Ugly modern bikes

[CAPIN]

At that classic car event.. All would agree that TATRA T87 is a more beautiful and radical car than modern AUDI.. But there would be no discussion which of two is better car.
Same here.
Totally agree that majority of todays bikes are ugly, over designed, too much, whatever.. But At the same time we have to admit they are just much lighter, safer, stronger, reliable, better than our vintage totems of love

 

[Grockel]

The telling me that last year's 150 mm Enduro is actually worse than some 1990 Stumpy with rigid fork, 135 mm stem and M730 cantis and I'll know that is bullsh_t, because I've ridden them both.

Have you ridden both in all possible situations?. If I was doing a few days off road touring I know which bike would be more practical and it's not the one with 150 mm of travel. The problem with some modern bikes is they are too specific. The reason Mountain bikes took off as they did is they were the Swiss army knife of cycles they could easily be adapted for touring as off road or commuting. Where as a lot of modern bikes seem to have one purpose and if you want to do something else you need another bike. I'm no luddite and see a lot of interesting developments in cycling IMO mountain bikes though have lost there way with this downhill and MX type obsession are more obsessed with the technology rather than the riding. I notice in your posts you seem to have done what you are accusing others of you are blinkered to the view that modern is better without even considering the idea that all may not be perfect with the modern mountain bike scene.

I ride retro bikes for various reasons one is obvious nostalgia another though is the usability and adaptability of the bikes. I think what is telling about my cycling is I ride a modern road bike but retro mountain bikes. I personally believe if modern bikes were not trying to turn them selves into MX bikes I would likely have a modern bike along with my retro ones. Oh and before you ask I have risen modern bikes.

 

[elPedro666]

vintage totems of love

Yeah baby

Doesn't matter how much betterer the modern bike may be, it'll never be described thusly, good work CAPIN!

 

[Maxipedia]

I never stated modern is by default better. As a matter of fact, I'm the same person saying on our very own forum with kids that are blinded by modern hype that the era of durable components ended at the dawn of the nineties and it's never coming back. But don't mistake quality with durability! I love M730 but it's time is gone and that's why we respect it: it was a landmark in THAT time.

Yes, I have ridden them in most possible situations. By that, I don't mean the Stumpy particularly, because I don't own one, but I used the Stumpy as an example of bikes from that period. The Karakoram is pretty close. The Enduro is an awesome bike, but like most bikes has its flaws. It beats the ass out of a nineties hardtail easily. It's the same weight (depending on what you are comparing it too), it can power up a hill and rip when things go down. I also rode it on the road to trailheads and it's not worse than aforementioned bikes.

I agree that MTBs are way too specialized these days, but that 140-150 mm bike is today's Swiss army that can do almost everything properly.

And that MX obsession? I guess it's the favourite reason for pointing fingers of people who actually have never ridden downhill in their lives. Downhill bikes are a paradox: they are the most expensive out there and still a 400 EUR mid range MTB is better engineered and tested. Because those bikes that sell most need to be bulletproof. If a product manager faults them, the company loses amounts of money. On the other hand, with DH bikes most of the times you pay big money to have the hidden privilege of being an unofficial bike tester as products are rarely dialled. Intense are so smart that they even managed to turn this into a trump! Everybody knows their bikes crack. What to do? Say they're "for racing only" (as if racing doesn't mean heavy duty) and everybody perceives them as Formula One cars that are not to be taken of their track or they'll shatter to pieces. Except that track is maybe the most hardcore place to ride a bike... Hm! All these considered, I'd lie if I said I don't notice a change. Geometries changed for the good (hey, even Giant now has a proper DH bike!) and suspension is coming slowly out of the cheap hype phase. A 2012 bike is most likely better and more fun to ride than one from 2004 or 1999 (yes, I have some of those too). Don't you ride for fun?

Mx

 

[sylus]

Plus in the days of the retro bikes, burgers were made of real meat, not like this modern horsey rubbish

 

[ibbz]

Plus in the days of the retro bikes, burgers were made of real meat, not like this modern horsey rubbish

Hahahahahahaha!! Made me burst into laughter

 

[ibbz]

I think in terms of performance generally, riders fitness and stamina plays a bigger role. If I were an ultra fit man on a decent quality 90ies HT I reckon I'd be able to cream any moderate or unfit bloke on a modern bike in any scenario apart from an extreme one eg where bike isn't suitable.
Eg a rigid bike going downhill or on mash up ground
Anyway modern bikes may perform better in many situations with their massive suspension but they are very ugly.
Only good looking ones have more of a classic style.

 

[sylus]

I recently had a 29er..it's like a 69er but only one third of the way in

it performed brilliantly, was faster, easier to use, and took me places my retro never could but because it could do everything so well it had no soul, was mass produced bland and could have had any manufacturer labels on

for most is suggest in this forum a certain amount of personal wish for a bike to have a soul is as equally important as what it can do. Ultimately it's a piece of metal so cannot have any soul than the one we give it.

I love retros because they remind me of my youth and i genuinely love having them around, I like modern because when the retro can't the moderns often can

there is plenty room for both

 

[Maxipedia]

I love retros because they remind me of my youth and i genuinely love having them around, I like modern because when the retro can't the moderns often can

Yes!

there is plenty room for both

Double yes!

 

[ibbz]

Example of how Bike's have fallen of the Ugly tree lately, or designers have turd tinted specs on these days.
Probably not a good example, but it's the first bike that came into my head.

GT Zaskar 1996

GT Zaskar 2013

The 2013 model looks wrong, totally dominated by the forks. It's inelegant, and seems to be trying too hard, and seems to be retaining the style of the GT frame for the sake of it - but fails, as take the decals off and it I wouldn't be able to state that it's a GT for certain.
Others may differ, but I think the older model has far more graceful lines,