Thank god for retro bikes

[PurpleFrog]

The price and appeal of modern bikes, plus the disposable many seem to have on them, nowadays, has led me to another observation.

Weren't Zaskars about $2000 back in the early 90s? My memory is this was a fair bit of money at the time.

BITD, all the people I knew through cycling, were pretty fit and trim - most of them also worked out. A week or two back, I saw a link of somebody I know through work, with loads of pictures of his modern, action-man-on-his-day-off, suspension "rig", and lots of gnarly, grrrr type pictures of him, with it, and some mud splashed around a bit...Thing is, he's, well, generously proportioned - being tactful, and diplomatic... How did it happen, that people supposedly quite well into a physical sport like cycling, look like they're bigger 'round the middle, than they are around their chest / shoulders? How does that work?

You got old. (Which also explains the unrealistic delusion that BITD mountain bikes were cheap.)

 

[Neil]

The price and appeal of modern bikes, plus the disposable many seem to have on them, nowadays, has led me to another observation.

Weren't Zaskars about $2000 back in the early 90s? My memory is this was a fair bit of money at the time.

Not everybody rode Zaskars, then - indeed I didn't know any body, BITD that had one.

All the people I rode with back then rode decent, albeit production, mid-range bikes. At a guess, around the £500 mark.

BITD, all the people I knew through cycling, were pretty fit and trim - most of them also worked out. A week or two back, I saw a link of somebody I know through work, with loads of pictures of his modern, action-man-on-his-day-off, suspension "rig", and lots of gnarly, grrrr type pictures of him, with it, and some mud splashed around a bit...Thing is, he's, well, generously proportioned - being tactful, and diplomatic... How did it happen, that people supposedly quite well into a physical sport like cycling, look like they're bigger 'round the middle, than they are around their chest / shoulders? How does that work?

You got old.

Meant to say, nearly all the people I cycled with back then, when I was around 20-ish, were about my current age - ie mid 40s.

 

[Mike Muz]

Re:

Personally speaking, I get more satisfaction from my physical state than I would get from having this years 'best yet' bike.
I would feel a little embarrassed at being overtaken on a hill should I be on a modern bike, however, that's due to my old race psychology.
Each to his own though.

Mike

 

[paddy311]

....How did it happen, that people supposedly quite well into a physical sport like cycling, look like they're bigger 'round the middle, than they are around their chest / shoulders? How does that work?

So what ?
It's not like it's you that has to carry the weight around and deal with other people looking down on you 'cos of how you look.

 

[jimo746]

Just seems curious, to me. BITD being enthused about cycling seemed to have a requisite component of achievement or aspiration of fitness and athleticism, but these days, for some that I see, it appears to have no bearing or interest whatsoever.

I'm not suggesting that invalidates it - by all means, let them eat cake, um, literally as well metaphorically, it's just a curious change in the times for me.

I think that cycling in the UK is now more popular and accessible than when I started riding MTB in the early 90's.
True, back then being a "cyclist" meant you were keen, fit, and possibly regarded as slightly nerdy or weird nowadays "cyclist" applies to a broader spectrum of people.

Would be good to see more retro stuff in the magazine's, but tbh it doesn't really help sell new bikes, and probably won't interest younger riders (well, not for another 20 years or so).
I think we do pretty well having an excellent internet forum like Retrobike

 

[PurpleFrog]

The price and appeal of modern bikes, plus the disposable many seem to have on them, nowadays, has led me to another observation.

Weren't Zaskars about $2000 back in the early 90s? My memory is this was a fair bit of money at the time.

Not everybody rode Zaskars, then - indeed I didn't know any body, BITD that had one.

Not everyone rides Zaskar equivalents now. You can still find modern bikes at inflation adjusted BITD prices or a lot less.

All the people I rode with back then rode decent, albeit production, mid-range bikes. At a guess, around the £500 mark.

Which is meaningless until you say what year this was and adjust for inflation. But I'm sure that it is more than the £600 a Joe Murray designed Voodoo Bizango will cost you at Halfords. This has to be cheaper than a Lava Dome ever was.

Your mistake was buying a magazine: these exist to sell people expensive stuff - they're not representative of what people actually buy. Cycling magazines exist to talk absolute bollocks on behalf of bike makers. A lot of the stuff they run about £4000 bikes is there to get people to think that the cash difference between a £500 and a £700 bike is small, not because they expect people to buy the £4000 bike.

 

[MarinMartin]

Re:

It's not what you ride, it's how you ride it.

I have, well lets just say several bikes. the most expensive being my marin muirwoods which cost me 100 quid. most of my other bikes are freecycle finds/saved from scrap jobs which owe me less than 20 quid. my 8 bikes cost less in total than some people spend on a pair of wheels.

I recently left a cycling group because the mood was changing for the worse. Asking about for a mate who wanted to get back into cycling, he didnt have a huge budget, around 70 quid and when trying to find a good working order bike the general replies from the group members were "you won't even get tyres for that"

half the reason I started salvaging bikes to raise money for charity. can sell them for peanuts as they don't cost much to fix and I know a lot of people who benefited from those bikes and had more fun than most people could on an expensive bike as some people aren't lucky enough to be able to afford a basic bike let alone one that you'd need to remortgage the house for.

In fact one of my favourite bikes was an old giant stonebreaker which owed me 8 quid. it was tatty, no suspension, made my balls ache but the smile it put on my face on the trails was better than any 7 grand full suspension deal could ever do. in my mind all of this new technology and comfort design etc takes the fun out of riding. there's nothing like riding down the trails with a bike that cost less than a takeaway and feeling like you're back in the 1980s/early 90s when suspension was a mystery and cantis were about as top spec as you got.

 

[Hotwheels.]

^^ I agree with you, totally. And what absolute crap about a 'keen cyclist bitd was fit and keen', like some kind of Adonis. When I was 18 in the early 90s, I was an 18st fatboy, not fit and keen, but I rode a hell of a lot further/faster than I do today at considerably lighter. Size has nack all to do with fitness level at an amateur level, but back then I rode a lot more than I do now. I guess back then the blubber disguised the Ned Overend underneath.

 

[dyna-ti]

Re: Re:

It's not what you ride, it's how you ride it.

Yup A bike is a bike if it gets you out and about or from A to B and back again.
Keeps you fit, healthy, and pottering about enjoying a bit of nature and the countryside will go far to keep you sane.

 

[widowmaker]

Re: Re:

It's not what you ride, it's how you ride it.

Yup A bike is a bike if it gets you out and about or from A to B and back again.
Keeps you fit, healthy, and pottering about enjoying a bit of nature and the countryside will go far to keep you sane.

My best bike to date is a Saracen Traverse Karma'd to me from a Retrobike Member, it owes me £1 in loose bearings for the bottom bracket and a few sprays of oil and its made me smile everyride

Has held its own against my cycle buddy with their Scott carbon bike