Thank god for retro bikes

I bought my Zaskar new back in 1993 and it was £1495 with full XT and mag 21.

In 2011 a hardrock was £1095 with Suntour forks and acera /alivio mix but did have discs

The same year a mongoose tyax (or whatever) cost £500 and was mostly made of cheese


Halo bikes were £2/3/4k whereas now they're 8/9 plus.

Value for money? I don't know. To keep selling bikes it has to be technology led despite a bicycle being one of the most simple forms of transport on earth. Simple doesn't sell. So, like cars, technology is the way forward. There will always be those that spend too much to help the ego and self image.

I still have the zaskar and will have to get out on it again.
 
cce":2syvste9 said:
the failure to account for inflation always makes me chuckle.
I always chuckle at the over application and faith in it, too...

BITD - say, 1991, as an example, ~100 quid would get you something new, but BSO. That's about true these days too.

And about £350, is about what it would take, to get something decent enought that it would at least work, not fall apart, and be worth maintaining, for off-road use. Now I'm far from up-to-speed with current MTB prices, but that seems to be about where they're at.

Some aspects of pricing, haven't changed that much. People who've no true interest in cycling, think about £100 on a supermarket / BSO should be fine, and the bike be perfectly acceptable. And to at least start off-roading, you ideally need to spend a minimum - that's not drastically different from over 20 years ago. Now true enough, that minimum, may get you "more" (I used the word with kid gloves) - imposition of things like suspension forks, and budget disc brakes has diddled with that a little.

Now true enough, the upper ceiling on what is serious has probably shifted quite a lot, but the bottom end, to entry level of the market has not changed anything like to the same degree as the mid, to upper, end. Because quite simply, for many, there's some very established, rough notions of how much people will be prepared to spend at the bottom / entry level of the market.
 
Re:

I ride a 1989 Muddy Fox Courier Comp. The one with the red crackle paint and rear U brake - if you're over the age of 35 you'll know the one I mean.

It's far and away the best bike I've ever had. I never liked them at the time, but I can now see why they were so popular when they came out; you get a guilty amount of comfort, confidence inspiring handling and excellent braking if you keep everything clean and well set up. It's heavy, but so what? I could lose much more weight from my waist than I could upgrading the bike.

Of course, if I rolled up at a bike shop with it, the boys in the shop would wonder why I wasn't using a proper bike, and assume I was poor or a bit stupid or both.

The thing is, I don't care about getting anything better. I wouldn't enjoy using it any more. I wouldn't get much faster (as if that matters), and there's a strong possibility I might not be able to fix it if it broke. Upgrading bikes is a mug's game.

I'm out on it every day when I am at home in the peaks. I'm doing the Dunwich Dynamo on it next summer.

Retro is good.
 
cce":11sniniu said:
the failure to account for inflation always makes me chuckle.

It's worse than that. If you look at equivalent bikes, a £700 Voodoo has a half decent suspension fork and thoroughly decent brakes. Like for like, bikes have got much cheaper. Yes, a good CF full-suspension bike with cost more than a cromoly hardtail did in 1990 - but no one is going to make you ride one.
 
legrandefromage":38e1nwhb said:
I bought my Zaskar new back in 1993 and it was £1495 with full XT and mag 21.

In 2011 a hardrock was £1095 with Suntour forks and acera /alivio mix but did have discs

The same year a mongoose tyax (or whatever) cost £500 and was mostly made of cheese


Halo bikes were £2/3/4k whereas now they're 8/9 plus.

Value for money? I don't know. To keep selling bikes it has to be technology led despite a bicycle being one of the most simple forms of transport on earth. Simple doesn't sell. So, like cars, technology is the way forward. There will always be those that spend too much to help the ego and self image.

I still have the zaskar and will have to get out on it again.

Bird Cycleworks' new Aeris 3 - 150mm full suspension, good quality X-Fusion rear shock and forks (far better than Mag21s! ;) ), full Shimano Deore groupset (easily as durable and smooth as 90's XT), DT Swiss wheels, RaceFace crankset, I could go on.

£1550. Same as your Zaskar.

Utterly astounding value, all things considered. Hell, their Zero HT starts at £995 with a similar spec. Specialized bikes have gotten expensive for the spec and rely on the weight of the brand to sell at the lower end of the market, don't use them as a comparison point! Value for money is out there, believe me...

That £1500 Zaskar today would be £2700 allowing for inflation - that'll buy you a superb carbon hardtail with brakes and suspension that far outperform their 1993 counterparts.

I wish this tired assumption that bikes now are hideously overpriced and no better than the mythical "BITD" could just be put to bed... I love retro bikes, I really do, and I get nostalgic about 1st gen XTR M900, Grafton cranks, white Porcs, etc jyst the same as anyone else, but please, take the rose-tints off once in a while! ;)
 
Nowt rose tinted in my post. Just trying to show what cost what then and now - I have no opinion on new anymore

I think the op is hinting at the fact that it has all become monetised to a point of absurdity.
 
legrandefromage":26w8jyrl said:
In 2011 a hardrock was £1095 with Suntour forks and acera /alivio mix but did have discs.


Are you sure? My sister bought one around then for £500ish.

On-One Parkwood, full Deore groupo inc brakes, Rockshox Revelation RLT forks, Rockshox Reverb dropper. £999.99.
 
Back
Top