Retrobike Forum Index

It is currently Mon Dec 05, 2016 9:55 am

* Login   * Register * Search  * FAQ



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 161 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 ... 17  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Mar 24, 2013 9:53 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2010 9:00 pm
Posts: 392
Woz wrote:
Someone quoted KB "light, strong, cheap. Pick two".

So, I want light and cheap please. Because of progress for £900, I'm expecting around 21 lbs please. I'm happy with a full rigid and even 1.95 tyres in either 26" or 29" and I don't want strong cos I'm a bit of a canal tow path rider.

Let's see those lightweight £900 rigs without the guff :wink:


This.

If I could get a 20-21lb bike with a token inch or two of front travel, for under a grand, I'd be saving up as we speak.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 24, 2013 10:03 pm 
Old School Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:56 pm
Posts: 4776
Location: No brakes? Way to commit soldier.
highlandsflyer wrote:
It makes no sense to compare prices over time in the way put forward over and again. Bicycle prices are not linked to inflation in any way more than they are to mass production and market forces.


You think its valid to compare the value of goods over a 20 year period without taking into account inflation?

Bicycle prices aren't linked to production costs or supply and demand?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 24, 2013 10:13 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 03, 2012 7:13 pm
Posts: 2574
Location: The Cock Inn, Tillett, Herts
Woz wrote:
Let's see those modern lightweight £900 rigs without the guff :wink:

We already have seen them. In 1992.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 24, 2013 10:16 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 11:25 pm
Posts: 1785
Location: It's not easy being a dolphin.
Chopper1192 wrote:
Woz wrote:
Let's see those modern lightweight £900 rigs without the guff :wink:

We already have seen them. In 1992.


...and that is exactly why we are here on Retrobike. Ba boom! 8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 24, 2013 10:46 pm 
Retro Guru

Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 4:27 pm
Posts: 988
Location: Devon
Quote:
If I could get a 20-21lb bike with a token inch or two of front travel, for under a grand, I'd be saving up as we speak.



Thing is...that may be what *you* want, but very few other people do, they want lots of gears, lots of suspension and nice flashy graphics, so the manufacturers provide (and to a large degree perpetuate that fashion). The MTB image is no longer lead by XC racing as it once was and light weight and balls out racing speed are not the USP any more.

Now, whether or not that is actually the right bike for the riding they do, or whether they would actually be better off with your lighter, less sprung example is an entirely different matter.

The market is different now, the reason you see 30lb hardtails and full bounceers with 5 inches of squish is because that is what people are buying.

There are plenty of other modern options out there, that are lighter, stronger and better performing, but they are now marketed as XC race bikes, but in the mid range it's not what people are buying.

Trust me, like others on here I love my retro machines, and will often ride them in preference to a modern bike, but modern bikes are lighter, stronger, cheaper (for what you get), more durable and better performing, to say otherwise is definitely a case of rose tinted specs....


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 12:14 am 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2010 1:30 pm
Posts: 566
Location: Prague
We all love retro bikes, but that doesnt mean we have to hide from reality. modern bikes are much lighter.
Most things has been already discussed here.
This is the 140/140 bike i built last year. Its sub 23pounds (10.3kg) and i didnt use any extremely light/expensive stuff. Just very light but pretty standard components.
I could NEVER build it in mid nineties.

Just from the fact that BITD there was:

NO 1300g fork with 140mm travel (probably no 1300g fork at all)
NO 120 g stem i could trust
NO carbon cranks i could trust
NO carbon bars i could trust (let alone 700mm wide)
NO sub 150g saddle i could sit on
NO tubeless
NO sub 500g tires with this thread

i can go on and on..


Attachments:
SIDEweb.jpg
SIDEweb.jpg [ 312.52 KiB | Viewed 85 times ]
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 12:30 am 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 08, 2008 4:18 pm
Posts: 2336
samc wrote:
It's a thousand pound bike (linky) that weighs a shade under 30 lbs! Oh wait, it doesn't come with pedals... let's say 31lbs then.


13.3kg is 29.3lb, which is a little more than "a shade" under 30lb. You'd struggle to get it to 31lb just by adding pedals, unless you've got pedals made of depleted uranium or bits of dwarf star or something :)

Nit-picking pedantry aside, £900 (or £1000) isn't as much money as it was. highlandsflyer may argue that the comparison is "specious", but £900 is a considerably more affordable amount of money now (even In These Tough Economic Times (TM)) than it was twenty years ago. Based on GDP per capita (which correlates reasonably well with average earnings), 1993's £900 thing equates to 2013's £1900 thing. In 1993 £900 was pretty much top of the range for mainstream brands, today it's mid-range. Here's an £1800 Ghost:

http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/Mode ... elID=82985

By a happy coincidence, the claimed weight is... 24lb!

If you want light and cheap, how about 26-27lb (depending on size) for £449?

http://www.islabikes.co.uk/bike_pages/beinn29.html


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 12:36 am 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2010 1:30 pm
Posts: 566
Location: Prague
The problem i see on todays bike industry, that is to me reason for big weights of stock bikes, is marketing segmentation of bikes.

BITD we cross-country and Downhill

now we have CCountry,Trail,allMountain,Enduro,Freeride,Downhill

And the along with travel of the suspension, certain class(and weight) of components got into those boxes aswell and that drives the weight up (most of the times unnecessarily)

So in this respect my personal bike breaks todays rules (and i got some comments like this) because its "all Mountain" and i dare to put on "Cross country" components!

I think here is the secret of the weight of "todays bikes".


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 8:41 am 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 03, 2012 7:13 pm
Posts: 2574
Location: The Cock Inn, Tillett, Herts
For all the science and technology, new bikes are a little soul less. I love them still, but retrobikes of the 80's and 90s are still where its at. Often its the flaws and inadequacies that bestow the character, and character they usually have in spades, boosted by most manufacturers desire at the time to try new things, be individual, develop some feature beyond its rivals. The modern razors are great, but bikes from a time when manufacturers were finding their way still make me smile the most.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 9:13 am 
Retro Guru

Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 9:42 am
Posts: 2367
cce wrote:
Chopper1192 wrote:
I'm not sure how true it is, but Orange reckon no one is developing steel-tubing technology to a significant degree anymore so they're dropped steel in favour of alloy for their HTs. Shame.
That's cobblers (on orange's part). Reynolds have had two new tubesets out over the last few years, and Columbus are pushing back the boundaries of what's possible on wall thickness.
I think what they really mean is that they can't get their bread and butter MTBs knocked out in the far east at £50 a pop, delivered to Southampton Docks if they specify any halfway decent lightweight steel. So they either go scaffolding (a la On-one) or aluminium (as the rest of the market have).


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 161 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 ... 17  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], mattr and 35 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