Can retro MTBs still be ridden hard?

[2manyoranges]

Woah that’s a nice build NVC - very well thought-through. I bet it does indeed ride nicely.
Great to see.

 

[clubby]

LGF that Intense looks terrifying. Pretty sure my boys balance bike has a longer wheelbase! The Trek on the other hand looks great.

My take is that of course retro bikes can be ridden hard, they just can't be ridden the same way as modern bikes. Whether you want to ride that way up to the you and not right or wrong. For a lot of people's riding modern bikes are overkill and suck the fun out, for others retro bikes just can't cut it. Luckily I've some of each and can choose depending on what I'm doing.

 

[mk one]

To answer the original question, yes of course they can, they do not stop being good at what they did just because some marketing spiel claims you need a new version, oh, and of course they just happen to have one for you

Why do people compare retro lightweight xc race bikes with modern heavy long-travel enduro bikes, i think that is where the confusion arises.

 

[clubby]

Why do people compare retro lightweight xc race bikes with modern heavy long-travel enduro bikes,

Because it’s suits the narrative.

Anyway, that’s pretty much all you could buy in the early nineties, which to most of us is peak retro. They were seen as the pinnacle back in the day, like long travel enduro bikes are to today’s riders. Whether either suit the riding you did/do is another matter.

 

[xtaffa]

Retro frames also give neat cable routing for droppers, if you go 1x...

 

[jimo746]

I'd expect you'd break before the bike does
At least that's how it works with me these days

 

[mk one]

The rider is certainly the main component

 

[novocaine]

Why do people compare retro lightweight xc race bikes with modern heavy long-travel enduro bikes, i think that is where the confusion arises.

Because the want is still the same, i.e. a bike that can do everything you throw at it, from riding to the shop to nailing a scary decent filled with lumps, bumps and to an extent, jumps. whilst one tool isn't going to do everything perfectly, the dream of being able to do most things well is still there and always will be.

the bikes you are considering as light weight XC bikes of the past are quite often, not, they are they bikes that were available, up and down the entire table of riding at the time. look at what Rob Warner, Cedric Gracia, Missy Giove etc. were riding on. it wasn't until things like the karpiel, orange patriot, spec big hit/FSR and SC V10 hit the market that downhill and later Enduro became what it is.

I'd also say that a modern lightweight XC bike is far removed from the 90s version.

 

[mk one]

I was saying that in reference to the questioning of the capabilities of an older bike, and the comparisons made in respects to its capability, for example some say that the older bike is no longer capable due to the fact that if you throw it down a trail centre track it bounces around compared to a modern planted full suss bike, or the steering is twitchy running narrow bars compared to modern bike with wide bars and higher front end. So my point was more about it not being an ideal comparison. If you just take the older bike and ride it as intended, and that includes down as well as up, then it is a very capable machine. I am not saying they are better than newer bikes in respect of performance, merely that to judge its capability by comparing it to a modern bike is not really a true evaluation.

 

[novocaine]

I think we are talking the same side but with different words her MK one.