Retrobike Forum Index

It is currently Fri Dec 09, 2016 5:08 am

* Login   * Register * Search  * FAQ



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 317 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 ... 32  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 23, 2012 7:04 am 
Old School Hero

Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2011 4:41 am
Posts: 193
Location: Michigan, USA
A couple of questions for the respondents thus far to this post and its subsequent thread content.

Do you regularly test ride some or many of each year's new bikes? To be sure there is a great deal of the newest/latest buzz and branding(microfiber carbon layup, the newest/strongest/lightest Alux alloy etc.) and that crap can be hard to stomach. But, apart from how the stuff looks (admittedly mostly rather garish), that feeling in the hands/wrists, keister, and feet is telling. You don't know when you see it, you KNOW it when you first feel it. After that, at least for me, looks become secondary, and sometimes irrelevant. For me, looks, lines, and style have seldom been a reliable indicator of how it rides. How about you?

How much, if at all, is the technical complexity in the new bikes a factor in your considerations? Over the years I've come to notice a farly high correlation between technical complexity and higher maintenance and more downtime. I buy bikes to ride 'em, typically 2,500 miles or so a year. The more time spent maintaining a bike, the less I like it. Eventually they get culled.

Lastly, ofttimes it seems that less is more. Our bikes and our kits are rolling billboards for these companies. Visually, the branding and logos are hard on the eyes/unappealing, bordering on garish and vulgar. The less this crap assults the eyes, the more it tends to catch/interest mine.
What is your take?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 23, 2012 11:03 am 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 08, 2008 4:18 pm
Posts: 2336
ibbz wrote:
The ugliest bike was this huge fat cannon dale with a sort of mono fork, was it trying to mimic a motorbike?


Have you seriously not encountered a Lefty before? They've been around for about 14 years. And Cannondales have been huge and fat for ever :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 23, 2012 11:20 am 
retrobike rider
retrobike rider

Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 5:11 pm
Posts: 54
Location: cornwall
Trouble is you only remember the good stuff that mostly survives, the other stuff gets binned, much like music Bowie Who etc aways get played on certain stations and we(I) think they are still good songs. Then some old codger my age requests a song and you think hell did we actualy listen to that C--P!

I like my old bikes and I like my new bikes. It still supprises me what I can get an old 18 speed ridgid townsend trail 531 over with using 55 year old knees, then I look at some of the new stuff and think I'd love that but then I would have to go on a maintainence course, update my tool kit and change chains and cogs every few months, if my experience of 9-10x2-3 speed road bikes is anything to go by, they need more looking after than 6-7x2-3 gear setups.

We will have to wait whats being swooned over in 10 years or so to see who's right.

And yes I know a lot of you will think I'm a bit sad to mention that I ride a townsend trail 531 when theres all this loverly stuff talked about and photographed on this site but it's still going after 24 years.

Phil

:lol: :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 23, 2012 1:33 pm 
retrobike rider / Gold Trader
retrobike rider / Gold Trader
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 11:46 pm
Posts: 3925
Location: East Riding of Yorkshire
I like your Townsends Phil, you should put up some more pictures!

I'd rather have one of them than a modern bike.

What condition is the paintwork on them? It's hard to see from the picture you put up of them, but I like the paint scheme on the orangey-pink one.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 23, 2012 3:13 pm 
Old School Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 10:12 pm
Posts: 4440
Location: Barry
mikede wrote:
Too many stickers/graphics and bling on today's bikes. They're way too busy-looking. I like to see naked metal, the craftsmanship is what counts. I like to see welds, and mechanisms and such.

For the most part, i'm function over form.


Yep I agree a lot of what I see as ugly on modern bikes is graphics/ colourschemes. Also the feeling that not every swoop curve of carbon/alloy is necessary.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 23, 2012 5:14 pm 
Gold Trader
Gold Trader

Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 9:40 pm
Posts: 2164
Location: Nottingham
I would no more contend that all modern bikes are ugly than I would that all "older" bikes are beautiful! While function can be to an extent judged objectively, form is almost entirely subjective (I for example cannot abide e-stays and find the liking for them on here verging on the inexplicable!).

IF I rode any distance and/or proper off-road stuff anymore (time/opportunity and health/strength don't permit) then - money no object - I'd have the lightest full bouncer that I could find. And that would be modern. And carbon. And the same would hold good for a race-road bike.

This is not to say that I don't think some retro bikes are both lovely objects AND superbly functional - especially in terms of reliabilty and maintenance. At present these last two are my main criteria - so, suitably modernised, >20 y.o. "ATBs" are all I ride!

I'm too old for nostalgia.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 23, 2012 5:27 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 1:16 pm
Posts: 360
Location: My own little world (in East Sussex)
If we all liked the same thing life would be boring. I love retro bikes, absolutely love them. It evokes an emotion in me and that nostalgic feeling.

I mean my Nan likes Vera Lynn, I like The Prodigy....all a matter of taste.

This is my modern bike and frankly I personally think it's stunning. Others think it is a monstrosity! I love it just as much as my retro bike, but they are totally different animals used for completely different purposes and I don't think modern bikes can be judged the same way.

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 23, 2012 7:27 pm 
retrobike rider
retrobike rider

Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 5:11 pm
Posts: 54
Location: cornwall
The townsends are both out in France at present in the Limousin area near lac du vassivie a great area for road and off road biking. They are used as hack bikes when were out there, but I keep looking at them with an eye to doing them up. The paint work is in a poor state on both but they are fairly original Exage trail 300 seems to last in this case. Both have had new BB, grip shifters for the rear cogs and some steel bits change for alloy.
If I can find can find a couple of cheep bikes to replace them for a while I will bring them back and do them up ( I need a new project now the hirame and pub bike updates are coming to an end).

Cheers

Phil


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ugly modern bikes
PostPosted: Sat Feb 16, 2013 12:06 pm 
Gold Trader | rBoTM Winner
Gold Trader | rBoTM Winner
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2012 12:30 am
Posts: 2389
Location: London
29'ers aren't oil paintings by any account

Image
Something wrong about the way these look, like a clown with boots several sizes too big!

This particular one is an £8k eye sore

And another;

Image

Wow, looks as if it's being goosed! a £3k eye sore!

Do people actually buy these?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 16, 2013 12:20 pm 
Gold Trader | rBoTM Winner
Gold Trader | rBoTM Winner
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2012 12:30 am
Posts: 2389
Location: London
gdb2b wrote:
A couple of questions for the respondents thus far to this post and its subsequent thread content.

Do you regularly test ride some or many of each year's new bikes? To be sure there is a great deal of the newest/latest buzz and branding(microfiber carbon layup, the newest/strongest/lightest Alux alloy etc.) and that crap can be hard to stomach. But, apart from how the stuff looks (admittedly mostly rather garish), that feeling in the hands/wrists, keister, and feet is telling. You don't know when you see it, you KNOW it when you first feel it. After that, at least for me, looks become secondary, and sometimes irrelevant. For me, looks, lines, and style have seldom been a reliable indicator of how it rides. How about you?

How much, if at all, is the technical complexity in the new bikes a factor in your considerations? Over the years I've come to notice a farly high correlation between technical complexity and higher maintenance and more downtime. I buy bikes to ride 'em, typically 2,500 miles or so a year. The more time spent maintaining a bike, the less I like it. Eventually they get culled.

Lastly, ofttimes it seems that less is more. Our bikes and our kits are rolling billboards for these companies. Visually, the branding and logos are hard on the eyes/unappealing, bordering on garish and vulgar. The less this crap assults the eyes, the more it tends to catch/interest mine.
What is your take?



Sorry for the belated response.
Mmmmm....

food for thought


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 317 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 ... 32  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: fitzroybikeco, Google Adsense [Bot] and 10 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

About Us

Follow Retrobike

Other cool stuff

All content © 2005-2015 Retrobike unless otherwise stated.
Cookies Policy.
bikedeals - the best bike deals in one place
FatCOGS - Fat Chance Owner's Group

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group