Modern Bike or stick with me Retro ?

[bduc61]

my 2 cents ( of euros !)

roughly calculated, I have estimated that I have built pretty high end or very high end retrobikes ( with very good quality parts) at about 1/4 of the value of the same bikes when new ( and that is 10 or 15 years ago)
so there is clearly a financial difference to enjoy quality

furthermore, the retrobikes are generally more elegant ( steel) and certainly if you are not in very mountainous parts, you can clearly save the full sus and disc brakes !

and such a bike will be more special to you than the one you could buy only opening your wallet :idea:

 

[Khane]

if you're struggling with fitness get yourself a hardtail for doing a bit of training on. i only ever ride my full sus at cannock and other trail centres, i ride my hardtails around the local trails to increase my fitness.

so much less effort seems to go into pedalling a hardtail, as apposed to the wasted energy from the bobbing of a full suspension.

as for the old vs new debate, other than disc brakes and improved shocks things aren't exactly light years ahead of where they were in the late '90s design wise.

thats my oppinion if you don't like it i have others, but you probably won't like those either

 

[fridgehq]

Thanks Guys for ALL the valuable info I think I am going to stick with my retro Proflex 4000 and just up the fitness. now I think I better order me Retro Tee Shirt , also going to restore my 856 I have in the garage too

 

[gradeAfailure]

I'm going to tip the balance in favour of the modern kit here - I have an '09 Giant Trance X4 (5" travel) that is waaaayyyy more fun to ride than any of the retro stuff I've owned (Yo Eddy, Explosif ) simply due to the geometry and riding position. Only use the Marin as a commuter now - would really like a modern fully rigid with slacker geo, short stem/long TT, wide bars and discs tbh!

 

[tintin40]

A bicycle is a bicycle no matter it's age. Ride retro

 

[gerryattrick]

Of course none of the magazines will say this because it doesn't sell bikes and they have their advertisers to consider. :roll:

So true. The magazine industry exists primarily to maximise bike/equipment sales and manufacturers' profits, and informing bike riders is only a secondary aim.

While modern bikes are great, so are many older bikes but it wouldn't suit the manufacturers and magazines if that led to people keeping older bikes rather than changing to modern.

 

[WayneO]

I'll chip as I have both old and new bikes. About 10 years ago I parted company with my Yo Eddy and got a comparatively cheap Klein to replace it, and came to the conclusion that the equivalent new bike to match the Yo was rather cheaper.
That got stolen and since then I've had some modern bikes, and to be honest things are going backwards with many bikes. Discs are a bit better than V's (but V's aren'tt bad at all ) and modern forks are better (esp the low end) but a lot of the frames are bobbins - heavy, clunky and utterly dead.

I've just got hold of a Bontrager racelite - the brand new bike the same money would get will weigh 2 kilos more (if it's a hardtail), be dead, clunky and all the components will be dead in 2 years.

So I'm not sure we've had a great leap forward

 

[gradeAfailure]

Of course none of the magazines will say this because it doesn't sell bikes and they have their advertisers to consider. :roll:

So true. The magazine industry exists primarily to maximise bike/equipment sales and manufacturers' profits, and informing bike riders is only a secondary aim.

While modern bikes are great, so are many older bikes but it wouldn't suit the manufacturers and magazines if that led to people keeping older bikes rather than changing to modern.

And of course this wasn't the case when the bikes now classed as retro were considered "modern"...?