Weight, modern MTB's compared ?

[Splatter Paint]

As a direct comparison on cost:

1990 Kona Fire Mountain £350 BITD (£593 with inflation) - ~32lbs (I weighed mine)

2010 Kona Blast £599 - ~32lbs. (I weighed my brother-in-laws bike)

The same price now gets you an alloy frame, front suspension and disc brakes. So without all that technology, you probably could have gone lighter for the same outlay on a modern bike that was rigid with v-brakes.

SP

 

[Unclejack]

I might be missing the point but I personally don't care about weights of mtb's anymore. I got sucked into this ethos with my cyclocross bike, theres whole websites devoted to such facts and you get sucked in to it thinking it makes for a better ride experience if your wheels wiegh 100g less. No, it just costs you loads and stops you from going out there and riding whilst you spend hours shopping. For me my RB interest is purely in "neanderthal" bikes, those rock solid thumpers built before 73 degree seat angles became common. A bike designed to tackle the wilderness, before words like "race" or "lite" were ever mentioned. IMO, since then, we have been distracted by one long blur of upgrading in an atempt to go faster. Period correct 96 or 97?- not bothered thanks.

P.S the bars, stem and controls on the SuperMaverick weigh 3.5Kg alone...!

 

[Neil G]

I really don't mind a bike not being super light so long as it's strong. I'd rather make it to the bottom of a descent rather than be eating headset when my plastic bars or forks have let go!

 

[Aeronaut]

Light or not, my modern ride doesn't interest me (as it sits there under its layer of dust)... it's a bike with no character or soul.
I think when you sacrifice weight you lose a majority of those two things as it becomes less of a bike but more a machine out to do the job in hand, and obviously progression in the sport/technology has made things that way.
Fun should be where it's at. Without that I certainly wouldn't ride no more... Old school = smiles to me, not weight.

 

[Bensherman]

When I got my 1st mtb a Muddy Fox courier comp I used to ride up and downhills, these days kids get a "uphill" lift on the back of a range rover and then jump on their bikes. However seeing what they do on em, I couldn't see a retro bike last too long. Wow I sound old.

 

[mikeekim89]

A modern XC bike will be lighter, comfier and more efficient than an XC bike of similar price from 15 years ago.

I disagree, My 1997 zaskar is comfier than it's modern equivelant, as it sands now, too a standard 2009 zaskar alu expert, they weigh pretty much the same too ride, and the modern one had problems with the gearing all the way through the ride...

 

[CAPIN]

Your 1997 zaskar feel comfier cause after 13 years of use any aluminium will turn into cheese. It absorbs stuff now which new one wouldnt.
Get an NOS 1997 frame and than compare