Retro bikes versus New bikes. (Have bikes really improved?)
- Thread starter GrahamJohnWallace
- Start date
- Feedback
- View
FairfaxPat":l1opny16 said:
Actually cars need more powerful brakes because they weigh a hell of a lot more than they used to!! And many cars still use them for the rear.
Bikes dont.
This is a stupid argument and will get you no where. There are no direct analogies between cycling and other products.
Every bike with full suspension and discs is directly related to the Gary Fisher RS-1. Thats what you can compare your latest marketing Costa Granda special too.
The standard rigid MTB without suspension corrected geometry doesnt really exist anymore unless you get a frame custom built.
You simply cannot compare a Cleland with anything about today.
- Feedback
- View
FairfaxPat":322h00q1 said:You know, modern Jeeps have disc's up front, and the only reason they aren't on the back is because of cost-rear disc's with a parking brake setup are more expensive to produce. As for reliability-What do you mean, drums are more reliable than discs? I Think Not!Also, please, don't add air to your hydraulic lines because you are just disabling the brake by doing that. The end result is spongy at best, no brakes at the worst. The feel you are looking for sounds to me like you want the lever to travel a long ways and gradually add pressure and stop just before bottoming out at the bars. This is easy to achieve with cable brakes-hub or disc-because the cable will stretch somewhat and give you that feel you like. However, hydraulic disc's will Modulate Just As Well as your old cable brakes, the levers just don't travel as far and they don't feel spongy like a cable does. The other big advantage to hydraulics is the power factor, two fingers all the way down the mountain-- couldn't do that with any cable brake, my hand used to go numb about half-way down! I think you are just so used to that particular feel that other systems don't seem as good to you, when in fact they work great, just don't feel the same. And we, as humans are prone to like what we are used to more often than not!
Hub brakes are less liable to seizing on the rear of a car and are still in production as its nothing to do with cost.
- Feedback
- View
AND ANOTHER THING!
Discs have been around for the bicycle for longer than you might think - Shimano had them in the 1970's, hydraulic too.
Tyres have come along way but I'm running some 20 year old Wolbers that are way better than the Continentals I thought should have been better.
Discs have been around for the bicycle for longer than you might think - Shimano had them in the 1970's, hydraulic too.
Tyres have come along way but I'm running some 20 year old Wolbers that are way better than the Continentals I thought should have been better.
- Feedback
- View
AND ANOTHER ANOTHER THING!
You are missing the point - bikes HAVE NOT improved that much.
You still shift with cables and a chain. Mechs havent changed in basic design since about 1987.
If you want to use the car analogy - cars have had computer controlled systems in them since around 1979, if bikes were treated the same way, with the similar development and safety regulations, we'd have some sort of exciting ECU controlled bicycle at a relatively cheap level by now.
Even the most basic car has an ECU for the engine, brakes and airbags
You are missing the point - bikes HAVE NOT improved that much.
You still shift with cables and a chain. Mechs havent changed in basic design since about 1987.
If you want to use the car analogy - cars have had computer controlled systems in them since around 1979, if bikes were treated the same way, with the similar development and safety regulations, we'd have some sort of exciting ECU controlled bicycle at a relatively cheap level by now.
Even the most basic car has an ECU for the engine, brakes and airbags
MikeD
Senior Retro Guru
My first bike was rigid, with 21 gears (28/28 low), cantilever brakes and 1.95in tyres. It weighed just under 30lb. Yesterday I was riding a bike with 150mm of travel at both ends (both with lockouts should you wish), 27 gears (22/32 low), 185mm discs both ends and 2.25in tyres. It weighs just under 30lb.
To suggest that bikes haven't improved is ludicrous. That doesn't mean that they're any more fun, or that I want to ride such a bike all the time, or that Retrobike is a waste of time. I don't see any conflict between appreciating old bikes and accepting that technology has moved on in beneficial ways, in the same way that most classic car enthusiasts fully accept that modern cars are faster, safer, more economical, more comfortable and more reliable. It doesn't detract from the appeal of the old stuff.
To suggest that bikes haven't improved is ludicrous. That doesn't mean that they're any more fun, or that I want to ride such a bike all the time, or that Retrobike is a waste of time. I don't see any conflict between appreciating old bikes and accepting that technology has moved on in beneficial ways, in the same way that most classic car enthusiasts fully accept that modern cars are faster, safer, more economical, more comfortable and more reliable. It doesn't detract from the appeal of the old stuff.
My twopeneth worth:
Have they really improved? Yes, I think they probably have, it seems to me that bicycles, both road and MTB, have lost quite a bit of weight over the last couple of decades. I remeber when an 18lb road bike was rather special, now it's quite ordinary. Weight does make a difference to good riders, less so to heavy middle aged riders like myself.
On a component level, I think it's a mixed bag. Some changes are good, but I suspect others have more to do with marketing and fashion. 27 gears for example, I never miss the extra 6 when I get on my old bike. Suspension makes a big difference, especially on bumpy descents, where my rigid forked bike quickly gets out of hand. However, on the road and gravel tracks all the front suspension is really doing is adding weight.
The front and rear mechs haven't changed much, but we've had lots of different shifters. On a road bike I was quite happy with friction shifters on the down tube; you could just dial in the exact mech position by noise and feel. Having them on the handlebars makes sense for a mountain bike, but I'm not totally convinced of the benefits of rapid fire shifters over thumb shifters; I definately prefer the friction only front thumb shifter.
Disc brakes, V-brakes, cantilever and drum brakes are all a revelation to someone that used to ride a bike with Weinmann 500's. Virtially impossible to adjust so that one or other brake block wasn't rubbbing on the rim and with similar stopping power to a stick nailed to the side of a go-cart. :shock:
The Weinmann link is a good illustration of how the pace of change has increased; being sold in the 1930's and still being fitted, virtually unchanged, to bicycles in the 1980's. They were truly awful, but they were cheap and light, so performance isn't the only reason things stick around.
Have they really improved? Yes, I think they probably have, it seems to me that bicycles, both road and MTB, have lost quite a bit of weight over the last couple of decades. I remeber when an 18lb road bike was rather special, now it's quite ordinary. Weight does make a difference to good riders, less so to heavy middle aged riders like myself.
On a component level, I think it's a mixed bag. Some changes are good, but I suspect others have more to do with marketing and fashion. 27 gears for example, I never miss the extra 6 when I get on my old bike. Suspension makes a big difference, especially on bumpy descents, where my rigid forked bike quickly gets out of hand. However, on the road and gravel tracks all the front suspension is really doing is adding weight.
The front and rear mechs haven't changed much, but we've had lots of different shifters. On a road bike I was quite happy with friction shifters on the down tube; you could just dial in the exact mech position by noise and feel. Having them on the handlebars makes sense for a mountain bike, but I'm not totally convinced of the benefits of rapid fire shifters over thumb shifters; I definately prefer the friction only front thumb shifter.
Disc brakes, V-brakes, cantilever and drum brakes are all a revelation to someone that used to ride a bike with Weinmann 500's. Virtially impossible to adjust so that one or other brake block wasn't rubbbing on the rim and with similar stopping power to a stick nailed to the side of a go-cart. :shock:
The Weinmann link is a good illustration of how the pace of change has increased; being sold in the 1930's and still being fitted, virtually unchanged, to bicycles in the 1980's. They were truly awful, but they were cheap and light, so performance isn't the only reason things stick around.
peteteamtig
Retro Guru
- Feedback
- View
MMMMMMM
Sat here reading this thread and listening to "In the City" by the Jam I have come to the conclution that modern bikes are better for me because of ;
More agreeable geom , Better for decending giving more control . Equally as good at climbing placing the riders weight central and upright . Modern angles have shown mountain bikers that they need not ride gloryfied road bike angles .
Has anyone had the feeling when approaching a steep decent that
they are falling off the edge of the world ?(Long stems and arse in the air chin on the stem angles)
Front suspenders , Low weight , giving great control better front wheel grip thus better braking giving in effect , more speed
Disc brakes . Were do we start with this one ? Better modulation and stopping power , giving more control means decents can be taken quicker with much more confidence too . Rims last longer because there is no braking surface to wear out . You can ride with out of true wheels and braking , but all that is pretty obvious really .
But hang on ! What about an AMP B 1/2/3/4 ? Disc brakes , modernish angles on tha later models , and more importantly a suspender system still being used by the most influential manufactuers :shock:
There is nothing new under the sun really , It's all been done before we had mountain bikes in the 70's BSA 5 speed racers with cow horns and touring tyres !
I think that modern bikes look crap but really to be honest thats about it . They are efficent at everything . Even cheap £300 MTB's are proficient off road .
Sat here reading this thread and listening to "In the City" by the Jam I have come to the conclution that modern bikes are better for me because of ;
More agreeable geom , Better for decending giving more control . Equally as good at climbing placing the riders weight central and upright . Modern angles have shown mountain bikers that they need not ride gloryfied road bike angles .
Has anyone had the feeling when approaching a steep decent that
they are falling off the edge of the world ?(Long stems and arse in the air chin on the stem angles)
Front suspenders , Low weight , giving great control better front wheel grip thus better braking giving in effect , more speed
Disc brakes . Were do we start with this one ? Better modulation and stopping power , giving more control means decents can be taken quicker with much more confidence too . Rims last longer because there is no braking surface to wear out . You can ride with out of true wheels and braking , but all that is pretty obvious really .
But hang on ! What about an AMP B 1/2/3/4 ? Disc brakes , modernish angles on tha later models , and more importantly a suspender system still being used by the most influential manufactuers :shock:
There is nothing new under the sun really , It's all been done before we had mountain bikes in the 70's BSA 5 speed racers with cow horns and touring tyres !
I think that modern bikes look crap but really to be honest thats about it . They are efficent at everything . Even cheap £300 MTB's are proficient off road .
