[HN Gopher] Why did bar ends go away from mountain bikes?
___________________________________________________________________
Why did bar ends go away from mountain bikes?
Author : de_keyboard
Score : 106 points
Date : 2021-05-24 15:40 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (brainybiker.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (brainybiker.com)
| yread wrote:
| 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
| bmj wrote:
| 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.
|
| [0] https://www.jonesbikes.com/h-bars/
| et-al wrote:
| Yeah, for longer distances, multiple hand positions are nice
| for recruiting different muscles (hence the traditional
| popularity of drop bars for touring).
|
| 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.
| wiredfool wrote:
| 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.
| et-al wrote:
| Butterfly bars? I think most folks can't get past the
| aesthetics.
| wiredfool wrote:
| Found them. Scott at-4 pros.
|
| 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.
| acrispino wrote:
| He kinda does:
|
| _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.
| underseacables wrote:
| I really liked the bar ends on my Trek Fuel back in the day. It
| just felt better pulling myself up a hill.
| charles_f wrote:
| 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.
|
| Good job!
| fiftyacorn wrote:
| 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
| thefz wrote:
| 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.
| tonymet wrote:
| 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.
| alistairSH wrote:
| 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+.
| analog31 wrote:
| Where I've mostly seen bar ends is on bikes with MTB style bars,
| including hybrids, being used on pavement. I also see a lot of
| people trying to make straight bars comfortable in other ways,
| e.g., with their palms cupped around the ends of the bar, or
| fists resting on top of the grips.
|
| Granted, it's probably a matter of every rider having different
| requirements, and you can eventually find a bar that's
| comfortable and performant for your body and riding conditions.
| But that means trying out different bars, having to remove all of
| the controls, possibly lengthening the cables, etc.
|
| Or you can add a simple accessory that will at least provide a
| resting position, that can be attached with minimal tools and
| effort.
|
| In my own case I ended up with swept bars on all of my bikes.
| Even a moderate amount of sweep, and the resulting change in
| wrist angle, is night and day for me in terms of long term
| comfort.
| joelcollinsdc wrote:
| I thought it was about not catching trees on the bar end? The new
| wide bars can deflect and recover a lot easier.
| ghostly_s wrote:
| I still see bar-ends all the time...on mountain bikes being used
| as commuters in the city, which I suspect is the majority of the
| "mountain bike" market, at least if you include 2nd-hand sales.
| They're still an obvious ergonomic upgrade for people who are
| just riding a mtb for the more upright posture or (...perceived)
| ability to handle poorly-maintained city streets.
| abfan1127 wrote:
| I used to want bar ends for my mtb. It was mostly related to
| fatigue in my lower back. it was only recently my hip angle was
| the cause. Instead of pivoting my hips for a more neutral back
| posture, I was hunching over. As soon as I adjusted my hips it
| felt so much better.
| 762236 wrote:
| I use drop bars on my commuter bike. The only advantages I can
| think of for flat bars are a safer hand-on-brake position, and
| more reliable shifters (drop-bar brifters have to route cables
| around tiny pulleys, causing the cables to fray too quickly).
| Drop bars are comfortable for all-day riding.
| moab wrote:
| Reading about bar-ends made me think about the Brompton P-type,
| which (alas!) Brompton recently discontinued:
| https://www.bikefolded.com/brompton-s-m-p-h-type-handlebar-d...
| midnightclubbed wrote:
| More importantly that bar ends is the comment "Today, you have a
| higher chance of seeing a bell on a modern mountain bike than a
| set of bar ends"... If there is one thing every MTB rider should
| have on their bike it is a bell. With trail usage way up having a
| bell is not just a curtesy to other bikers/hikers but an
| important safety feature. Big fan of the Timber bell, but
| anything that lets other trail user know you are approaching
| works just fine.
|
| And anyone who is out on the trails with headphones... you still
| won't hear a bike bell, but then you won't hear a rattle-snake
| either.
| yarcob wrote:
| I definitely prefer a bicycle bell to getting yelled at from
| behind.
|
| But you know what would be even nicer? If bikers had the
| curtesy to slow down a bit when the trail / path is crowded.
|
| I also love riding fast. I understand that crowded paths are
| annoying. But when I see that the path is full of people, I
| don't start ringing my bell, or hollering "on your left" or
| "attention" at the people in front of me, I just slow down.
| There is no curteous way to pass someone with delta V of 15km/h
| on a narrow path.
|
| If I want to ride fast, I pick a time when the paths aren't
| crowded. I don't understand why everyone wants to race their
| bikes on multi use paths on a sunny afternoon at 3PM when
| everyone else is outside too.
|
| Try riding eg. Saturday at 7AM and you'll have the world to
| yourself and you can go as fast as you like.
| midnightclubbed wrote:
| The bell I recommended isn't one you ring - it's like a
| cowbell that rings constantly (while you are moving) and lets
| people know you are coming before they can see you. Basic
| trail etiquette.
|
| I have nothing against hikers (would be hypocritical as
| someone who trail-runs) and blasting past people on a crowded
| path (or at all) is an idiot move. But on a single track
| trail people can come up on you really quick, 10km/h is a
| brisk jog so a 15km/h (4m/s) delta V isn't exactly fast.
|
| My local trails are way quieter at 3pm (most people are in
| work and temperatures are still hot) than at 7am (pre-work
| dog walkers and exercisers). Saturday 7AM is literally the
| worse time in SoCal - big groups of riders and local running
| clubs all hit the trails Saturday morning. Guess it is varies
| by region but no matter the time I'd want to give other trail
| users the maximum oppertunity to know I was there so we can
| all be safe.
|
| For the record I don't want to ride my bike fast on multi-use
| paths at any time of the day, not sure why you thought I did.
| If I ride fast it is on bike focussed routes (accessed via
| the multi-use trails).
| tester89 wrote:
| > it's like a cowbell that rings constantly (while you are
| moving)
|
| This is horrific, so much unnecessary noise pollution.
| realbarack wrote:
| It's really not. These bells aren't that loud, you really
| only hear them once the cyclist is maybe 50 yards away.
| It's an incredibly important safety feature on low-
| visibility singletracks.
| midnightclubbed wrote:
| It's not that bad at all, and stops when you are not
| moving. I'd say it has maybe a 20m range so it's not like
| people can hear you from the other side of the mountain.
|
| I do agree it adds noise to (potentially) tranquil trails
| but imho its a good safety trade-off. Way better than
| people who insist on blasting music from their phone
| speakers or conference call while walking.
| PascLeRasc wrote:
| Agreed, just use a loud hub. It'll let people know when
| you're flying down DH trails and be silent for climbs
| when you can see people and slow down in time. I can't
| even think about what the cowbell must sound like when
| it's up on your roof rack.
| dahart wrote:
| Most people seem to be curteous already where I ride. There
| are always a few people giving us all a bad name, but I'm
| seeing growing awareness of good behavior, and of better
| signage, at the same time that crowds are increasing. Good to
| keep in mind that crowds are growing and MTB popularity is
| growing, because it means that good behavior may be on the
| rise faster than it seems unless you pay attention to and
| notice how many people aren't being pushy.
|
| That said, I have an always-on bell that rings as I ride over
| bumps. I like it for multiple reasons - for one bikers hear
| me coming for a long time, and know that I'm not going agro
| right behind them. For two, hikers and dog-walkers appreciate
| hearing it from far away, and often thank me for it.
| sva_ wrote:
| Yeah, the comment about bells struck out to me as well. I
| didn't have one on my MTB in the beginning, but it just felt so
| stupid to yell 'sorry' at people. I don't see what's the
| reason, saving a few grams of weight? While riding
| recreationally? Makes no sense. First I got one of those
| minimalist designs that blend in with the handlebar, but it
| didn't work too well. So I just got a huge one, in black color
| like the handlebar, which is very loud. Sometimes people get
| scared for a moment but it's much better than them jumping as
| you ride by them silently. And I don't think it looks bad at
| all.
| pedalpete wrote:
| Why yell "sorry" instead of "hi there", or something as you
| come up to them.
|
| I'm Canadian, and as the saying goes "we say sorry 50 times a
| day, and we're sorry we can't say it more", but still...I
| don't understand why you're apologizing rather than giving
| warning, and is ringing a bell really any better in this
| instance?
| midnightclubbed wrote:
| I think there may be a thought a bell isn't cool enough for
| mtb bro's? Or maybe it's just that they aren't fitted to
| mountain bikes as standard (they should be) and so people
| don't think to pick one up.
| benatkin wrote:
| > 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.
| crispyambulance wrote:
| 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).
| tchvil wrote:
| Mountain Bike geometry has changed, they have a longer reach, the
| stem are shorter, and bars wider for a better leverage. Bar ends
| would put your arm too wide to be useful.
|
| But maybe the real reason is if you ride with bar ends today,
| chances are you and your bike are old already, you have a front
| derailleur, no tubeless tires, no disc brakes unfortunately being
| part of a population that is going slowly but certainly extinct.
|
| For marathons though they offered a change of hand position. But
| their modern version comes as smaller hooks for the thumbs.
| SECProto wrote:
| Not a mountain biker but: I (and many people I know) ride road
| bikes older than we are. I've got a Norco from the early 80s,
| friends ride similar age or older Peugeot and Raleigh. Chromoly
| that is pretty light and feels great and can take a beating.
|
| Newer isn't always better - especially for those who are time-
| rich but money-poor. Old bikes can be maintained with a minimum
| of parts - grease, new bearings, brake pads, tired/tubes and
| one new chain are all the parts I've had to replace on my 38
| year old bike in the last fifteen years. Touched up scratches
| with almost-matching nail polish. And I've learned everything
| about how a bike works along the way.
| tnorthcutt wrote:
| FWIW, mountain bike technology has advanced an enormous
| amount over the past 20 years as compared to road bike
| technology. Granted road bike technology has advanced a lot
| too, but most of the benefit there is in weight reduction.
|
| Mountain bike technology has advanced in weight reduction as
| well, but suspension technology is orders of magnitude better
| than 20-30 years ago. Modern mountain bikes are incredibly
| advanced and they're loads of fun to ride (and I say that as
| someone riding a bike designed about 10 years ago).
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| > I (and many people I know) ride road bikes older than we
| are.
|
| Road bikes haven't changed as much as mountain bikes.
|
| > Newer isn't always better
|
| That may be the case in road bikes, but mountain bikes have
| gone through a huge transformation in the past decade. The
| new mountain bikes are night and day different than mountain
| bikes from a decade ago.
|
| Suspension technology alone has advanced by leaps and bounds.
| Not relevant to road bikes, but it's a game changer on modern
| mountain bikes.
| ahelwer wrote:
| 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.
| skeeter2020 wrote:
| 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.
| guyzero wrote:
| 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.
| ianhowson wrote:
| At least here in NorCal, it's not trail damage that's the
| issue. It's:
|
| * 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.
| soared wrote:
| 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.
| anotherboffin wrote:
| 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.
| twalla wrote:
| 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.
| TacticalCoder wrote:
| 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.
| CountDrewku wrote:
| 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.
| jpm_sd wrote:
| 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.
|
| [1] https://www.bikes.com/en/bikes/solo/2019
| aidenn0 wrote:
| 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.
| soared wrote:
| 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.
|
| Drop bars will never go away :)
| jeffbee wrote:
| 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.
| knotduck wrote:
| 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.
| DebtDeflation wrote:
| There are lots of alternatives to flat bars in the MTB world.
| Moloko bars, Jones H bars, Velo Orange Crazy bars, etc.
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| 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.
| SamBam wrote:
| Why did you find them undesirable (unless for more modern
| handlebars, for the reasons in the article)?
|
| I definitely found them useful for climbing with the old flat
| handlebars.
| twic wrote:
| I have bar-ends, and i find them highly desirable!
| pharmakom wrote:
| I love MTB bar ends. They let you adopt a more efficient
| position for the inevitable road sections between trails.
| elcapitan wrote:
| 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.
| jrochkind1 wrote:
| random pet peeve:
|
| > A set of riser bars that I purchased a while back. They are
| 810mm (or 5 piano octaves) by default. I plan to cut them down to
| at least 740mm for a future project.
|
| They are already "at least 740mm", being 810 mm, which is more
| than 740. You mean "at most".
| frosted-flakes wrote:
| In this case, he's saying cut them _down_ to at least 740 mm [
| _or smaller_ --implied]. The usage is correct.
| m463 wrote:
| I don't see any direct comment about bar ends and ergonomics.
|
| Going from a road bike to a mountain bike is hard because you get
| basically ONE body position with a flat bar.
|
| On my road bike I constantly change positions - on the center of
| the bar, on the hoods, on the drops, etc. This lets my back and
| shoulders move around and not get stiff.
|
| On a mountain bike with a flat bar, it kills my back and
| shoulders the more time spent riding. You're stuck in one
| position.
|
| You can alleviate it a little bit by moving around on the saddle
| or standing up, but not too much.
|
| But bar ends help with this shortcoming.
| vondur wrote:
| They look goofy. I ditched mine in the late 90's. Bars now are
| much wider than they used to be during the heyday of bar ends.
| jmspring wrote:
| I still have one bike with bar ends. A single speed mountain
| bike. I use the bar ends (plus clipped in pedals) for leverage
| when climbing. My other full suspension bikes are all large
| handle bar, no bar ends.
| mpermar wrote:
| 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.
| soared wrote:
| 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.
| petre wrote:
| Thee are also flat bar gravel bikes like the Salsa Journeyman
| flat bar or the Marin DSX.
| jMyles wrote:
| 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.
| SavantIdiot wrote:
| 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?
| monkmartinez wrote:
| > 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.
| bigfudge wrote:
| 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.
| vbsteven wrote:
| 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.
| bch wrote:
| 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.
|
| (Edit: clarity)
| mgarfias wrote:
| 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.
| frosted-flakes wrote:
| 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.)
| Rantenki wrote:
| 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.
| bigfudge wrote:
| 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...
| asdff wrote:
| 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).
| SavantIdiot wrote:
| 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. :|
| johnconnolly wrote:
| 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.
| localhost wrote:
| 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.
| Gualdrapo wrote:
| 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.
| crispyambulance wrote:
| > too much risk of hooking another rider
|
| 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".
| mgarfias wrote:
| 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.
| vladvasiliu wrote:
| > 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.
| hinkley wrote:
| 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)
| jrace wrote:
| 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.
|
| At least where I live.
| nicpottier wrote:
| 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.
| ak217 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| [deleted]
| SavantIdiot wrote:
| > Enduro racing (where the uphills aren't even timed) is a
| nice example of that.
|
| Ah! Excellent example.
| brabel wrote:
| > 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 ...
| qq4 wrote:
| 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.
| davidw wrote:
| 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.
| DebtDeflation wrote:
| 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.
| petre wrote:
| 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.
| seryoiupfurds wrote:
| To the extent that video sets trends, sending it off
| wicked drops makes for better video than grinding uphill.
| dockd wrote:
| 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.
| dahart wrote:
| 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.
| bigfudge wrote:
| 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.
| PostThisTooFast wrote:
| 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.
| rconti wrote:
| 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.
| lostlogin wrote:
| 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.
| petre wrote:
| 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.
| LAC-Tech wrote:
| They do make all purpose bikes, they're just called 'hybrids'
| now.
|
| Giant Tough Road feels a lot like a modern take on a modern
| mountain bike.
| anon776 wrote:
| On modern mountain bikes you want to be seated for climbs,
| thats why their geometry is so different from a bike made 10-15
| years ago.
|
| 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)
| CalChris wrote:
| 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?
| dahart wrote:
| 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.
| hunter2_ wrote:
| 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.
| rconti wrote:
| 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.
| erikpukinskis wrote:
| I believe you, but how does the geometry help on climbs, I
| can't quite picture it?
| geephroh wrote:
| 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.
| midnightclubbed wrote:
| 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).
| alistairSH wrote:
| Changing the balance point of the bike.
|
| 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.
| lwansbrough wrote:
| 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.
| midnightclubbed wrote:
| 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!).
| dahart wrote:
| 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.
| jpollock wrote:
| Seated climbs are faster with a lower heartrate.
|
| https://youtu.be/4zvP4DQgwQE?t=568
| skeeter2020 wrote:
| (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.
| bigfudge wrote:
| It does make the steering uphill a bit wobbly though.
| skeeter2020 wrote:
| 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.
| [deleted]
| charles_f wrote:
| > 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
| bigfudge wrote:
| 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!
| ianhowson wrote:
| Powertrains are much, much better.
|
| - You can shift under load (usually)
|
| - Shifts are a little faster
|
| - Clutches give less chainslap
|
| - Narrow-wide rings hold the chain freakishly well
| dheera wrote:
| > too much risk of hooking another rider
|
| 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.
| zerkten wrote:
| > too much risk of hooking another rider
|
| 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.
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| > 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.
| bigfudge wrote:
| I'm not sure the low slack bikes in vogue now really do climb
| better tho. Head tube angle is a direct trade off between
| performance up and down hill.
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| 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.
| petre wrote:
| Seat tube too. I have a fixed fork mountain bike with
| 67/74.5deg head tube vs seat tube angles and a gravel bike
| with the classic 71/73deg 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 63/78deg like the new
| Marin El Roy probably doesn't climb that well?
| Steltek wrote:
| 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!
| C19is20 wrote:
| USA right hook?
| Steltek wrote:
| Correct.
| dharmab wrote:
| 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.
| mumblemumble wrote:
| If you had been holding onto the bar end at the time, it would
| have been your fingers, wouldn't it?
| amelius wrote:
| Perhaps the design should be combined with the guard ring of
| Oculus controllers:
|
| https://i.ytimg.com/vi/D86jDhirxSY/maxresdefault.jpg
| graywh wrote:
| He's saying use them like a guard, not as a handle
| [deleted]
| globular-toast wrote:
| Wow, I completely forgot about those! We had them because they
| looked cool, obviously.
| RosanaAnaDana wrote:
| 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.
| adamhorne wrote:
| Bar ends are a lifesaver! I got pretty bad RSI a few years ago
| and anything I did where my palms are down meant pins and needles
| in my arms. And as a cyclist, I quickly learned drop bars were
| best - but when I wanted to mountain bike, drop bars were the
| difference between being able to do it, and not. A vertical mouse
| also helped (at work).
| billyt555 wrote:
| Totally anecdotal but I had a friend in the 90s who fell, landed
| on his bar end, and had to have an emergency appendectomy.
| mauvehaus wrote:
| 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.
| auxym wrote:
| Caps are a mandatory safety part. That thing could have cored
| you.
| exabrial wrote:
| I mountain bike 5x days a week during season. As much as I wreck
| and eat shit, I would _not_ want to land on those!
| natch wrote:
| 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.
| skeeter2020 wrote:
| 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.
| natch wrote:
| 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.
| mumblemumble wrote:
| 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.
| natch wrote:
| 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.
| mumblemumble wrote:
| 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.
| natch wrote:
| 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.
| mumblemumble wrote:
| 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.
| rconti wrote:
| 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
| adrianmonk wrote:
| Ideally two photos side by side, one of the old style and the
| new style.
| crazygringo wrote:
| 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...)
| PostThisTooFast wrote:
| 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.
| skeeter2020 wrote:
| 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.
| natch wrote:
| I think you're overstating the case when you say it's a
| burden.
|
| 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.
| arnarbi wrote:
| 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.
| natch wrote:
| 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.
| jessriedel wrote:
| 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.
| crazygringo wrote:
| 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?"
| techbio wrote:
| 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.
| benatkin wrote:
| 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:
|
| https://signalvnoise.com/posts/347-youre-not-on-a-fucking-
| pl...
| WJW wrote:
| > I wish there was some kind of solution to it, but I don't
| see one.
|
| Have you tried googling the terms you don't know?
| crazygringo wrote:
| Sometimes it works, but sometimes it doesn't.
|
| 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.
| natch wrote:
| 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.
| techbio wrote:
| 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.
| gkanai wrote:
| I remember in the 90's there used to be a replacement bar for
| mountain bikes that was sort of like a long oval with one portion
| in the middle that, once installed, pointed forward. So it
| provided multiple new hand positions. I haven't seen that in
| years.
| AdamN wrote:
| Anybody tried bar ends on a Peloton? I find that when the
| instuctor wants you out of the saddle there's not enough
| resistance to merit the change. This might be because I ride high
| in the saddle and focus on consistent cadence using the up motion
| from the clipless pedals.
| ogre_codes wrote:
| 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.
| RankingMember wrote:
| Many of the big mountain bike makes of the day (1990s) included
| bar ends, Specialized and Trek among them.
| Mediterraneo10 wrote:
| 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.
| CountDrewku wrote:
| Because they're ugly and most importantly they provide basically
| no benefit for mountain biking. If you're doing something like
| gravel riding or road riding then yes they're nice but you
| typically have drop bars on those bikes.
|
| Having a big silly piece of metal sticking forward on your bars
| while you're trying to speed down a steep techy piece of single
| track is just asking to get hurt. It'd be as dumb as putting a
| kickstand on your mountain bike.
|
| The only reason they used to be there is because mountain biking
| was so new it hadn't completely separated from the roadie
| culture. Older mountain bikes have skinny tires, narrow bars,
| long stems etc. All of this stuff has been proven to make
| downhill riding harder and less enjoyable.
| burnte wrote:
| >Having a big silly piece of metal sticking forward on your
| bars while you're trying to speed down a steep techy piece of
| single track is just asking to get hurt. It'd be as dumb as
| putting a kickstand on your mountain bike.
|
| Been mountin biking for 35 years, I have a kickstand on my
| bike. What argument against them is there?
| thrav wrote:
| I would imagine snagging it on things, having it drop down
| due to a big impact and getting tangled in your pedals, or
| potential impact with your heels since feet are more active
| on MTBs.
| PascLeRasc wrote:
| Respectfully speaking, I think we're talking about different
| kinds of mountain biking.
| yesenadam wrote:
| I read the article and comments and still can't work out what the
| hell bar ends are...
| maxerickson wrote:
| They clamp to the end of the handlebars and provide a grip that
| is at an angle to the handlebar, and a bit further forward.
| yesenadam wrote:
| Thank you kind sir! :-)
| soared wrote:
| https://coresites-cdn-adm.imgix.net/dirt_new/wp-content/uplo...
|
| These are set up wrong, they should be angled more forward. But
| clear picture nonetheless.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-05-24 23:00 UTC)