As an avid mountain biker, this article reminds me about the pure fun of riding in the outdoors. You don't need to spend 5K+ to do so. The technology in mountain biking has really taken off in the last 15 years. I can ride trails that only people on downhill bikes would have done 10 years ago, and the bike weighs less than 30lbs, making pedaling up hills not a problem. Enduro mountain bike racing has really taken off in the last few years and really captures the essence of
mountain biking. It's a good time to be into mountain bikes.
Here are a couple of examples of the new generation of Enduro Bikes:
The prices on those bikes are ridiculous. If you buy something like that please buy it second-hand from someone that had more money than brains and thought they were going to lose weight by buying a bike rather than using it. Usually these go for a fraction of their new value in mint condition once the new-years vows have worn off.
I picked up my first "real" (not a department store bike) mountain bike, a giant NRS XTC, in 2000. That bike cost me $1800 which I thought was outrageous. But, it was basically a top of the line giant at the time, complete with nearly the best components money could buy.
I rode it weekly for a decade on trails designed to destroy bikes. I replaced it with a lower mid-range trek superfly fs a couple years ago. That bike cost me nearly $4k. And besides the 29" upgrade (which makes it weigh more) I'm not convinced its actually a better bike. For sure, the more expensive versions (which were pushing $10k for the carbon versions) weren't a better ride.
So, I agree the prices for mountain bikes are ridiculous, especially if you don't buy into the idea that there has been a lot of technology progression since the late '90s early 20s. Most of the "progression" seems to be more style than substance. Take the recent axle/skewer fiasco. The general claim was that the skewer was a problem so it needed upgrading, but who has actually had a problem with them? Absolutely no one I know, has ever had a wheel come out of a front fork unless they failed to tighten it. Nor do I buy the idea that its more stable because the skewer wasn't providing any rigidity to the front fork, that was the job of the axle (which if you notice is the part that makes contact with the fork for all directional forces except laterally). In the lateral case fork manufactures were putting locking indentations in forks since the early 90's. Further unnecessarily changes, 27.5" wheels, nonstandard head tubes, etc.
The lack of _ANY_ competition in "local bike shop" sales channels due to franchise licenses and regional restrictions also serve to easily quadruple the prices too.
Bottom line is that I agree. Buy a used bike if you can. I'm pretty particular about size/fit so its harder for me, but people who are closer to average size don't really have an excuse.
A mid-range fork today is so much better than a mid-range pogo-stick fork from the 90s.
Better forks & shocks as well as a slacker headtube-angle on most bikes today make todays bike a lot better to handle and ride, and inspire a lot more confidence than a bike from the 90s.
I do agree prices are high, but you do not have to have a $10k carbon bike to have fun or win races.
Also, narrow/wide chain rings, clutch derailleurs and a far greater range of available gearing options has advanced the entire drivetrain compared to 5, 10 years ago...and lets not forget all the advances in disc brake technology over the years.
You are right, but it makes a bigger difference than you suspect. My bike has a 2x10 setup right now, and I am most likely converting that to 1x10 or paying up for a 1x11 setup in the future.
Not having to choose between 1-2 on the front and then the back gears simplifies things greatly. In addition you also save some weight, it's a much simpler mechanic with less maintenance and with a newer SRAM Type2 or Shimano Shadow+ Clutch derailleur and a narrow-wide front ring you pretty much can't drop a chain, which is great. The only exception would be if you ride incredibly rough terrain where you bounce a lot, but a very simple chainguide fixes that problem.
Those aren't the sort of bikes that people buy in order to lose weight. They are more like mini MotoX bikes without the engines. They cost a lot because they are built to be extremely strong and have brakes which work well at high speeds in bad conditions which is important when you smash it into a tree at 40mph.
The risk with buying a bike like that second hand is that it may have already been crashed/damage.
I have some insight in the 'new bike sale' process for brand bikes. The margins are very healthy. I buy 'regular' bikes brand new and I won't argue about the price, the margin on those is a lot lower.
The margin on high end (road/mountain) bikes is insane and their performance is not substantially different from last years issue (which can be already had at a subtantial discount new), second hand ones are much more realistically priced.
If you feel like overspending and/or justifying that then be my guest but there is no rational reason why last years model should be worth half of what this years model is worth.
That's why there are 'model years' in the first place, they are simply a device for getting you to upgrade, this suggests that there is a lively second hand market where you can find something of almost the same functional value for a small fraction of the new sticker price.
In that second hand market you will find bikes that have been used heavily in that first year and bikes that are 'good as new' and the prices won't be too far apart, usually around 40-50% of what a new one costs.
For instance, this bike is $6600 new but discounted to $2495
You'd need to inspect it and make sure that it is really 'only a scratch' rather than that it has impact damage but that's doable if you know what you're buying. And if you don't then you do not have a good reason to spend more than $1000 on a mountainbike anyway. (The difference between a $1000 second hand bike and a new one that's 5 times as expensive are still not large enough to justify the difference in price).
Craigslist is another good source for hardly used bikes at a fraction of their new price.
As for impacting stuff at 40Mph, your carbon bike will be bits and pieces at those speeds, an aluminum bike will be still in one piece but ready for the shredder.
If your main concern is impact damage to your bike then you have been very lucky so far. In my opinion the main risk in mountainbiking down-hill with trees next to the track is impact damage to the rider, not the bike.
Just be aware that second hand bike generally have no warranty on the frame. That may or may not be a concern. If you know what you are after getting a bike second hand and getting the parts off it can be a great way to get exactly what you want.
I'd also point out that you can get really good deals on bike when the model year changes over.
(I only do road bikes, but I'm sure it's pretty similar for MTBs).
Mountain bikes are never in a new condition for long if ridden regularly. You are going to crash it sooner or later and you need to check for damage regularly. A lot of the parts will need overhauling or replacing within 6 months. A well maintained 2 year old bike can be in better condition than a badly maintained 6 moth old one.
There is hardly a bike frame on the market that can survive actually hitting a tree at even 10mph with the rider on it.
Most of the frames are extremely strong vertically, but if impacted on the side or directly on the tubes crumple like the couple mm thick aluminum/carbon they are.
At the world cup finals in Hafjell, Norway last weekend, the top guys were hitting 82 kmh (51 mph~) on a open section speed trap. They aren't quite as fast in tighter sections, but still plenty fast.
Here is the helmet cam footage of Josh Bryceland that probably would have ended up winning if he had not overshot the last jump and broken his foot. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBDpu4-pQhM The speedtrap is at about 2:30.
Pick your time. Usually bike shops have their sales in the fall when you can get a previous year model at a good discount.
Avoid carbon fiber frames and pro level gruppos. Go for an alumninum frame and a Deore gruppo as it's gonna save you a load of cash and give you a good bike to get started.
Save some cash to buy a new saddle. Usually the saddles that come with lower cost bikes are incredibly uncomfortable. Money spent on a good saddle is money well spent.
Most importantly, enjoy your bike as much as you can!
You don't need to, that said, there are a lot of riders that have more bike than they have the skills for. Sometimes I feel like I am in that category.
I just spent a weekend in Whistler at a mountain bike camp where a young lady on a maybe $1400 hard tail bike was rolling the same stuff I was on the rented $5k bike. She grew up riding Vancouver's north shore.
My advice for those looking to buy a bike that aren't already gear heads is:
1) Pick your budget
2) Test ride a bunch of bikes in that budget range
3) Pay attention to how the shop you test ride at is treating you -- you want a shop you are comfortable with
Fit of bike and how it feels to you is probably most important. If the bike you like is at a shop you aren't fond of, you can always use another shop for service.
The thing about these bikes is that they're bikes you can take out to a DH race and win on. They are the F1s of cycling. I think the most expensive DH bikes top out at $10-15k.
It always bugs me when amateurs look at professional equipments (literally: equipment you use in your profession which you should be making money on) and go, "hmpf, that's too much!" Same thing with tons of software - if you're not making money with it, there's rarely reason to buy it. And if you are, then it shouldn't be a major expense in the context of your profession.
I'm glad to see people encouraging cyclists, but I am struggling not to get angry that you call five thousand dollars "reasonably priced" with a straight face.
You can get a solid entry-level mountain bike for $400. It is probably not suited for professional racing, but it's a perfectly good machine. If you check out used bike stores, you can find some excellent machines in good shape for less than that.
I know you mean well, but linking these absurd prices out of context turns people off of cycling who might have really enjoyed it.
I think the problem is that there isn't really a $400 category for mountain bikes.
There is the $100 walmart/acadamy bikes, made without regard for quality/weight/etc. And then there are the $1000+ bike store bikes.
That said, if you look at kids bikes at the local bike shop I think you will notice something. Those bikes tend to be just as good as the adult versions (good components, strong frames/etc) but they tend to cost under $250.
> I think the problem is that there isn't really a $400 category for mountain bikes.
I'm more of a commuter rider, so I don't know how bad the stresses of frequent hardcore mountain riding can be, but my current bike is a Trek hardtail mountain bike that I paid ~$520 for new at the bike shop, and it's served me well for years. Perhaps I should have said $500 instead of $400, but I'm pretty sure I've seen unsprung MTBs from good brands selling for $400 at my local.
Edit: I realize that a $400 unsprung MTB is not at all suited for a serious mountain rider. But I do think it would do for someone who's on the fence and doesn't want to spend thousands on a hobby they might not like. That's why I said "entry-level"--if you turn out to love mountain riding and wreck it in six weeks, then you know what to be saving for. If you find you don't like it, you haven't lost too much.
You should be able to find plenty of decent hardtail low-end mountain bikes in the $500 - $900 range, particularly if you wait until the off-season to do your shopping.
My personal advice would be to buy your way into a decent frame and upgrade components as they fail. If there's one thing I found from several years of avid mountain biking, it's that parts wear and break much faster than they do in road riding, giving plenty of upgrade opportunity. :-)
A full suspension bike under $1000 is garbage, I agree, but you can get plenty of capable hardtails for < $1000. Personally I cut my teeth on a $750 steel hardtail, and I would regularly be passing douchebags on $5000 full suspension bikes who had absolutely no need for that kind of hardware.
Are you sure about the rear suspension? Yes, it can save your wheel in some situations (which you should really be avoiding as an amateur), but %99 of the time it's unnecessery weight that also happens to eat some of the power that'd normally go to the wheel. (I'm not a competitive biker, mountain or otherwise, I'm just curious)
I would say that if you're riding on rough terrain (e.g. rocky, boulder-strewn, heavily rutted, etc.), you would be shocked at what you can do on a full suspension bike. I know I spent the first couple of months with a F/S bike just riding over random obstacles out of sheer amazement. If you're riding mostly smooth dirt trails where your primary obstacle is occasional tree roots and ruts, then a hardtail is probably fine.
I have a hardtail (its a 4 X steel framed tank). Big forks at the front, and a bit of effort, I haven't seen much that full suspensions would make me do that I won't on the hardtail.
I rode hard trail growing up and now have a full suspension and I think it is definitely worth trying especially if you ride on any sort of roots or rocks.
Technology has improved a lot from the first few generations of suspension and even climbing a modern suspension design that isn't intended solely for downhill will isolate pedal bob from bumps and nicer rear shocks will also have either a lock out or inertial damping/"pro pedal" or lock out feature that helps even more.
I actually just got back from a ride the included some climbs up through some steep rock gardens and I feel the rear suspension can actually help keep traction better so you can stay seated and just grind things out over the bumps instead of having to stand and throw the bike around if that makes sense.
The descent is no contest, the bike just stays much more in control and I don't have to use my knees like shock absorbers as much.
And I'm on a bike I paid $1400 for on fall clearance though it is a more trail oriented then enduro oriented bike meaning it has only 120mm of suspension front and rear (it is an older BMC trailfox tf02).
I'd like to give a hardtail ultralight 29er a try at some point as well though.
It's not about saving the wheel, it's about keeping the rider fresh. Mountain biking on rough terrain is hard on the body. Look at elite level races - most of them switch between hard-tail and full-suspension, depending on the terrain. And for those of us who just play at racing, a full-suspension bike can take the edge off a long day of riding.
"but %99 of the time it's unnecessery weight that also happens to eat some of the power that'd normally go to the wheel."
If by 99 percent of the time you refer to climbing(because going up is so slow and takes more time compared with going down), lots of rear suspension's rigidity systems can be adjusted with your finger in a five seconds operation.
My bike has this mechanism, I just select the "rigid mode" for climbing and change it for going downhill.
Eating the power that will go to the wheel is exactly what I want when I go downhill the Swiss Alps, or Teide or Sierra Nevada.
Sometimes I would love to have "regenerative braking". I have a limit in the velocity I can handle. Over this everything goes so fast.
Also, having family you start re thinking the risk you take.
All depends on your terrain. My local trails are rock gardens, often with broken rock ranging from softball to football size. I still ride a hardtail, but I can tell you the shocks & bumps are so bad that I spend a lot of the ride down with zero traction.
In some terrain, rear suspension is advantageous both in climbing and descending. When descending, it keeps wheel planted on the ground for better control and braking. When climbing rough terrain, it similarly can keep the back wheel planted for better traction.
Some folks also get bikes with rear suspension because it limits stress on the torso and knees when hitting bumps.
You don't need it and if you are on a limited budget you can get a good hard tail much cheaper than a good full suspension but if you have it you can stay in the saddle much more of the the time for efficient pedalling. It doesn't lose much of the pedalling power certainly if you spin the pedals rather than stand on the pedals in a higher gear.
Many bikes in this price range have similar frames and components. The components won't last as long as on a better bike, but will be good enough to get you started.
After that you pretty much get what you pay for in improved components. Its like buying a computer - the more you spend the better components you get but the higher you go, the less gain you are likely to notice (unless you are really pushing limits).
If you are keener to commit and spend a bit more trail centres should be able to rent you a trail bike.
Look for end of the season sales, or better yet, know someone that works for a supplier or store that can get you a decent discount. Mountain bikes are insanely expensive, but for local stores there mostly isn't a big profit margin (at least not here, Norway). The manufacturers themselves probably have a lot better profit margins, but I do not know enough to say anything about it. At this point, any "known-brand" mountain bike over or around $2000 new is a really solid bike that will work great and last a long time if taken care of properly. Above that you start to see carbon frames, higher end gruppos and mostly weight savings.
For example a bike with a Shimano SLX groupset is basically as good as one with the XT groupset (one step up), the XTR groupset is lighter and costs way more.
the Shimano SLX groupset is comparable to SRAM's X9 groupset in performance and price.
Getting into the sport I would go for a hardtail (no rear suspension) first. They are a lot cheaper, and you will get more bike for the money. Spend $2000 on a hardtail and you have a really great and light bike with a near top-end groupset, but if you spend $2000 on a full-suspension bike you will get less bike for the money, and a hardtail is good for beginners anyway. When you do not have rear suspension you have to learn how to keep your weight on the bike and how to pick the best lines down, and a full-suspension bike is a lot more forgiving that way. I can ride down stuff on my FS bike I'd never dream of doing on my hardtail.
Do your research and watch for deals or used bikes. If you are comfortable working on or learning to work on bikes you can buy online otherwise the support from a local shop will be worth more then what you save.
mtbr.com is great for reviews and has a deals forum and page. bikeradar, pinkbike and some other sites that will crop up in google are great for reviews too.
For reference I bought a new bmc trailfox tf02 with slx components for 1400 a few years ago and a friend bought a well used but well maintained specialized enduro for 900 last year...i'd say these prices are about as cheap as you should expect to find a good full suspension bike though hardtails can be had cheaper.
There are tons of cheap but not great bikes out there. A good rule of thumb is to not get anything that doesn't have disk brakes and ideally you want something with Shimano hydraulic disk brakes as they are great and easy to maintain. Cheap full suspension is to be approached with extreme caution as it will be heavy and bouncy when you try to pedal it.
I bought my first serious bike to a friend for less than 300 dollars.
It was a "first class" bike, but 10 years old, so it had not disk brakes, but good old generation brakes.
Simple hardtails and flat pedals are much better to learn MTB and much cheaper. In fact, if you can control your bike in the air with flat pedals a new world will open to you.
You will be able to do bunnies, Bunnie hops and other tricks that are more important than spending money on a bike.
If you know how to jump 1 meter height with your bike, you will run circles with a 300 dollars bike around anyone who does not in a 5K bike.
If you are a pro, then sure, go for it, but odds are that if you are asking you are not.
Ebay has lots of good deals. You need to research things like the difference between shimano xtr and shimano altus or sram "x" vs sram "y". I got a great 2009 shimano xtr light weight mountain bike for my son. Note 29 inch wheels (29ers) are all the rage now. This means 26 inch mountain bikes are going way down in value but are still great bikes. Lots of good info on youtube as well.
If you have a friend that knows mountain biking well, then going used is a good approach. Pinkbike.com is a good place to start for people in the USA/Canada. REI is also a good place for reasonably priced, new bikes.
The reason Ritchey, Fisher, and the rest of their group are known as the "founders of mountain biking" is because they were the first to make bikes for others to also enjoy off-road riding.
Lots of people rode off-road, down mountains and on trails before them. But they were the first to turn it into a successful business.
“The reason mountain biking is so popular,” says Charlie Kelly, “is that it’s one of the only ways in modern life that you can turn on your adrenaline pump, and leave it on for a long time. You can go big-wave surfing or skydiving, but downhill bike riding gives you all the adrenaline you can handle.
I find that quote funny and sad, given that any skidding on trails in that area are now highly ticketable offenses, and have been since at least the early 1990s.
Given the popularity of mountain biking these days, it's ironic that I now find it easier to get my thrills by doing downhill road cycling. I don't have to worry (much) about coming across a cyclist or pedestrian in the middle of the road, and cars are the only thing slowing me down.
It is referenced at the very end of the article and is quite a fun flick.
The Marin Museum of Bicycling is worth a visit if you are in that part of the Bay Area (oh, and grab a beer or two in the near by breweries...) http://mmbhof.org
This is great history, however there is more to the craze of mountain biking than these tales of pioneering legend.
History can be taught as 'kings, queens and their wars' or it can be told in terms of economic and social things. With the mountain biking craze not much has been written about why it did take off like it did - really very few people knew who Fisher, Breeze, Ritchey et al. were. People just wanted a mountain bike for some reason.
I also don't believe that these mountain bike pioneers were really that pioneering - since the invention of the bicycle people have been cycling off road and enjoying the thrills of descending at speed. It is kind of a natural thing to do. To a certain extent the bikes that came before mountain bikes - BMX - were off-road bikes albeit with small wheels although you could get medium flavour wheels with a BMX.
My revisionist view of the mountain bike craze is to see it as a natural reaction to what politicians, planners and motorists were doing to our roads. Back in the day roads were many times more deadly than they are today with country roads unrestricted so 'idiots' could drive them far too fast to possibly stop for any cyclists that might be using them. As a consequence, in the 70's and 80's roads were not at all safe for cyclists and the only cyclists that would use them would be doing so for reasons different to today.
As well as the instant danger roads back then were laced with deadly poisons from cars that are incredible to think about. Imagine putting lead in petrol?!? Who would have thought that was a good idea?
Cycling is enjoyable - that is a statement of fact. Cycling on dangerous roads is no fun at all (unless you really enjoy that, which I can understand). So mountain bikes came along and just filled a need for something that had been denied by the motoring thing.
Shimano did great things to get mountain biking started - they did a fantastic job of creating easy to service brakes, gears and other components. European component suppliers just did not get their act together which was their loss. Yet again, despite how wonderful Shimano were there were wider economic factors - the Yen was a fairly worthless currency at the time so Shimano parts were amazingly cheap given how high quality they were compared to their European counterparts.
The frames for the bikes and the bikes themselves tended to come from 'new' suppliers. Older brands that made 'lugged' frames lost out. The factories in the Far East (Taiwan) that had been built to TiG weld chromoly steel tubes were the ones making the mountain bikes. For them this was a natural progression from the BMX that had gone before. As contract manufacturers 'OEM partners' they took the brands that the likes of Fisher had started and churned out some real product, this being the right product at the right time.
Mountain bikes also rode on the crest of a wave of a consumer boom. Money was cheap and along with all the other consumer gizmos of the time, mountain bikes sold very nicely.
So, although the Marin County history is fun, the real story of why the mountain bike happened has more to do with the tragedy of the roads and economic circumstance at home and in the Far East.
"I also don't believe that these mountain bike pioneers were really that pioneering - since the invention of the bicycle people have been cycling off road and enjoying the thrills of descending at speed. It is kind of a natural thing to do. To a certain extent the bikes that came before mountain bikes - BMX - were off-road bikes albeit with small wheels although you could get medium flavour wheels with a BMX."
This.
As someone who grew up in Marin in the 70's I agree completely. When I first saw the title of this post I immediately thought it should be changed to "The Hippie Parents of the Daredevils Who Invented Mountain Biking" <dang, you listening?> IMO, the only reason that mountain biking took off is because our parents saw us hitchhiking up Tam and bombing down on our BMX bikes and wanted to try it out for themselves. Hence, the adaptation of "Klunkers" and "Bombers" that fit their larger body frames. Almost all of these people were, first and foremost, road cyclists.
btw - I first bombed Mt Tam on a BMX bike in 1974.
My revisionist view of the mountain bike craze is to see it as a natural reaction to what politicians, planners and motorists were doing to our roads.
I disagree with this entirely.
Mountain biking (and BMX) grew entirely out of the motocross and desert motorcycle racing scene that exploded in the 1970's and early 1980's.
BMX riders were entirely mimicking motocross riders. These downhill mountain bikers were mimicking the berm-riding, rooster-tail-shooting cornering of dirtbikes. Around the time of the photos in this article, people started adapting the front suspension from motorcycles for their downhill bicycles.
There was even a sidecar phase in BMX racing, which is very obviously taken straight from sidecar motorcycle racing.
It's hard to say why certain types of activities take off.
Inline skating (aka Rollerblading) came out of nowhere to become a very popular activity by the late 80s or thereabouts. (It predates that but that was around the time it really took off in the US.) Today, my observation in at least the places I live and visit is that it's essentially gone away--in spite of the increased availability of paved rail trails and the like.
Recreational kayaks have replaced canoes to a large degree.
Paddleboards are probably the hottest new thing in the watersports arena.
That said, you're right about both the technology aspects and the fact that road cycling was less prevalent and generally more dangerous at the time mountain biking came onto the scene.
I think it's more that it's technically easier--especially for a single person (and lighter/easier to load and unload from car/get in water for that single person). And, yes, Royalex has gotten to be a terrible price but given the same materials, kayaks aren't necessarily cheaper.
I don't see why spandex is fashion. I don't wear it because I look good in it (I think it looks dumb, and I'm old enough to start to have a belly), I wear it because it's hot in Texas and it is the least amount of clothes I can wear and still feel like I have enough clothes on.
disc brakes are not fashion, man. I hemmed and hawed about them a few years ago, and now I'm never going back. Rim brakes come nowhere near the control and stopping power, which I am indescribably grateful for as I'm rocketing down my local rockbed trails.
Apart from the general comfort of Lycra on a bike when you are really moving around to shift weight on the bike lycra is less likely to get caught on the saddle. If you are fully set up for downhill the saddle may be out of the way but for a cross country ride with interesting bits it can be much safer than baggies.
Bike-specific baggies are generally slimmer in the thigh and cut higher in the rear/crotch to reduce getting caught in the saddle. I ride mostly with baggies and it's not a problem I've ever experienced.
Charlie Kelly doesn't get enough credit for the mountain bike. It was Gary Fisher and Charlie Kelly who started
a company in order to build mountian bikes.
As life goes, they had dissagrements--and Charlie walked away. Charlie was the bike builder, and the bike mechanic.
Without Charle I don't think Marin Mountian bikes would have
ever build bikes?
The shop was on Tundtead Ave. There was always a thick cloud of the early 80's in the air. The bikes were stunning.
There were so many people who thought they would never be successful, but the bikes started to sell-- and the rest is
history. The people who thought they would fold were adults. All the kids who drooled over the bikes(myself); knew different, but knew it was still a very risky business.
As a chid, I would look into the shop and I used to say to
myself "I hope they are still in business when I earn enough
to buy one."
As to Charlie Kelly; I don't think he is rich, but he looks
younger than the rest of the guys, and seems genuinely happy. It's not just about money?
I wouldn't label them as Hippies though. They were just young guys who liked riding bikes(road and mountan). Young guys who didn't want to follow in their fathers footsteps?
Putting on that tie and spending years at same company seemed like a prison sentence years ago.
(I let my brother use my bike and he eventually destroyed it. Then someone stole it. Somethings never change.)
I used to see Kelly on Skyline in Oakland in the mid 90's on a Kelly frame. I knew he was a somebody but didn't know the story. Did he move to the East Bay?
http://www.giant-bicycles.com/en-us/bikes/model/reign.advanc...
http://www.specialized.com/us/en/bikes/mountain/enduro/endur...
Both are relatively decently priced with good specs.