Rose tinted...?

[longun]

over took 3 pros on the downhill section at mayhem on my last lap.

Who?

not sure but they wasnt pleased lol,think one was a scott racer and the other two looked like shop/club racers. think the cantis helped :roll:

 

[petitpal]

anyone remember the mint sauce cartoon
where mint meets a free ride dude at the start of a trail , as they progress
the freeriders on the northshore way above mints head , mints on the trail as ever ,then freeride bloke's trail ends at a big tree and mint just rides round it and off into the distance

kinda summed it up for me

This the one you are thinking of? http://homepage.mac.com/pfellows1/thisi ... shore2.jpg

(Mint is the reason why I made it through so many thick, nasty, muddy winters BITD )

 

[theredchili]

For the new, untried rider wanting to try proper offroad stuff (not towpaths), modern bikes will on the whole be easier to get to grips with riding than an older one.

It took me a year or so before I was comfortable enough with my technique to venture onto more extreme terrain. Modern brakes and suspension make that transition easier.

Those of us who appreciate the buzz of, shall we say, "less predictable" handling, will always enjoy our old bikes, and may even find our old routes more "boring" on a modern bike as lines and brake-pump fatigue are less of an issue.

There is truth in both claims - which is why it is pretty pointless arguing the toss.

To be honest, ive just brought a modern Bike, first impressions hammering it around is how fast over technical ground it is.It also gives more confidence.
However it does lack character,I did 30 miles on my Pace last week ,I smiled for every mile , it also got allot of attention,more so than super flash bikes around on the day
I guess they both have their place in life, for me modern for harder riding where i don't mind coming of and damaging the bike, the retros for the feel good factor and showing the world these old bikes can handle everything you throw at them, not to mention how much more stylish they are.I have been toying with selling my Pace, but the problem is everytime I take it around the woods,i fall in love with it again !!Retro's have soul and capture the exciting time of the early 90's where mtbing was about having fun over the buying most expensive kit available ! - rant over :roll: :roll:

 

[WayneO]

Clearly there are good new bikes and bad old bikes, but for me (I'm short , 5' 8") the marginalisation of decent steel frames to all Al and carbon has been a disaster as they are NOT better to ride. Hydroformed Al (as is newew Konas) are unspeakably poor rides. I could go and buy a new steel frame from Cotic or whoever, but that's hardly a step forward into the brave new world as it's pretty identical to a 90's steel frame w disc tabs.

Forks are a bit better, drivechains seem the same but tyres are a big improvement for sure.

I recall I went from an early 90's Yo to a 1999 Klein and being amazed at how much you could get for the money then (did you really need anything better than LX?), but I'm not sure that many things are so much better know than then.

 

[WayneO]

As a note I now have a mid 90's Bontrager that is v. nice to ride, and have gotten rid of my modern Merida as it was so poor to ride - slow, dead, uncomfotable.

 

[mikee]

anyone remember the mint sauce cartoon
where mint meets a free ride dude at the start of a trail , as they progress
the freeriders on the northshore way above mints head , mints on the trail as ever ,then freeride bloke's trail ends at a big tree and mint just rides round it and off into the distance

kinda summed it up for me

This the one you are thinking of? http://homepage.mac.com/pfellows1/thisi ... shore2.jpg

(Mint is the reason why I made it through so many thick, nasty, muddy winters BITD )

thats the one

i will say that i own a modern carbon wonder bike that i enjoy riding
however it has had a flat rear tyre for 4 weeks now

 

[Neil]

Have to say I'm not entirely surprised - it's not as if the consumerism or yearly fashion thing is in any way particularly new.

And on balance, my attraction and interest in old bikes, is not based on pure objectivity, merely preference and my own, personal "golden era".

I couldn't care less if the latest bike, made of unobtainium, with 53 gears, 17 inches of pure travel, and damped hydraulics for every conceivable function is better, more extreme, or faster - since I'm not interested in any of those things from my bike (edit: bikes - said without any shame...)

Aspects that I am interested in - eg longevity - are so removed from bikes in recent times, that I'm completely happy in my ignorance.

 

[hamster]

I'm laughing my socks off that after being told we want more gears (7,8,9,10 cog cassettes) we are now seeing 2x10 setups touted as the big thing.

So that's exactly the same as a 7 speed setup, except a yawning gap between inner and outer gears on the front, AND it's all just really tetchy and fragile compared to good old 7 speed cassettes and chains.

 

[petitpal]

I'm laughing my socks off that after being told we want more gears (7,8,9,10 cog cassettes) we are now seeing 2x10 setups touted as the big thing.

Yeah, having picked up my first copy of MBUK for years that struck me as odd - even my basic maths tells me that's less than I used to have... I can see the logic in 9/10 speed - I remember moving from 7 to 8 speed and liking how lots of little gaps that I hadn't really noticed were suddenly filled in.

Edit: You can tell they're not doing XC stuff if they haven't got a granny. I remember one of my brother's mates having a cheapo MTB years ago and it living on his bike trainer. Couldn't believe that you'd need a granny for anything - this is while some of some were busy trying to get up some of those nasty pine needle covered 45 degreers on the Midlands Summer Series (I seem to remember a nasty one on Astley in particular)

 

[MikeD]

2 x 10 bottom gear = 26/36 = 0.7. Ye olde granny gear = 24/28 = 0.86. Modern bike = lower gear.