Steel then and now - is there really a noticeable difference

[cce]

Re: Re:

Question for the law makers. If the 90's frames are / were so weak why have they survived in their thousands to this day?

half of them were never ridden to the extent of their own abilities, let alone what today's stuff is capable of.

But safety regulations have to take into account the toughest possible cases.

 

[clubby]

Not really true, more likely the frame would go than the fork, 'old' steel forks are very strong and can often be put on a jig to be put back into shape.

Probably why the CEN test exists

Modern bikes are built for downhill and trail centres, the bikes and centres each get more gnarly for each other whereas the 'trails' stay the same. Normal old off road bikes are designed for that and do the job very well. The worry is that bikes will end up only ever being thrown into cars and driven to trail centres. What it is to actually ride a bicycle out in the real world will end up being forgotten in the shouty world of trail centres, magazines and yootooob.

You really do need to make it to a MacRetro ride. :roll:
I think it all depends on the location you live as to what constitutes a trail to you. I'm riding in the same locations I always have, but the sections that can be ridden and ridden with flow have changed beyond recognition. Lines that couldn't be ridden back in the day are now do-able. Gifted riders with plenty of testicular fortitude can ride most lines on any bike, but mere mortals like myself can't.

 

[legrandefromage]

My Zaskar has done around 40,000 miles of commuting, been crashed, been in floods, the sea and still going.

I have frames 30, 40, 50 years old still able to do fast road laps. I'm sure this can be repeated any number of times by other members, CEN is convenience and standardisation and has very little to do with the real world - but a 'standard' did need to be set before things got too daft.

You can bypass the CEN by buying a custom frame.

 

[Doogsevo1]

Re:

Let's see a photo of your 40k mile Zaskar.

 

[clubby]

Re: Re:

Let's see a photo of your 40k mile Zaskar.

Agreed. I bet I can tell where your vote went on the Patina or Restored thread!

Just to stir things up though, isn't a Zaskar an aluminium frame? :evil:

 

[legrandefromage]

I've been down and up trails on bikes 3 decades apart, some go down well but couldnt climb, some that went up well were not happy going down. The ones that I was happy with are now lousy on the trail centres as the geometry is all wrong - the trails are designed for the new bikes which were designed for the trails .

Probably why the CEN test exists

CEN arrived to stop the likes of ITM and their bonkers 80g 110mm CNC magnesium stems - whats not going to go wrong there???

And whats wrong with re-setting a set of steel forks? The whole point of steel is that it can be put back into shape or repaired without changing the original properties of the material. Look at what cars are allowed to go through with Cat D and C damage.

Looking at the CEN tests, a lot of older kit would pass without issue whereas the boutique madness of the 1990's shed dwellers would instantly fail.

 

[legrandefromage]

Re: Re:

Let's see a photo of your 40k mile Zaskar.

Just for you - theres a lot of dents

 

[legrandefromage]

Re: Re:

Let's see a photo of your 40k mile Zaskar.

Just to stir things up though, isn't a Zaskar an aluminium frame? :evil:

Yes, and just look at the bullshit spouted about that material.

 

[Doogsevo1]

Re:

Looks great. Good for another 40k at least!

 

[clubby]

I've been down and up trails on bikes 3 decades apart, some go down well but couldnt climb, some that went up well were not happy going down. The ones that I was happy with are now lousy on the trail centres as the geometry is all wrong - the trails are designed for the new bikes which were designed for the trails .

Probably why the CEN test exists

CEN arrived to stop the likes of ITM and their bonkers 80g 110mm CNC magnesium stems - whats not going to go wrong there???

And whats wrong with re-setting a set of steel forks? The whole point of steel is that it can be put back into shape or repaired without changing the original properties of the material. Look at what cars are allowed to go through with Cat D and C damage.

Looking at the CEN tests, a lot of older kit would pass without issue whereas the boutique madness of the 1990's shed dwellers would instantly fail.

Last post from me on this, as I don't want to look over argumentative.
Original question of thread was "is there really a difference". I think you top point here illustrates perfectly that there is. Which you prefer depends greatly on many factors, there is no right or wrong answer that covers everyone.

Agreed about the shed builders of the 90's but disagree that a lot of older kit would pass. You only need to look at the weight gains on decent quality pre test steel frames to see how much extra material has been added.
I honestly couldn't see a Yo, P23, Zinn or Roberts passing the modern standard. To me the very thing that makes the ride special, i.e. lightweight, thin walled tubes, wouldn't pass the test. Whether most people need a bike that strong is a moot point, as modern mass produced frame need to pass it.

Quick edit.

Bike still looks great. What cage is that on rear mech, that can't be standard XT?