Paying more for less

[BlackCat]

If there is a small watch following on here we should have a dedicated thread to discuss.

Good idea. Would be up for that. Do you want to run with it?

Casios welcome.

 

[d8mok]

Compare your low gear as well for full disclosure, and then take common wheel sizes into account. You said hardtail, so forget about your road bike gearing.

I love our old stuff - it works brilliantly, but I am getting tired of the vitriol against modern bikes. I have modern and old bikes, they both move around under my own (pathetic) power and both have different places in my heart.

I guess Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.

Agree.

I ride both modern and retro and ride almost every day in one format or another. Both have different places but to the constant suggestion that modern is crap is absurd.

Modern is the pinnacle of tech and great to ride.

Retro just makes me smile and remember.

 

[al-onestare]

Agree.

I ride both modern and retro and ride almost every day in one format or another. Both have different places but to the constant suggestion that modern is crap is absurd.

Modern is the pinnacle of tech and great to ride.

Retro just makes me smile and remember.

Exactly this: the belief that the past was better is a fallacy. Mixing the past and present makes a brilliant future

 

[Chopper the ex Copper]

Off topic here, but a super cool watch and a lot of watch for the (still not inconsiderable amount of) money.

Indeed, and they don't have the gittish image of a rolex.

I would have a GT3, but no way would fit in one. Still, my X5 is barely a second slower than a GT3, with the added benefit of me actually fitting inside it with bast room in the boot for bikes. I may look like the director of a photocopier sales company while driving it, but that is perhaps marginally better than the desperate mid life crisis divert-attention-from-my-baldness-with-a-porsche look.

Indeed, as expensive as it was its vastly more metal, toys and seats than a GT3, so Porsche are also masters of the more for less approach.

 

[Betsy]

What about decaffeinated tea bags?

 

[hamster]

I may look like the director of a photocopier sales company while driving it, but that is perhaps marginally better than the desperate mid life crisis divert-attention-from-my-baldness-with-a-porsche look.

Coffee coughed all over the keyboard!

The ultimate problem is that groupsets and bikes in general are mechanical engineering and they cannot evolve at the pace of semiconductors. As a result the Shimano marketing machine has to invent supposed breakthroughs to entice consumers. There is a long and incomplete list of their duds:
Metric-pitch chains
Freewheel in the crank not the wheel for instant gear changing
Dyna-drive pedals with the bearing in the crank (short life)
Oval chainrings
Rapidrise rear mechs
Octalink
Undersized bearings in hubs (M780) which failed in under 1000 miles
More and more and more gears

That said:
they solved indexing,
the freehub design is genius and impossible to improve upon after 1994ish
They did a great job with back compatibility all the way from 6 to 9 speed.

However much of the current stuff feels to me like barrel-scraping.

 

[legrandefromage]

Nobody is knocking the new stuff, it's just feels like a solution to a question that was never asked

 

[Once A Hero]

In 1995 I rode a hardtail Cadex primarily as my downhill racing 'rig' for the year. Sure it was essentially an XC bike, and could have (and did) also handled Dual Slaloms as well as Hill Climbs, but it was almost entirely fit for purpose for the types of tracks it was used to race on throughout the UK. It only really struggled (REALLY struggled) when put to use on the Continent - on actual mountains.

By '96 I switched to a full suspension bike, which again handled typically with ease, all the tracks throughout the UK - but still struggled when used overseas. That bike wouldn't have been my choice for anything other than downhill however.

I'd therefore argue that the need for bike specialism has been around for a long time, and the task that they are put to has continued to evolve.

If faced with buying a 'do it all' bike today, I'd go for an Enduro style for sure.

 

[greencat]

Nobody is knocking the new stuff, it's just feels like a solution to a question that was never asked

I think that's sometimes, perhaps even often, the case. The explosion in standards for example.

But every so often - like the dropper post - they are right on the money.

 

[sickpup]

I haven't anywhere said I don't like modern bikes and certainly haven't thrown vitriol at them. I own a 2016 Rockhopper 29er which is a fine if a bit heavy bike.
90's bikes have their problems as well. I'm too old for the arse up head down style these days so I fit a shorter stem with a rise and riser bars.

The chap yesterday had a completely unsuitable bike which likely couldn't be modified into a suitable bike for what he was doing because it is designed to fill a niche spot whereas older ATB/MTB bikes, and I dropped out of the industry around 92/93 so can only really comment up to that point tended to be better all-rounder bikes. Maybe things have gotten too specialised which isn't to say they are worse bikes, it means they are likely much better but only within their niche.

Not sure where all the attitude that a few people here have has comes from. This is no different to expensive sports cars having nowhere for the shopping and being badly geared on the road or one of my motorbikes that has a high first gear close ratio gearbox being useless around town in traffic. The difference is that these bikes are being sold as good all-rounders or at least not as a niche bikes and punters are being charged more for them as the latest pinnacle of technology.