Retrobike Forum Index

It is currently Sun Dec 04, 2016 1:01 am

* Login   * Register * Search  * FAQ



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 26 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Jun 09, 2013 10:58 pm 
Dirt Disciple

Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2012 8:35 pm
Posts: 50
Location: Durham
Is there a comparable difference between the retro race specced xc bikes and the current race spec xc bikes?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 10, 2013 12:53 am 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 1:14 am
Posts: 1871
Location: Kuranda DH circa 1991
sadly, the modern hardtail is becoming a 29er. some of which handle OK, but many of which simply feel like a fast rolling tool with very little rider feedback and engagement.

my (probably now retro) 2007 8500 Trek Hardtail rides like an absolute dream compared to any retro bike i have ever owned.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 10, 2013 1:48 am 
retrobike rider
retrobike rider
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2011 1:32 am
Posts: 1594
Location: Worcestershire / West Midlands
Most modern hardtail I've tried is a kona chute and agree that the bars aroundbyour ears thing feels really weird. Not sure I like. Happier with the riding position on mt Zaskar.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 10, 2013 7:02 am 
Retro Guru

Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 9:42 am
Posts: 2363
Ruffnek wrote:
Is there a comparable difference between the retro race specced xc bikes and the current race spec xc bikes?
Not really. My mid/late 90s Ti XC HTs are both very similar to ride to my "still available in the shops" Carbon XC HT which is what i went to when the 90's got retired.

Top tube is a bit longer, stem is a bit shorter, but then, a zaskar TT was ~15mm longer than my Ti, so no surprise there, and there is an extra 30 odd mm of travel up front. There is also half a degree on the head angle, but the suspension actually works on the new bike, and it sits further into the travel, so its not that noticeable (nice active air/oil forks are so much better than elastomer!)

Thing is, back in the 90s, almost all HTs were fairly racy, there wasn't this "do it all" hardcore HT bracket, people just put short stems and wide bars on their XC HT frame. And tried to break them. Probably explains the rarity of the Zaskar!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2013 3:26 pm 
retrobike rider
retrobike rider
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2011 10:42 pm
Posts: 2189
Location: milton keynes
I had a go on a ridgeback 2013 model hydroformed blah blah, it was very nice. then I got back on my fisher. that was very nice but in a way that I felt like 25 years ago. now i take the fisher and feel like I have bottled my youth.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 12, 2013 11:19 am 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 1:31 pm
Posts: 2366
Location: The Cave of Shame
I'm confuzzled by all the different ghettos MTB have been lumped in whilst I've not been paying attention.

What's the difference between Trail and XC? Is the first closest to a "do it all" fire road to woodland tracks type pootling bike and the second more of a race/trail Center beasty?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 12, 2013 11:29 am 
King of the Skip Monkeys
King of the Skip Monkeys
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2007 4:34 pm
Posts: 26146
Location: Moomin Valley
The cynical would reply 'Its 20 years of trying to market the same thing over and over again with a tweek to an oil bath here or a new paint scheme there'

The cynical mind you...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 12, 2013 11:39 am 
BoTM Winner / retrobike rider
BoTM Winner / retrobike rider
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 8:24 pm
Posts: 5667
Location: Dorset
secret_squirrel wrote:
I'm confuzzled by all the different ghettos MTB have been lumped in whilst I've not been paying attention.

What's the difference between Trail and XC? Is the first closest to a "do it all" fire road to woodland tracks type pootling bike and the second more of a race/trail Center beasty?


My take on this would be that an XC bike has the emphasis on lightness, and would have a more modest (by todays standard!) 100mm fork, while a trail bike would have a bit more travel and a slightly more relaxed geometry.
LGF is correct though, it's mainly marketing bollox!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 12, 2013 1:40 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 3:21 pm
Posts: 823
Location: County Antrim
Ruffnek wrote:
Is there a comparable difference between the retro race specced xc bikes and the current race spec xc bikes?



I'd say there's quite a few differences. This is the bike Jaroslav Kulhavy rode to Olympic gold -

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 12, 2013 2:11 pm 
Retro Guru

Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 9:42 am
Posts: 2363
Fudd wrote:
I'd say there's quite a few differences. This is the bike Jaroslav Kulhavy rode to Olympic gold
Odd looking hardtail.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 26 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: boswell, mechanical_vandal, rc200ti and 31 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