MBUK

[stuflyer]

Mornin' all.
BITD I used to be addicted to MBUK, - quite keen on the other mags but MBUK was by far my favourite - a bit of mdness, som nice technoweenerie and lots of mad people on bikes going all over the place on the things. Over mountains mostly. I found an old issue last week from Dec 93 and it was just as I remembered it.
I bought this month's issue last night.
Crikey.
Extreme mountain biking is now hammering down a man made trail on 5 grand's worth of ally.
And according to the editor you shouldn't ride old bikes. ( they are rubbish and you can only have fun on new ones) I reckon that's rather sad, and while I don't doubt that the newer bikes may be better tuned, designed and fettled, I always had the (second) giggest grin when Iwas on my bike.
So when a guy writes in with pics of his old bikes ('Dale SV something or other) his letter reply is "beautiful to look at though as long as you don't have to ride them anywhere" and "Joe's cannondale looks gorgeous but retro bikes just aren't that much fun to ride"
Dunno about you folks but I think that's nonsense. And somewhat sad.
At least Mint is still getting it right (IMHO)

 

[orange71]

well I figure let them ride their expensive new bikes on man made trails - it'll leave all the old bikes for us and an empty natural landscape to roam

 

[lewis1641]

i agree that it is nonsence and sad but the tyruth of the matter is that the magazines cater mainly for the youth market. the mags serve the purpose of driving the industry on. if they went on about how awesome retro bikes are there would probably be millions of kids buying old stuff rather than new. id say they are doing their bit for the "development" of the sport

 

[retrojon]

It's a consumer magazine so you've got to expect the editor to spout cr*p like that. Keep the advertisers on side etc. The whole thing is just an advert for new parts.

 

[jez-4-bikes-max]

Yep - agree.

The mags exist because they review new parts and keep the industry going.

The gears of commercialism.

 

[stuflyer]

Yeah, I understand the need to drive the gears of the industry by promoting the latest and greatest as it were, but I find that this leaves a very poor taste in the mouth when I see them rubishing the old stuff rather than just promoting the new. I don't remember seeing that attitude BITD.
Ah well, as you say, more good old stuff for us

 

[OrangeRetro]

The sad fact is that given the choice, brakes that work, suspension that lets you ride faster and have more fun, lighter bikes.. :| ..Modern bikes are great and the mtb industry has moved on in leaps and bounds.. all for the good I'd say.

Old bike still hold a place in my heart, riding them brings back great memories, but when all said and done, I'm a mountain biker and modern bikes would always be my first choice for an all day ride. :shock:

... I'll get my coat...

 

[jez-4-bikes-max]

Are they that much lighter?

 

[Iwasgoodonce]

I really must get around to having a go on one of these things with springs both ends. I can really say I have never tried a full bounce bike. Any good are they?

 

[OrangeRetro]

Are they that much lighter?

They are for the amount of suspension you get and considering that disc brakes weigh more.

If you compare like for like, especially with full sussers.. I would say the technology and manufacturing techniques have resulted in lighter frames and components.