Retrobike Forum Index

It is currently Sat Dec 03, 2016 3:29 am

* Login   * Register * Search  * FAQ



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 161 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 ... 17  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Mar 23, 2013 9:09 pm 
Old School Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:56 pm
Posts: 4776
Location: No brakes? Way to commit soldier.
Quoted weight of the 'AA' in the '94 catalogue is 25.9lbs, in fact, only two bikes in that year from Kona were below 24lbs, the Kula and the Hei Hei. I'm pretty confident that they were a lot more than £900.

Kona really were clever with their kit, they pushed the lightweight angle, speccing mix and match groupsets to prove that you didn't have to bend over for Shimano and that you could build a lighter bike by not doing so. With their long top tubes, they have a very modern geometry too, slap some decent disc brakes on some of their high end bikes from '95-'96 and you'd struggle to find a better bike today.... almost ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 23, 2013 9:41 pm 
Old School Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2006 12:33 pm
Posts: 11104
Location: The Home Of Mountain Biking, And All Great Things.
Russell wrote:
I've not seen any evidence here yet that in the '90s (up to 1997, as defines retro) you could get a sub 24lb hardtail for £900 or less, so I'm calling it... Pound (£) for pound (lb) modern bikes are lighter than their retro equivalents. Flicking through the archive has also revealed that manufacturers BITD were every bit as elusive with quoting weights as they are these days... Rose tinted indeed :)


You just don't seem interested in the facts laid before you.

http://www.bikepedia.com/QuickBike/BikeSpecs.aspx?Year=1995&Brand=Diamondback&Model=WCF+Vertex&Type=bike#.UU4S-ldON2g

And as I said, things were different back then. Most catalogue spec were only a rough outline, you specced the forks you wanted at point of purchase.

Plenty of the Marin models came in under that weight with the forks that were around then.

The whole thing about comparing £900 is specious too, as I pointed out.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 23, 2013 10:42 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 9:02 pm
Posts: 1180
Location: In the Garage in Somerset
At the end of the day I think many of the quoted weights were "fictional" it depends very much on the manufacturer.

For example

I have a lovely control centre headset for a Kona still in the box, box says 130g, my scales say 150g (and that's without any grease in it!),

However

I have an Orange C16r frame (17in) that the catalogue says weighs 1940g my scales say 1939g!

Orange were accurate & honest and even quoted different frame weights for different sizes, Kona bent the truth it seems...

I'm a bit of a weight weenie could you tell? :oops:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 23, 2013 11:05 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:
You just don't seem interested in the facts laid before you.

http://www.bikepedia.com/QuickBike/BikeSpecs.aspx?Year=1995&Brand=Diamondback&Model=WCF+Vertex&Type=bike#.UU4S-ldON2g

And as I said, things were different back then. Most catalogue spec were only a rough outline, you specced the forks you wanted at point of purchase.

Plenty of the Marin models came in under that weight with the forks that were around then.

The whole thing about comparing £900 is specious too, as I pointed out.


:facepalm:

nope...

:facepalm: :facepalm:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:58 am 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2012 10:04 pm
Posts: 660
Location: cornwall
Russell wrote:
Kona really were clever with their kit, they pushed the lightweight angle, speccing mix and match groupsets to prove that you didn't have to bend over for Shimano and that you could build a lighter bike by not doing so. With their long top tubes, they have a very modern geometry too, slap some decent disc brakes on some of their high end bikes from '95-'96 and you'd struggle to find a better bike today.... almost ;)


This.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 24, 2013 1:33 am 
MacRetro rider
MacRetro rider
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 22, 2010 7:25 pm
Posts: 4977
Location: Edinburgh
The weights quoted as someone said were a bit "optimistic"

It's like when American car manufacturers in the 60's quoted things like 500bhp for a top of the line Mustang. It wasn't but people bought into the hype.

And also a good point someone made earlier about the modern safety standards.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 24, 2013 10:23 am 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 9:27 pm
Posts: 694
Location: Norway
Pyro Tim wrote:
It's happened in cars. The Mark 1 Golf GTI is still the fastest made Golf GTI, as the new ones are so heavy


That was actually true for the mark II and III but from the Mark IV and later models this statement is not very true.

...but I will say one thing about this.....I have driven all from Mark I to IV and the one that felt fastest was the Mark I with the original 1,6 110 HP engine even though the Mark IV was actually faster.

:-)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 24, 2013 4:56 pm 
Old School Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2006 12:33 pm
Posts: 11104
Location: The Home Of Mountain Biking, And All Great Things.
Russell wrote:
I've not seen any evidence here yet that in the '90s (up to 1997, as defines retro) you could get a sub 24lb hardtail for £900 or less, so I'm calling it... Pound (£) for pound (lb) modern bikes are lighter than their retro equivalents.


Russell wrote:
highlandsflyer wrote:
You just don't seem interested in the facts laid before you.

http://www.bikepedia.com/QuickBike/BikeSpecs.aspx?Year=1995&Brand=Diamondback&Model=WCF+Vertex&Type=bike#.UU4S-ldON2g

And as I said, things were different back then. Most catalogue spec were only a rough outline, you specced the forks you wanted at point of purchase.

Plenty of the Marin models came in under that weight with the forks that were around then.

The whole thing about comparing £900 is specious too, as I pointed out.


:facepalm:

nope...

:facepalm: :facepalm:


Interesting reaction to your assertion being inaccurate.

I will say again, in my view the average mid range modern bike is heavier.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 24, 2013 5:17 pm 
Old School Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:56 pm
Posts: 4776
Location: No brakes? Way to commit soldier.
Not really, every thread you participate in where some one disagrees with your view ends up in a pointless last word competition between you and A.N.Other, I've no desire to do that to this thread. You've expressed your opinion which differs from mine, I'm happy leaving it at that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 24, 2013 5:24 pm 
retrobike rider / Gold Trader
retrobike rider / Gold Trader

Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 9:48 am
Posts: 6974
Location: Bristle
highlandsflyer wrote:

I will say again, in my view the average mid range modern bike is heavier.



It's also stronger, stops better and more capable in a wider range of conditions


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 161 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 ... 17  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: mkone and 41 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