Who races retro bikes still?

[cce]

And I'd say that there's a certain level of fitness and skill that you need to achieve before which you're on makes that much difference (for XC anyway).

and on just how retro the bike is. I'd say something like mine would lose a lot less time than an early 90s effort

 

[tintin40]

yes i do. Why not? It's about the rider & fittness not the bike.

 

[rumpfy]

All of my vintage bikes get raced.

 

[petitpal]

And I'd say that there's a certain level of fitness and skill that you need to achieve before which you're on makes that much difference (for XC anyway).

and on just how retro the bike is. I'd say something like mine would lose a lot less time than an early 90s effort

Again though - if what some ppl on here have said is true and modern XC courses are getting flatter then I can imagine that a fit, skilled rider on an early 90's, fully rigid, canti bike is going to be faster than an out of shape non-rider on a 7K modern thing. That isn't to say anything about the relative values of either bike, purely that fitness and skill plays it's part (and I agree that the sort of logical extreme arguments that I've just presented can be bl**dy annoying )

 

[SeeingisBelievingGTMuseum]

Did a 30 mile xc race on the 91 Xizang in July and it rocked. No problem stayin with the current folk.

 

[lfergs]

nice

 

[player]

All of my vintage bikes get raced.

Respect to you sir for racing the Tomac Raleigh.

Thats got to be worth a few quid

 

[elPedro666]

(and I agree that the sort of logical extreme arguments that I've just presented can be bl**dy annoying )

Never let that stop you my good man!


Jealous?
Of the blue skies, awesome trails, fabulous bikes?
Oh no sir, not me sir, never!

[/hating on Rumpfy]

 

[andrewl]

If I'm not that fussed about the race sometimes I'll race the old bikes, but they are all slower than my modern bikes.

I realise that to dispute this is daft, otherwise people would be out winning world cup races on retros, however...

Given a reasonable budget, ie not megabucks, I reckon the chances are you could put together a faster retro than modern, mostly due to the cost or weight penalties of suss forks, discs and wheels. Obviously with the more money that's thrown at it the more a modern will start to show it's advantages. If I had to take a stab at the tipping point, maybe £6-700 list price? Of course that's looking at new prices so arguably very unfair on the modern, but I am just musing aloud!

In reply to your musings you can pick up a 2-3 year old XC race bike with full XTR or equivalent in a lot of cases cheaper than a lot of retro race stuff without too much trouble.

Weight isn't the disadvantage that many people think it is. For example my 2004 Turner 5 Spot with 5" of travel front and rear, a coil shock and fork and 2.4" tyres is a lot faster in overall lap time than say my DOGS BOLX, Klein, RC200 or King Kahuna despite being noticeably heavier.

So if I want to finish as high up the field as possible I'll go modern, if I'm racing for giggles I'll go retro - or more often the single speed

 

[andrewl]

And I'd say that there's a certain level of fitness and skill that you need to achieve before which you're on makes that much difference (for XC anyway).

I'd say whatever your skill or fitness level a rider will be slower on a retro bike than on a new bike when XC racing/riding. (unless the trails have next to no technical difficulty).

At the gumby end of the scale I've seen many people upgrade their old rigid retro machine to something new and suddenly find they can ride something comfortably that they seriously struggled with. They may still be slow but they are a lot faster than they were and they enjoy it more too.