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

[albash82]

no worries.

 

[makster]

My 2 penneth.... I hadn't riden since my teens and got back into it about 3 years ago. I looked at modern bikes, thought them vulgar and soul-less so went back to what I knew and bought early 90's.
I then found this place....
I've since owned and ridden a decent selection of the bikes I wanted as a teen but couldn't afford and spent far too much money on here.
I've always stayed true to riding retro (bought my first bike ever with suspension forks last year!!) but a few months ago bought a 4 year old Rocky Mountain.
I hate to say it but its far more comfortable to ride (steel is real ) than any of my retro rides and I can ride faster and longer on it.

Difference is that I'd never part with any of my retrobikes but would change the RM as and when something better comes along.
To me, modern = function, while retro = Soul

 

[chaser]

well this is just my opion so dont get mad..lol...i think old bikes have some sort of soul, maybe its the time in life they remind you of....some of them were quite good, but modern full sus bikes have let me do things i wouldn't have been able to do on a older bike....i love my carbon scott, it my fav colour and every thing...however, id say 75% of modern bikes suck.. because there all the same, whats the difference between the latest trek and specialised...sod all...it takes so long to find something a bit different these days..litely it took weeks to decide to get a scott spark..funy though ther were only about 4 bikes i even considered..the rest all looked the same and i didnt want that....many company's have a very different idea wat full carbon means, apart from scott, they make every last part from it.....yay..lol..

Yes, I have a Scott Spark Ltd 2007. I have to admit, I can ride faster on the Cannock Chase Monkey Trail than I can on my retros. I guess a classic mimi Cooper S would have quite a job keeping pace with a modern 4wd WRC rally car too?
I still love to wind everyone up though and turn up on the Saracen or Dynatech. Disc brakes must be the single biggest plus on a modern MTB after suspension. it is a case of horses for courses though.
On the Scott Scale subject, have you noticed that the quality control stickers on the underside of the frame parts say 'TOPEAK' you know, the company that make pumps and bottle cages... maybe we can thank them for Scotts carbon knowhow???
Cheers,
Chaser.

 

[Neil G]

For me better brakes are the main thing. Everything else is more or less fluff, but reliable strong brakes have made a big difference.

I'd second that, TBH I think discs are the innovation that has really improved MTBs, even more so than suspension

 

[ededwards]

I had a go on Graham's Cleland at the Wendover Bash in late 2008 although it was only briefly and around the area where we stopped for lunch. There were loads of design differences from other bikes I've ridden before and since (and Graham and Geoff have described and explained the rationale behind them in considerable detail on other threads) with possibly the most instantly noticeable ones the very upright riding position and the very low pressure tyres. Certainly a very specific bike that would be great in certain conditions but not in others (riding in that position into a headwind on the road would certainly build character!).

I may be wrong but although this thread seems to have descended into a hoary 'old v modern' debate, it appears to have been started more in terms of celebration of difference - there are things that the 20+ year old Cleland can do that modern XC/trail bikes can only dream about and the converse is also true.

Not to fuel the fire (and then promptly doing so?), modern bikes on the whole aren't very easy on the eye (and look at all the retro inspired paint jobs that get the young and not so young ones swooning now) and seem with their quiet competence to be almost bland, characterless even. Back in the day it was possible to get a bike, even quite an expensive one, that was a bit or a lot rubbish. This air of the unexpected added a certain spark to life - consider whether you'd prefer Alex Higgins to Peter Ebdon, open moorland or trail centres, real ale to McLager, vinyl to CD, an MG to an Audi TT? The former could all be hopeless at times but when they were on form, oh my. Reject the good and strive for the excellent (at the risk of inadequacy).

That is all.

 

[stevet1]

Nice post Ed.

 

[Neil]

The balance between the front and rear on a car is set in the master cylinder

Rear calipers on cars seize as in stop working as in they're caked in goo not as in skids and hand brake turn type seizing. they do that because they are used less on the rear as the brake bias is set to the front.

Brake bias tends to be set, in modern-ish cars, by a load-sensing valve, and / or in combination with ABS.

I suspect it's only in very few, or very rudimentary cars that brake bias is a static thing. On most, the more the car is loaded up, especially towards the rear of the car (so rear passengers, loads of luggage) that load sensing involves the rear brakes more.

 

[hamster]

I think it reflects the growing maturity of the game - early days saw lots of experimental avenues which got abandoned as what worked became clear.

At that point the marketing boys took over and added an element of supposed innovations to keep the ball rolling.

Maybe the next fashion stage will be to make pretty bikes with 'good enough to eat' paintjobs - quiet competence (Ed's phrase which sums it up brilliantly) will be just a given.

For the moment I'll continue to enjoy the individual Flam finishes etc I paint my bikes to keep them unique.

 

[peteteamtig]

Dead ends

Do you not think that half the suppsed techy dead ends explored in the 90's will one day return ?

I think they will , perhaps with a modern twist . When the marketing men realise that their ABC full suspender looks just like the same model from XYZ's range .

They are going to have to do things differently to sell bikes .

Bring back parallelogram forks please , true rising rate shocks , light weight and advanced materials , gearboxes and above all weird and wacky frame designs that hark back to the innovation that took place in the 90's .

Modern bikes techy stuff seems to be stalling at the mo , I know we have now got 20 spd from SRAM and 30 from Shimano , but who wants it ? more peeps are turning to s/s or hubbies to be different .

The public crave innovation not comformaty , bring back the good old days please with the modern twist !

 

[GrahamJohnWallace]

Re: Dead ends

Do you not think that half the suppsed techy dead ends explored in the 90's will one day return ?

I hope so.

I'd throw a few ideas from the Victorians and Leanardo Da Vinci into the reinvention pot for good measure.

The problem of making a bicycle travel cross-country, doesn't have only one solution called "the modern mountain bike," but an large number of alternative solutions, each with their advantages and disadvantages.

Perhaps next winter I will take my Highpath made Cleland along to a modern ride with some serious mud. Preferably some sticky heavy clay or marl. Modern bikes are good, but never intended for conditions where the hubs and freewheels get coated in mud and you need the full 2" frame clearances of the Highpath to allow the wheels to rotate at all. I and other Cleland owners search out and revel in such muddy conditions, but that's what these bikes were engineered to cope with.

:twisted:I hope this years OWMBC meet is nice and muddy :twisted:

However the Highpath weighs in at 42lbs, and as Ed Edwards says, has the aerodynamics of brick. So I think I'll give the local road-club's time-trial a miss.

Animals and plants in nature diversify and specialise. They don't evolve into a single do it all species.

Diversity not nostalgia, is what makes retrobikes special as far as I'm concerned.

Vive La Difference!