Retro bikes versus New bikes. (Have bikes really improved?)

[IDB1]

It is subjective.. always will be..

I like modern materials etc. so would like to end up with a modern bike in the garage for 'those' days.. and a nice, original, retro and a singlespeed.. for when it's their days.

Some bikes are more suited to some people (and trips) than others.. is one better than the other??

Back to personal opinion

 

[legrandefromage]

BORING BORING BORING.... my tractor isnt as good as your Discovery 3 :roll:

Remind me again, this is still 'retrobike' isnt it? Theres nothing retro about discussing whether a Cleland is better/ worse than whatever is currently fashionable in MBR.

If you were comparing something from 30 years ago with something from 15 years ago, that would be more interesting than the anodyne chuff discussed so far.

This isnt in anyway a dig at Grahame or his Cleland either - I love this strange parallel universe that appeared out of a shed. I'd love to ride one and compare it to something from the 90's or late '80's. I dont like the constant 'my new bike is better than yours' - its pointless and utterly irrelevant to what this site was supposed to exist for.

As for a hub affecting the rotational mass of a wheel... ? :?

If you think your new 'insert generic brand here' is so fantastic, discuss it else where. If you think a Cleland should go head to head with a '92 Clockwork, carry on.

 

[mechagouki]

I'm sorry to have upset you LGF, I was simply making a considered response to the OPs thread title. I agree it's an irrelevant comparison, but I didn't make it.

As for the hub brakes - any part of a wheel that is rotating around the axle whilst the bike is in motion contributes to its rotational mass, the location of the weight along the wheel's radius does not alter that fact. There is a rotational penalty with disc brakes too, I would doubt it's as bad as with a 30 year old drum brake though.

I don't always take the soft option either - see my avatar, that's me, yesterday, riding my 12 year old GT with 2 and a little bit inches of front suspension against a crowd of folks mainly riding 4" duallies.

Of course, I can barely walk today...

 

[IDB1]

If you think a Cleland should go head to head with a '92 Clockwork, carry on.

I'd love to see something like this...

The new vs. old thing is quite interesting for a newcomer to (retro)bikes (OK, I had that '93 Kona but the inbetween years kinda nullify that)..

 

[legrandefromage]

I'm sorry to have upset you LGF, I was simply making a considered response to the OPs thread title. I agree it's an irrelevant comparison, but I didn't make it.

As for the hub brakes - any part of a wheel that is rotating around the axle whilst the bike is in motion contributes to its rotational mass, the location of the weight along the wheel's radius does not alter that fact. There is a rotational penalty with disc brakes too, I would doubt it's as bad as with a 30 year old drum brake though.

oops - removed trek, just what sprang to mind. Graham's tyres would affect the ride more than his hub.

I'm just pissed at the constant referral to 'new' stuff - thats not what we're here for.

 

[legrandefromage]

After decades of New Improved Designs, how have mountain bikes really improved?

Depends entirely on what is perceived as an improvement

Shifting is essentially the same as when Hyperglide first appeared

Mechs have not moved beyond the slant parallelogram

most parts would still be recognisable to a rider from 60 years ago.

Materials are tricky - whats the life of a carbon frame after an impact?

I've 'improved' my 80's Reynolds frame by adding lighter wheels/ tyres and better cassette, but thats it.

In my own personal super narrowminded opinion, I dont think any real gains have been made in anything apart from suspension.

 

[IDB1]

In my own personal super narrowminded opinion, I dont think any real gains have been made in anything apart from suspension.

Front suspension is all I would add to any bike.. and that's mostly out of necessity.

Reckon I agree with you LGF.. even as a newcomer (albeit almost middle-aged )

 

[Russell]

I'm just pissed at the constant referral to 'new' stuff - thats not what we're here for.

Might not be why you're here, but lots of us ride and own bikes spanning 30+ years of 'off-road' riding and are interested in the evolution of the machines that we ride and the differences between them.

I've personally owned and ridden in anger MTBs produced from 1984 to 2009 and I'm fascinated by the developments in materials technology and geometry.

Its not as if this thread was started by a 'modern riding' thug as an effort to bash retro bikes. Graham started it out of genuine curiosity.

And how, when Graham starts a thread entitled "retro bikes vs new bikes", are people supposed to answer his question without reference to 'new' stuff?

If you don't like a thread, dont' read it.

 

[legrandefromage]

I'm just pissed at the constant referral to 'new' stuff - thats not what we're here for.

Might not be why you're here, but lots of us ride and own bikes spanning 30+ years of 'off-road' riding and are interested in the evolution of the machines that we ride and the differences between them.

I've personally owned and ridden in anger MTBs produced from 1984 to 2009 and I'm fascinated by the developments in materials technology and geometry.

Its not as if this thread was started by a 'modern riding' thug as an effort to bash retro bikes. Graham started it out of genuine curiosity.

And how, when Graham starts a thread entitled "retro bikes vs new bikes", are people supposed to answer his question without reference to 'new' stuff?

If you don't like a thread, dont' read it.

I'd have to read to a thread to know whether the thread was likeable or not.

I too have ridden bikes from across the decades and am also fascinated by product A being better than product be only to find out that product C was better all along and owning product A and B was just asking for trouble and how products D to G were far better but only available to 'special' people...

To me, Graham's article came across as more of a new verses old rider style/ attitude, not really any bikes mentioned other than the Cleland.

''I've just ridden my 2009 Generica Expensiva and its way better than my 1991 Retro Obscura'' its blindingly obvious when you've just spent rather a lot of money. Only to find out that the Generica has just been knocked out for less than half what you just paid for it in a sale to make way for 2010's Generic Ultima Expensiva and the Retro Obscura rode better all along and needed far less fiddling to make it work.

I should be more specific - mentioning the fact that you ride something very new is pointless, it bears very little relation to anything other than a Fisher RS-1.

Graham's Cleland is a brilliant little niche that unfortunately went no where, it shares very little with the development of the MTB as we know it as all that is ridden is influenced by the US.

 

[GrahamJohnWallace]

When I started this thread I had in mind that there may be stories like mine, of people who have ridden retro bikes alongside, their modern equivalents. Also, that people might respond with anecdotes relating to the features and characteristics of classic bikes that are not to be found in modern bikes.

The interesting thing for me is the inventive characteristics of retro-bikes that did not transfer into modern mainstream designs and so have not been superseded. For instance, the Cleland's mud protection features, or mega low pressure tyres.

I agree that stories of modern bikes that are faster or better than retro-bikes are in the main predictable and so boring. What is interesting however, are stories of retro-bikes that are in some way better than, or simply do things differently to their modern equivalents.

I have a particular interest in improving and updating the Cleland design but in bringing this bike out of mothballs, have been surprised that after all these years, how well it can still hold its own.

Though after riding this style of bike for so many years, I should know by now, how to coax the best from one.