimental builds, big deal. The Pugsley was barely a spec on the map 11 years ago. In the past five to six years, full trail grooming programs have taken off as they have gone completely mainstream.

Between fatbikes and 27.5 tires, the 26" wheel format is dead, likely never to come back. They are going into the dustbin with the 650B tri bikes and fixed position biopace.

 

[Tricia]

The biggest to impact my riding:

• Dropper Post
• Out front geometry
• 1X gearing. - no more fiddling with the front three
• Adding to it with the particular bike I have, the Gemini shock. It really does make a difference on climbs to reduce the rebound.

 

[Tricia]

ugh again past decade.

I get where you're coming from, but I also see some things that were introduced in the past decade but didn't take off or have real advancement in the industry until this decade. Granted, it could be my perception.
This is supposed to be a fun thread, don't let tiny details make it not fun, please

 

[Josh Matta]

We seem to be complete agreement about the top 3 changes though @Tricia I will say I think out front geo only works with a dropper so in way they go together.


I am like old grumpy bike shop dude. Stuff that people think is "new" isnt really new.

 

[martyg]

I'd go with the constant advancement in suspension. It is an evolution, less revolution. That allows momentum to be carried forward more efficiently, verses momentum moving vertically.

I'm not a fan of 1X. Lennard Zinn has an excellent tech piece on 1X, and yes it does rob watts due to friction. Dale Stetina and I discussed 1X's in a tech piece that I did. I love his quote, "1X's are bio mechanically useless for climbing". Certainly if you live someplace where climbs are measured in minutes it is not an issue. That biomechanical compromise is acceptable. Go someplace where climbs are measured in hours and many times you are in a bio mechanical compromise. My most efficient geared mtn bike is a HT with Di2 Synchro. One lever. No prob. Never have to think about shifting the front derailleur. It does, however, use up battery more than my Di2 1X. The HT is not the most efficient for rough terrain. For smoother courses with climbs, it is a rocket.

 

[Philpug]

I'd go with the constant advancement in suspension. It is an evolution, less revolution. That allows momentum to be carried forward more efficiently, verses momentum moving vertically.

I'm not a fan of 1X. Lennard Zinn has an excellent tech piece on 1X, and yes it does rob watts due to friction. Dale Stetina and I discussed 1X's in a tech piece that I did. I love his quote, "1X's are bio mechanically useless for climbing". Certainly if you live someplace where climbs are measured in minutes it is not an issue. That biomechanical compromise is acceptable. Go someplace where climbs are measured in hours and many times you are in a bio mechanical compromise. My most efficient geared mtn bike is a HT with Di2 Synchro. One lever. No prob. Never have to think about shifting the front derailleur. It does, however, use up battery more than my Di2 1X. The HT is not the most efficient for rough terrain. For smoother courses with climbs, it is a rocket.

And everyone should be on an SL ski. Just because something is better, does not mean it is right for everyone.

 

[Josh Matta]

wait is MartyG Ned Overend?

 

[Primoz]

@Philpug 1x vs. 2x is not really comparison between SL and DH skis, or between SL skis and 120mm pow skis, as 2x is, except in marketing, better for pretty much everyone that ride bike. Well at least for those that don't have personal mechanic and ride 3k loop over and over again and get spare parts delivered to their bike by their team's mechanic, for free of course. And ok also for those who never climb a meter on their own power and all they ride are downhill trails in their bike park. For these, I agree bikes without derailleurs are fine... even without rear one.

 

[Josh Matta]

yeah whats funny I have done 100 mile races on a Single speed mtb. with 10k of climbing......

 

[scott43]

yeah whats funny I have done 100 mile races on a Single speed mtb. with 10k of climbing......

I've pounded in nails with a pair of vise-grips..you can do it..but..

 

[Seldomski]

GoPro + youtube

 

[martyg]

And everyone should be on an SL ski. Just because something is better, does not mean it is right for everyone.

It depends on what you mean by "better". In one of my tech articles I point out that "better" is so vague as to be meaningless as word.

I prefer the term "efficient". And what you ride will depend on what you value. If you are racing the US nationals, or trying to survive the Breck Epic, you embrace efficiencies. You do roll-down tests to determine optimal tire pressure, have suspension tuned, bike fit with FMS eval; a point here, two points there, three point in another area.... all of a sudden you are significantly faster with the same watt output. That speed may help you podium, of experience just a little less suffering on a Breck Epic - and be able to enjoy your evenings instead of being a useless puddle until you have to get on your bike again in the AM.

Those points of efficiency can also provide more enjoyment - just like a properly tuned ski. However if your an occasional, recreational user, those efficiencies probably would take aback seat to attributes that you might value more.

 

[Josh Matta]

Youtube 2005
Gopro 2005 (35mm film) 2006 with digital.

 

[martyg]

wait is MartyG Ned Overend?

Negative. We just travel in the same circles.

That is Ned hanging with my bike, which was a limited edition Overend color way that Specialized did a year or two ago for the Epic HT.

 

[Superbman]

Obviously droppers, 1x, and the wheel standard shakedowns are important, but I'll add the absolute dominance of front and rear through-axle designs (Bye-Bye open QR!).

And the prevalence of larger than 32mm stanchion forks even for XC.

And, Man, have tires gotten awesome!

 

[Philpug]

It depends on what you mean by "better". In one of my tech articles I point out that "better" is so vague as to be meaningless as word.

That is exactly my point. Something that has been discussed over and over.