drivetrain retro/modern equivalents and diminishing returns

ultrazenith

Senior Retro Guru
Feedback
View
Here go the insane ponderings of a retro biker about drivetrains, old and new.

First of all, I'd like to ask whether I have this retro / modern equivalence more or less correct:

Retro | Modern
Acera = ?
Alivio = ?
STX = Deore
LX = SLX
XT = XT
XTR = XTR

My next question is whether the 2013 drivetrains provide any noticeable performance boost compared to their retro equivalents? (Excluding the brakes, of course!)

Finally, what is the cheapest groupset you can use without noticeably compromising functionality? In my own case, I'd say it's STX or modern Deore, or perhaps Alivio.

Why am I asking? Partly curiosity, partly to understand how to spec my next bike, which I haven't decided whether to do as a modern or retro ride, I only know it won't be an off the shelf job.
 
Re: drivetrain retro/modern equivalents and diminishing retu

Acera is Acera-x and alivio is alivio.
 
Re: drivetrain retro/modern equivalents and diminishing retu

Ah, I thought Acera-X and Alivio were not quite retro, but I do remember seeing them specced on a couple of friends' 94-95 bikes.
 
Re: drivetrain retro/modern equivalents and diminishing retu

XTR rather bizarrely doesn't equal XTR. Back in the day it was a racing groupset, a standalone offering that wasn't in the standard mtb groupset hierarchy. 3 years ago Shimano rejigged the arrangement and XTR is now officially the top dog in the MTB groupset lineage, and the features and technology trickle down the range from there.
 
Re: drivetrain retro/modern equivalents and diminishing retu

Switch STX and Deore and you're about there.

The potentially confusing thing is that Deore had it's circa 1988/89 incarnation as the Deore MT-60 and the Deore II MT-62 groupsets.
It was phased out and then brought back as the Deore M510 groupset in 2000 and has continued ever since.

But, in terms of groupsets, modern Deore is akin to 1990-1992 Exage 500LX, 1993 Exage ES and 1994-1999 STX and STX-RC.
 
Re: drivetrain retro/modern equivalents and diminishing retu

I'm a big fan of modern running gear on retro frames as long as the finished bike looks right.

I tend to use SRAM rather than Shimano, mainly because I don't like the look of the modern Shimano cranks.

I use modern gear for a number of reasons, mostly practical, as there are times when finding exactly the right XTR rear mech can be a time consuming chore, and you cannot be sure of the quality / reliability of a 20 year old mech, even after paying serious money for one.

I blew up a M901 XTR rear mech a while ago. The blow up was caused by an alloy jockey wheel axle and was terminal. Had I been using an X9 mech then there would now still be one more M901 in the world, and I could have got a replacement mech on line that day.

There are builds where age related parts are best, but most frames look good and ride well with modern running gear.
 
Re: drivetrain retro/modern equivalents and diminishing retu

Not really m900 fault but an aftermarket bolt. Originals where steel.

I also disagree with chopper. XTR was marketed as the new top of the line above Deore XT as the ultimate off-road component, which of course happened to be the benchmark racing group. I never remember them separating it away. Unless that's some 2000+ thing.
It was always there in the catalogues and chart placed with off-road just at the top.
 
Re: drivetrain retro/modern equivalents and diminishing retu

In 2010 Shimano formally announced XTR was no longer to be the standalone racing groupset, and was being rationalized and brought into the mainstream mountain bike family as the top ranking 'set. Shimano themselves said that, their words, not my interpretation. How bike manufacturers and the public viewed XTR is something else entirely, but Shimmy intended for competition only until 2010.

I keep all my MBRs so I'll still have the article somewhere.
 
Back
Top