Retrobike Forum Index

It is currently Fri Dec 02, 2016 9:26 pm

* Login   * Register * Search  * FAQ



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 161 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 17  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Mar 22, 2013 2:22 pm 
South East Deputy AEC
South East Deputy AEC
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 7:27 pm
Posts: 4397
Location: Angmering
Rob H wrote:
Prehaps light weight isn't the be all and end all:

http://www.bmj.com/content/341/bmj.c6801

I'm sure you could pick a million and one holes in the study and come up with a plethora of reasons why it's not applicable to mountain biking but it makes for an interesting read all the same.


I enjoyed that, ta


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 22, 2013 2:51 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 08, 2008 4:18 pm
Posts: 2336
mattr wrote:
Now, suspension travel and the number of pointless pivots and mm of travel you have are king. Hardtails are a far smaller percentage of the (much bigger) market. So far more people are riding 35lb+ full sussers than ever were. And they look for MORE travel, MORE strength, so everything gets heavier......... a lot of them can't ride for toffee either ;o)


There really aren't that many people riding 35lb+ FS bikes on normal trails. Mostly it's sub-30lb 120mm ish bikes. Most people were riding barely sub-30lb bikes twenty years ago too. Also the MTB market isn't bigger, it's been pretty much flat for quite a few years now. There are more expensive bikes available, and people are buying bikes more often or owning more than one bike.

Regardless of that, I'm not sure that an early-90s 23lb race hardtail is any more suitable for all-round trail riding than an overweight, over-travel FS bike. Differently unsuitable, perhaps ;)

mattr wrote:
I wouldn't be at all surprised in the major market share for enthusiast sales is now the 1000-1500 full sussers. 20 years ago it was the equivalent value on HTs. (allowing for inflation of course!)


Seems fair. But my essential point stands -- there's a difference between "heavy modern bikes are available and some people choose to ride them" and "modern bikes are heavy".


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 22, 2013 2:57 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 10:28 am
Posts: 274
Location: Sheffield
I'm pretty sure my 1999 Rockhopper was roughly 30lb with pedals.

To be honest, losing weight off my body seemed a better solution than seeking ultra-lightweight bikes.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 22, 2013 3:03 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 10:28 am
Posts: 274
Location: Sheffield
I'm a crap rider no matter what I'm riding. On serious trails though, my Norco full susser is more comfy, and as some have said, lets me get away with stuff I wouldn't be able to ride otherwise, much as the advent of sticky rubber (and chalk) probably added a grade to my climbing ability way back in the past.

Oh and the Norco weighs about 30lb too, so similar to the old Rocky.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 22, 2013 3:10 pm 
Old School Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:56 pm
Posts: 4776
Location: No brakes? Way to commit soldier.
In 1991 I was riding a Raleigh Dynatech Mission that weighed 28lbs. It was fully rigid, canti braked.

I'm now riding (amongst others) a Whyte T120s, full suspension, disc brakes etc. It weighs 28lbs.

Modern bikes heavier? Nope, its just not true.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 22, 2013 3:28 pm 
Old School Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2006 12:33 pm
Posts: 11103
Location: The Home Of Mountain Biking, And All Great Things.
I would say the average mid range bike of 2013 is heavier than the same of 1998.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 22, 2013 3:32 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 08, 2008 4:18 pm
Posts: 2336
Russell wrote:
In 1991 I was riding a Raleigh Dynatech Mission that weighed 28lbs. It was fully rigid, canti braked.

I'm now riding (amongst others) a Whyte T120s, full suspension, disc brakes etc. It weighs 28lbs.

Modern bikes heavier? Nope, its just not true.


QFT.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 22, 2013 3:35 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 08, 2008 4:18 pm
Posts: 2336
highlandsflyer wrote:
I would say the average mid range bike of 2013 is heavier than the same of 1998.


Thing is that there are so many different kinds of bikes now that "average mid range bike" is kind of hard to define. When everything was a rigid bike you just had one continuum from "cheap and heavy" to "light and expensive" and you could easily point at "mid range". Nowadays, not so much.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 22, 2013 4:01 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 11:07 pm
Posts: 1592
Location: muddy fields, usually
MikeD, what are you doing, talking sense!? It'll never catch on... ;)

I'm going to throw the Boardman HT Pro Carbon into the ring: 23.8lbs, full carbon monocoque, full SRAM X9, SID RLT forks, top-spec Elixir CR brakes, £1600.

1992 equivalent price £915. What cost £915 back then, and was it as high-spec'd?

I love retrobikes, don't get me wrong, but some of the misconceptions about newer stuff are just laughable.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 22, 2013 4:11 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2010 9:00 pm
Posts: 392
gradeAfailure wrote:
Boardman HT Pro Carbon into the ring: 23.8lbs, full carbon monocoque, full SRAM X9, SID RLT forks, top-spec Elixir CR brakes, £1600.

1992 equivalent price £915. What cost £915 back then, and was it as high-spec'd?

I love retrobikes, don't get me wrong, but some of the misconceptions about newer stuff are just laughable.



23.8lbs is without pedals. So not sub-24 lbs. In the 90s, £900 ish would get you quite a lot (certainly sub-24lbs, even steel framed), and a loaf of bread and a flat cap. The point is not that light bikes don't exist these days, it's that they could be eeeven lighter, for eeeeven less.

And although reviews sites might weigh the test bikes, I bet if you walk into Halfords they'll show you a Boardman without any idea of the weight; it's just not on radar.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 161 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 17  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Factory Jackson, scottproonly, Thias, xxnick1975 and 36 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