- Feedback
- View
shogun":ywu10tw3 said:
No, you missed the point.
We're a Retro site where retro wins no matter what. Burn the modern stuff and dis it at all times.
Ignore facts.
Is Retro faster?
- Thread starter Logic.Al
- Start date
No, you missed the point.
We're a Retro site where retro wins no matter what. Burn the modern stuff and dis it at all times.
Ignore facts.
No. It isn't.
Better tyres. (Light but still puncture resistant and offering good traction and fast rolling, you rarely got all four until about 12-15 years ago, and even then they cost a fortune)
Tubeless. (Less weight, better grip and less rolling resistance, what's not to like?)
Suspension that works. And doesn't weigh as much as a small moon, decent damping too, rather than relying on hysteresis or friction.
Brakes that you can just jab at, with little consideration for if it's raining or muddy or if they'll work.
Rims designed for mtbs, rather than rerolled touring or trekking rims with tiny profiles.
None of them make the power to the back wheel greater, but they all help you make the best use of it.
Better tyres. (Light but still puncture resistant and offering good traction and fast rolling, you rarely got all four until about 12-15 years ago, and even then they cost a fortune)
Tubeless. (Less weight, better grip and less rolling resistance, what's not to like?)
Suspension that works. And doesn't weigh as much as a small moon, decent damping too, rather than relying on hysteresis or friction.
Brakes that you can just jab at, with little consideration for if it's raining or muddy or if they'll work.
Rims designed for mtbs, rather than rerolled touring or trekking rims with tiny profiles.
None of them make the power to the back wheel greater, but they all help you make the best use of it.
Chopper the ex Copper
Alpinestars Fan
Faster? In most cases no.
Cooler? In most cases, yes.
More fun? In most cases, yes.
Retro wins 2 out of 3, gets the girl.
Cooler? In most cases, yes.
More fun? In most cases, yes.
Retro wins 2 out of 3, gets the girl.
ultrazenith
Senior Retro Guru
- Feedback
- View
There probably is no single answer to the extremely broad question in the title of the thread. Is retro faster? It depends where you ride, probably also on your riding style, and other considerations. It also depends how one compares retro and modern. And how one sets the threshold for 'faster' - a pro racer might be interested in any technology that can lead to a gain of a second or so over the length of a 1-2 hour XC race, but for normal riding (e.g., a club ride with friends), I'd say you'd want to be at least 5% faster in order for it to be a noticeable difference.
I have no experience of modern, so perhaps other contributors will be better placed to answer these, but here are some questions that I'm quite curious to find answers to:
1. Let's take the extreme of comparing a 26" rigid steel modern bike, with a 26" steel retro bike. Both bikes have XT drivetrains. Which would be faster?
2. Now add a decent (for its era) front suspension fork. Will modern be noticeably faster now?
3. Would a retrobike assembled for 500 pounds be faster or slower than a band new modern bike that costs 500 pounds? (or a modern, used bike for 500 pounds?)
4. Now let's take a top of the line 26" modern bike and compare to a top of the line retro bike (let's say, from 1995). Any ideas how much faster the modern would be over a typical XC course?
I have no experience of modern, so perhaps other contributors will be better placed to answer these, but here are some questions that I'm quite curious to find answers to:
1. Let's take the extreme of comparing a 26" rigid steel modern bike, with a 26" steel retro bike. Both bikes have XT drivetrains. Which would be faster?
2. Now add a decent (for its era) front suspension fork. Will modern be noticeably faster now?
3. Would a retrobike assembled for 500 pounds be faster or slower than a band new modern bike that costs 500 pounds? (or a modern, used bike for 500 pounds?)
4. Now let's take a top of the line 26" modern bike and compare to a top of the line retro bike (let's say, from 1995). Any ideas how much faster the modern would be over a typical XC course?
Depends,lets say you were at Newcastleton near the borders,there fairly easy trails. Both people are equally fit with equal skill levels and know there bikes like the back of there hands but ONE has only ever rode modern full sus xc bike the other just rides xc fully rigid retro. Over the course of that red route i think the retro rider would pull out a decent lead over the modern bike,i'm not saying disappeared into the distance lead but they'd be a good few seconds up on the modern bike. The reason being would be the quicker accleration and the much quicker capabilities the retro bike has going uphill Here's the twist,they do the same race again but swop bikes. I think retro rider would pull out a big gap straight away and modern rider on the retro XC wouldn't be able to claw the gap back. The reason would be the brakes,the first time the modern rider tried to brake from a high speed they'd get a shock when nothing happens. And that's where retro rider would keep pulling away because hydraulic brakes are easy to get used to,by the time the modern rider got used to the cantilevers the gap would be to big to catch up.
Re:
Some of these replys are suggesting that not many people can actually set canti brakes up?
Our local rides have recently had a good mix of retro and modern bikes and I can honestly say I am never out braked by a modern bike with my canti set up.
Some of these replys are suggesting that not many people can actually set canti brakes up?
Our local rides have recently had a good mix of retro and modern bikes and I can honestly say I am never out braked by a modern bike with my canti set up.
M-Power
Old School Grand Master
Re: Re:
Bang on ! Set up properly with, the best brake blocks, levers, the best pre stretched 2mm XT cable, the old rims are like a huge disc brake with a far greater surface area for braking....and you can modulate them better than hydraulic disc brakes.
chrisv40":29pnkzui said:
Bang on ! Set up properly with, the best brake blocks, levers, the best pre stretched 2mm XT cable, the old rims are like a huge disc brake with a far greater surface area for braking....and you can modulate them better than hydraulic disc brakes.
Chopper the ex Copper
Alpinestars Fan
I never have a problem setting up cantis. Sure, the SLX hydros on my Giant full squidger beat them, but the cantis are more than up to the job of handling a 255lb rider in any weather. In really can't fathom why people reckon they're difficult to set up.
BTW, brake cables don't appreciably stretch - the outers compress.
BTW, brake cables don't appreciably stretch - the outers compress.
I never expected when I asked the question I'd have 12 pages of discussion about it 
Especially to the depths that some have gone.
At the time I was riding a steel 456 and wanting to compare it to my steel M-Trax.
Based on the two back to back the M-Trax always felt a bit quicker. But weight wise they were about the same. The 456 had 5” forks and 2.3” tyres where as the M-Trax is rigid with 1.9” tyres (old sizing of tyres so probably more like 1.5”) with a bit more of an unbroken tread.
I hadn’t really taken braking into account. As my commute didn’t really require a huge amount of braking
Especially to the depths that some have gone. At the time I was riding a steel 456 and wanting to compare it to my steel M-Trax.
Based on the two back to back the M-Trax always felt a bit quicker. But weight wise they were about the same. The 456 had 5” forks and 2.3” tyres where as the M-Trax is rigid with 1.9” tyres (old sizing of tyres so probably more like 1.5”) with a bit more of an unbroken tread.
I hadn’t really taken braking into account. As my commute didn’t really require a huge amount of braking
Similar threads
