7 ms·

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. Y

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.

brabel 5y ago
> uphill has been de-emphasized over downhill 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 ...
- davidw 5y ago
  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.
  - seryoiupfurds 5y ago
    To the extent that video sets trends, sending it off wicked drops makes for better video than grinding uphill.
  - petre 5y ago
    Me too. Probably more people who mountain biked in the 80s and 90s or XC types. I'm still doing it, mostly on a modern fixed fork mountain bike.
  - DebtDeflation 5y ago
    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.
- bigfudge 5y ago
  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.
- dahart 5y ago
  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.
- qq4 5y ago
  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.
- dockd 5y ago
  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.
  - davidw 5y ago
    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.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
SavantIdiot 5y ago
> Enduro racing (where the uphills aren't even timed) is a nice example of that. Ah! Excellent example.
ak217 5y ago
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.
- sideshowb 5y ago
  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.
- alkonaut 5y ago
  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?
- lazydud 5y ago
  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
- dahart 5y ago
  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.

brabel 5y ago

> uphill has been de-emphasized over downhill 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 ...

davidw 5y ago
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.
- seryoiupfurds 5y ago
  To the extent that video sets trends, sending it off wicked drops makes for better video than grinding uphill.
- petre 5y ago
  Me too. Probably more people who mountain biked in the 80s and 90s or XC types. I'm still doing it, mostly on a modern fixed fork mountain bike.
- DebtDeflation 5y ago
  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.
bigfudge 5y ago
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.
dahart 5y ago
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.
qq4 5y ago
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.
dockd 5y ago
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.
- davidw 5y ago
  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.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

SavantIdiot 5y ago

> Enduro racing (where the uphills aren't even timed) is a nice example of that. Ah! Excellent example.

ak217 5y ago

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.

sideshowb 5y ago
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.
alkonaut 5y ago
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?
lazydud 5y ago
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
dahart 5y ago
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.