Does anyone here have modern bikes?

[gradeAfailure]

My first mountain bike was a cheap GT that weighed about that much, yet had cantilever brakes that barely worked, cheap plastic brake and gear levers and no suspension.

Cheap bikes weigh more than expensive bikes - your point is?

 

[bren]

I bought it cheap 2nd hand, but it was a 350 quid bike when new. There's no way its early 90's steel framed counterpart weighed that much.

Not sure, but I wonder If they are over engineering bikes these days to avoid warranty returns?

 

[Chute55uk]

i just bought a 98 gt lts so modern in the retro world.
ive had a go on a few new full sussers, hardtails ect. there ok and all but meh, gimme my retro i dont care what mr fuel 9.9 thinks i will still go past him
oh and trail centres? wtf, were they not called "the local woods" back in the day? and whats with all this wood decking for the fairys to ride on? i ask you! :roll:
go ride a rigid hoo koo e koo up and down the pyg track on snowdon. yea i did there called mountain bikes for a reason, poor gary et al would be turning in their graves if they were dead or not busy counting how much money they made by selling out

 

[gradeAfailure]

i just bought a 98 gt lts so modern in the retro world.
ive had a go on a few new full sussers, hardtails ect. there ok and all but meh, gimme my retro i dont care what mr fuel 9.9 thinks i will still go past him
oh and trail centres? wtf, were they not called "the local woods" back in the day? and whats with all this wood decking for the fairys to ride on? i ask you! :roll:
go ride a rigid hoo koo e koo up and down the pyg track on snowdon. yea i did there called mountain bikes for a reason, poor gary et al would be turning in their graves if they were dead or not busy counting how much money they made by selling out

Bwahahahaha! All the currently-retro bikes were, at one point, modern, you realise?

I'm sure that back in the early 90s there were riders who eschewed these newfangled machines for their old clunkers with the view that nothing more technologically advanced was needed and that these modern Made-In-Taiwan bikes had no soul or character...

It matters not what you ride, just that you ride

Oh, and yes, my '91 GT Timberline was easily over 30lbs in weight - a bike that cost £300, which is equivalent to around £540 today. Your £350 Saracen would have been the equivalent of £200 in 1991, and I bet you a £200 bike back then weighed a lot more than 32lbs...

I do love retro bikes - they harken back to the halcyon days of my youth, sitting in the 6th Form common room dreaming up specs for impossibly expensive dream machines, poring over the latest reviews in MBUK, wishing I could afford a '93 Kilauea after it won the group test (I will have one some day) - but modern kit does the job I want it to far better for me. That's just my opinion though, being the forum this is I'm sure many will disagree!

 

[Chute55uk]

You get that I'm joking right? I couldn't give a toss what people ride the op asked if anyone had modern mountain bike and it turned into the inevitable debate as to which was better, but I was taking the piss

 

[legrandefromage]

I ride my zaskar - its still modern

 

[Chute55uk]

Cheese man your gonna cry when you see my new thread. I I'm on a train at the moment sitting opposite a bike next to mine, stay I have taken a pic and will upload when I get home. I just want to cry at the sadness of it all

 

[gradeAfailure]

You get that I'm joking right? I couldn't give a toss what people ride the op asked if anyone had modern mountain bike and it turned into the inevitable debate as to which was better, but I was taking the piss

Heheh, long day! No offence taken I hope!

Yeah, any mention of modern bikes on here tends to end up in the "which is better" debate... Thing is, I'll argue that although aesthetically I prefer retro bikes, modern kit can be ridden much harder. But then I remember this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4nbGE8gXzw and think that I should probably refer to Rule 5...

 

[Chute55uk]

Trust me given the choice of a sts or a lapierre? Sorry gt I'm out lol

 

[brocklanders023]

i just bought a 98 gt lts so modern in the retro world.
ive had a go on a few new full sussers, hardtails ect. there ok and all but meh, gimme my retro i dont care what mr fuel 9.9 thinks i will still go past him
oh and trail centres? wtf, were they not called "the local woods" back in the day? and whats with all this wood decking for the fairys to ride on? i ask you! :roll:
go ride a rigid hoo koo e koo up and down the pyg track on snowdon. yea i did there called mountain bikes for a reason, poor gary et al would be turning in their graves if they were dead or not busy counting how much money they made by selling out

Bwahahahaha! All the currently-retro bikes were, at one point, modern, you realise?

I'm sure that back in the early 90s there were riders who eschewed these newfangled machines for their old clunkers with the view that nothing more technologically advanced was needed and that these modern Made-In-Taiwan bikes had no soul or character...

It matters not what you ride, just that you ride

Oh, and yes, my '91 GT Timberline was easily over 30lbs in weight - a bike that cost £300, which is equivalent to around £540 today. Your £350 Saracen would have been the equivalent of £200 in 1991, and I bet you a £200 bike back then weighed a lot more than 32lbs...

I do love retro bikes - they harken back to the halcyon days of my youth, sitting in the 6th Form common room dreaming up specs for impossibly expensive dream machines, poring over the latest reviews in MBUK, wishing I could afford a '93 Kilauea after it won the group test (I will have one some day) - but modern kit does the job I want it to far better for me. That's just my opinion though, being the forum this is I'm sure many will disagree!

Agree 100%. For me delete 'Timberline' and insert 'Saracen Tufftrax'. Stuff started getting sillt light around 1993 from memory, before that a decent bike, e.g a Clockwork, came in around 27lbs