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

[GrahamJohnWallace]

Actually, I would say XC race courses are more challenging now than 10 years ago - reflecting the capabilities of modern bikes.

The hub brakes on the Cleland are no doubt effective, but the contribute a lot to the bikes weight (even more when it is in motion). If you are locking up disc brakes on a modern bike you are not using them properly.

As for tire pressures; tubeless tires allow you to run super-low pressures and reduce rolling resistance and rotational weight.

It's not all fad and fashion, I love riding my older bikes, but I can ROCK a trail on my 5" travel, dual-sus, 8 inch disc braked trail bike. there might not be as much skill involved, but hey - I'll take a quick dirty shot of speed induced adrenaline over a well earned sense of achievement any day!

*Race courses may be more challenging but many trails, over the past 25 years, have been smoothed and even graveled.

*Hub brakes are, as you say, much heavier than disks though require virtually no maintainance.

*The Cleland's hub brakes start braking as soon as you move the lever but only lock-out just before the lever touches the grips. I would love to hear of any disk brakes that offer this degree of control.

*I tried tubeless tyres at low pressure. The sidewalls started to leak and so I had to put some tubes in.

*My experience is that suspension bikes require less skill to cover the same terrain. They do go faster, but are they more fun?

 

[brocklanders023]

I'm no where near as fast on my modern bike as I was on my Clockwork back in the early '90's. Guess I just don't have the bottle anymore.

IMO it's hard to compare a retro bike to a modern one because they ride in such a different way. Both loads of fun, but very different. :?

 

[Repack Rider]

The trail difficulty grew around here along with the increased capacity of the bikes, to keep them challenging as the skill level went up. I wouldn't care to ride an old bike on the tough trails I ride on my FS, but of course I see people up there on rigid SS, with the one universal concession being disc brakes on everything.

I had fun on junk before I rode anything better, but I like stuff that works really well.

 

[mechagouki]

*Race courses may be more challenging but many trails, over the past 25 years, have been smoothed and even graveled.

Ah, but on a modern trail bike, you can make your own trails!

*Hub brakes are, as you say, much heavier than disks though require virtually no maintainance.

I'll agree that is their best quality, I seem to remember a mid 1990s bike that came stock with Sachs hub brakes, can anyone remember what it was?

*The Cleland's hub brakes start braking as soon as you move the lever but only lock-out just before the lever touches the grips. I would love to hear of any disk brakes that offer this degree of control.

Well, you could try Avid XX or Elixirs, Shimano XT/XTR or pretty much any Hope brake. High-end Hydro disc brakes offer a degree of modulation and control a cable and drum brake could never equal.

*I tried tubeless tyres at low pressure. The sidewalls started to leak and so I had to put some tubes in.

Whilst tubeless systems undoubtedly lose air faster than tubed tires, well set up (UST tire and rim - not a 'ghetto' set up) and with the correct amount of fluid they are superior to running tubes. I think of them as a racing modification - they are not as well suited to daily use, unless you don't mind pumping your tires frequently.

*My experience is that suspension bikes require less skill to cover the same terrain. They do go faster, but are they more fun?

At my age and level of fitness? Hell yeah!

 

[FairfaxPat]

I use XTR disc brakes and Tubeless tires on my new bike. The disc brakes are lighter, very easy to modulate, far better than any drum brake, plus, on a long descent like Mt. Tam, the drums overheat and lose effectiveness. As for the tires, I have been running tubeless tires with the Stan's sealant for 4 years and I have experienced NO Flats and that is with an annual dirt mileage over 4K miles. With the sealant in them you can run very low pressures without fear of leakage, and, of course no pinch flats as no tube to pinch.

 

[echihn]

Heehee, well first post. Greetings everyone.

Well, I read what all of you guys have to say on this topic, and I have to say, not one of you emphasized on how it all depends on the type of trail you are riding that determines if a new type bike will be superior. For those of you who ride pure simple single track, sure, you can dish it out on a 30 year bike and have the most fun of your life, but sometimes, depending on how tech or difficult the trail is, an old bike will just not cut it.

Sure, it is about rider ability, but that variable only goes so far. The other variables then play in. Type of trail, weather conditions, etc. You sure wouldn't be doing an insane climb on a 30 lb bike, that is barely possible on a 22lb xc bike, nor would you need a top end xc bike to ride a simple trail.

Now, the comment I first read when stumbling on this article, regarding to "those pedal motorbikes they call bikes" or whatever what said. To put it this way, some of us riding those "pedal motor bikes" as referred, probably put more miles each week hiking, climbing, pushing, and riding, than many other riders. DH bikes are just as much a bike as a bike made in the early 1900's. They just have more technology, and big suspension. So in regards to the first gen dh bikes being compared to new dh bikes, it is the same thing for xc bikes. The trail tech will decide if the old bike could hash it. In the DH arena, the first gen bikes just wouldn't last a run on the new world cup type dh runs. Now, a DH made in the late 90's early 2000's (I run an early 2k setup mixed w/ some new parts), will still hash it on these courses.


None the less, I really dislike when the spoiled kids bash on me for having an older bike, and I really don't like how people like on this site bash on the downhillers like me because it's not your typical steel clunker. It's kinda a lose lose IMO lol. Regardless, I have enjoyed riding bikes from all years and still do. Every bike has it's place, but comparing a 30 year old bike to a top end new bike is as bad as comparing apples to oranges.

now, comparing, how much fun you would have btw the two eras of bikes would be a MUCH better comparison IMO.


Anyways, I think I'm going to dig into this site. I have a lot of classic stuff and have always had a love for it. Glad I stumbled on it



ps (as an edit) ... if you don't like the "progressivness" of hydro brakes, why don't you consider trying mechanic disc brakes out. They have by far the most progressive feeling out of any brake type to date, including any type of hub brake, rim brake, or tire brake.

 

[IDB1]

not one of you emphasized on how it all depends on the type of trail you are riding that determines if a new type bike will be superior..

Hmmmm...

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

I think the subject was mentioned..

 

[sastusbulbas]

My opinion, FACT that in most areas modern bikes are an improvement over old.

I too have worked and rode bikes for decades, my habits have went round in circles my fitness up and down and my weight.... well :roll:

One point I do think, a lot of it is preference, and some of that may be based on what type of riding you prefer. It may also be that you are way too used to a specific geometry or such.

Now take my old Dean Ti, I could spend 50 miles of off road riding on that thing, could spend all day on that, but even with the best V brakes it's stopping power was lacking, it had a fork crown to axle length limit which meant modding Sids, and modern forks kick old forks ass. The geometry was great for old school Norba style courses, but sadly a Stumpy M2 in a smaller size with 100mm forks kicked it's arse in the newer more technical riding venues.

I would not feel comfortable riding any retro DH bike and nor would I expect the same performance as a Supreme DH or such.

One thing I don't like about modern bikes, I feel geometry has evolved not to suit the rider but to let the bike perform. And the costs are a joke.

 

[GrahamJohnWallace]

I use XTR disc brakes and Tubeless tires on my new bike. The disc brakes are lighter, very easy to modulate, far better than any drum brake, plus, on a long descent like Mt. Tam, the drums overheat and lose effectiveness. As for the tires, I have been running tubeless tires with the Stan's sealant for 4 years and I have experienced NO Flats and that is with an annual dirt mileage over 4K miles. With the sealant in them you can run very low pressures without fear of leakage, and, of course no pinch flats as no tube to pinch.

During the last 27 years of riding Clelands with their very low pressure tyres, I have never had a pinch puncture. This is probably because the inner tubes are so thick. When uninflated, the Cleland's very large inner tubes are the same size as the tyres. So a puncture caused by a thorn won't let much air out as long as the thorn stays in place. Sealant is used for larger holes. When I ran Hutchinson tubeless tyres at very low pressures, the rear tyre stretched and started to leak air badly through hundreds of tears along the entire sidewall. I have not tried other makes.

There are hub brakes, and hub brakes that work.

The vast majority of bicycle hub brakes have two brake shoes that are activated by a simple rotating cam. The problem is that the leading shoe wears faster than the trailing shoe until the pressure is no longer applied equally and the brakes' efficiency is halved. Hydraulic hub brakes however, apply an equal pressure to both shoes. The cam problem is solved on the Cleland's brakes by allowing the cam to float and so self centre. Sachs, Sturmey Archer and most bicycle hub brakes all suffer with this cam problem. Later Highpath made Cleland style brakes have 90mm drums with cooling fins and corrugations to increase the cooling area and so prevent overheating.

The most effective modern hub brakes are the Shimano' Roller-Brakes. These use cam activated rollers, covered in high temperature grease. They have massive aluminium cooling fins the size of brake disks and they are progressive enough to allow braking without locking out when descending 1 in 3 compacted snow slope.

It would be misleading to compare ordinary bicycle hub brakes with those found on Clelands. The Roller-Brakes in particular, are second to non and are silent and silky smooth. Unfortunately, they are also second to none in the heavyweight stakes but it's not rotational weight as the heavy part attaches to the frame not the wheel.

I often ride my modern, full suspension Cleland with its Roller-Brakes next to other modern bikes, and can descend steep slippy slopes slowly and with total control. It's fun to track stand half way down and look at the view, though following bikes don't seem to appreciate the therapeutic value of this. In my experience, modern hydraulic, disk break bikes, tend to slide down with their rear wheels locked, and sometimes picking up speed as they go.

There is a fast down hill I know with a tight turn half way down, onto another trail. With my modern disk braked Giant NRS Carbon, I miss this turn every every time. However with my old Cleland I can slow down safely and easily make the turn. I don't know which the most progressive disk brakes are, but there definitely not the Hayes fitted to the NRS.

 

[sastusbulbas]

It's fun to track stand half way down and look at the view, though following bikes don't seem to appreciate the therapeutic value of this. Modern hydraulic, disk break bikes, tend to slide down with their rear wheels locked, and picking up speed as they go.

What a pile o tosh, all your stating is rider skill, what you describe has been done with everything from four pots and 203 roters to wellies on a wheel and everything in between.

Roller brakes............ Pah

Edit, to quote;

However there were three areas where things had not improved:

*Brakes: The Clelands' French moped' Hub brakes were far more progressive and controllable than the hydraulic disks that tended to lock out when it wasn't helpful.

*Mud protection. Though the Clelands' numerous guards and flaps were not needed on this ride the modern bikes have not been engineered with mud in mind.

*Low pressure tyres. Modern tyres do not appear to be able to be run almost flat with the large footprint needed to cope with very soft ground.

Hydraulic brakes come in various forms and guises and your description is far for reality with regards to modern Hydraulic brakes. The fact is that todays MTB disc brakes are far superiour to previous brakes of any genre or type.

Mud protection, sorry but again poo, most bikes are designed to perform off road, most modern bikes perform far better in mud than many old MTB's, some even have lifetime guarantee's and fully sealed/enclosed pivots and bearings, modern hubs may not have that cup and cone feel, but are more than adequate and far simpler to service. Most mechs work well enough in mud, and like any old or new still require regular service and cleaning to perform at their best, modern seals on forks and shocks are far superior to old. Most MTB's these days have mud in mind hence the always present tyre clearance when being reviewed.

Modern tyres, pratically more varied in PSI function, specifics anything you can imagine etc, dual ply, single ply 40a, 60a super tacky, firm mixed, TPI, kevlar wire, condition specific tread, 1.0" to 2.7", the modern 26" wheel has more variety of tyre choice than ever, with even better performance and teh ability to pick change choose specifics. Your tyres would'nt match a pair of wet screams on soft loam DH tracks, and if fast rolling is required you can always change. As for pressures, many riders can run anything between 10 - to whatever depending on tyre choice and riding, I have no qualms running 15psi and dropping a good few feet into rough stoney ground with some tyres. Though I prefer 25psi with my 2.5's.

And width aint everything, I will be cutting down to 2,35 to get more bite into soft ground with less rolling resistance, but still remember the old Specialized and Conti tyres designed for cutting through mud and soft ground being around 1.5 to 1.7" So much choice these days with 26".