Rose tinted...?

[MikeD]

Then you dish the wheel more to create space and at the same time weaken both the wheel and chain.

A 10spd cassette is the same width as an 8spd one. All geared chains are sufficiently strong as to be essentially unbreakable in a straight pull (unless epically worn/twisted/badly fitted).

And the point is? Rolling Eyes This is just marketing puff forcing a need for a supposed innovation every year.

Who's forcing it?
[/quote]

 

[legrandefromage]

Just finish this off, for me anyway, and to bring it back to where I started.

The guy called the Zaskar 'a cross country bike'...

:facepalm:

Its well documented that the Zaskar was the first hardcore (you know the score) do it all bike long before the 'freeride' category was dreamt up in marketing.

I didnt like the guys attitude towards anything over five years old as 'unrideable crap' as if gnarly trails didnt exist 30, 20 or 10 years ago. It seems to match a few comments in the magazines too.

He also brought up Rocky mountain - 'if the Sirrus was so good then, why isnt it made like that now?' I introduced to the chap who had 3 RM modern frames fail.

There is so much I dont like of old, theres so much I'd have in the garage thats 'old'. Theres also a few new bikes that I wouldnt kick out of bed either.

After owning and riding just about all the mid range plus a few 'high-end' bikes up until 2006, I am comfortable in my own skin and will carry on as I am. I cant be a luddite otherwise I wouldnt be on the internet or use the GPS function on my phone, etc etc. I chose the bikes I have now as they are rideable and are my own bicycles of quality - even if a little tongue in cheek sometimes.

 

[mikee]

hans rey reckoned that the zaskar design was tweeked by the laguna rads to be the hardcore(what are we waiting for) bike that it is
it was built for xc and jumping and trials and general fannying about .
as you and i know its a bit more than the sum of its parts
the bloke as a marketing exec has to push the newer is better thing or he wont get paid , the easily led will agree with him.

 

[Neil G]

I never get intimidated by all the berks bouncing about in trail centre carparks on 2-5k full sussers covered in body armour....usually blue flagged later for getting in the way.

Conclusion is a lot of it is to do with rider and not the bike

Ride whatever bike you enjoy riding at your favourite places

 

[biglev]

depends what they mean by better.

I have a squart taper xt bottom bracket from 1995 still going strong. a 2010 xt bb30 bottom bracket dead already. Will a mt35 shifter from 1990 outlast a 2011 xt shifter. eerr my money is still on the old school kit!

Performance wise does a new bike shift gear better, yes, does it go faster over rought ground yes. the technology is there but the quality even and the top level is rarly there in my opinion.

You cant beat quality what ever the year!

 

[Growmac]

Well, I just bought a new 6" travel Canyon AM bouncy bike. I've also just had the parts come in the post to get my 1995 Clark Kent F14 back on (off?) the road, so I'll let you know once I've ridden both.

I suspect I'm with the crowd saying it doesn't matter what you ride, just enjoy, but I'm really excited to get the CK going again. I've not been able to ride it since late 2004.

 

[Khane]

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:

i share the exact same view.
i've got a modern full suss for throwing about trail centres and such, which i honestly wouldn't care that much about breaking if i came off etc.
however my retro stuff which i love riding BTW, i would be livid if i broke any of them.

given the choice of which to ride 90% of the time i'd pick my '92 prestige over the full suss of my '98 FSR or '03 enduro. but then most of the time around these parts anything over the 45mm of travel on the pace forks is just not needed.

horses for courses springs to mind.

 

[NoName]

a couple of post taking me back to the day!!!

 

[dyna-ti]

I think nowadays its more a matter of hold on than ride :? Stupid prices now for generic frames.