Retrobike Forum Index

It is currently Sun Dec 04, 2016 7:25 pm

* Login   * Register * Search  * FAQ



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 208 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 21  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Is Retro faster?
PostPosted: Tue Jul 30, 2013 9:55 pm 
BoTY Winner
BoTY Winner
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 6:39 pm
Posts: 2568
Location: Durango CO, USA
ultrazenith wrote:
Interesting. So the added weight of modern 26ers doesn't make all that much difference, after all. Is the difference in speed down to the decent suspension forks?


That, plus with tubeless technology you can safely run much less pressure in your tires. In my racing day I was comfortable only with 40-42psi. Now without tubes, if I have anything over 20lbs on my modern 26" hardtail I feel like I'm getting the crap beat of me.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is Retro faster?
PostPosted: Tue Jul 30, 2013 10:04 pm 
Old School Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:56 pm
Posts: 4776
Location: No brakes? Way to commit soldier.
ultrazenith wrote:
jimo746 wrote:
In the real world a modern bike is indeed quicker than a retro bike over the same course.


Interesting. So the added weight of modern 26ers doesn't make all that much difference, after all. Is the difference in speed down to the decent suspension forks?



Have you seen how light a modern 26" bike is?

I have modern bikes with disc brakes and full suspension that weigh less than the rigid, canti braked retro bikes that sit next to them in my garage.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is Retro faster?
PostPosted: Tue Jul 30, 2013 10:12 pm 
Old School Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2006 12:33 pm
Posts: 11105
Location: The Home Of Mountain Biking, And All Great Things.
It really depends on the application and the price point.

£500 will not buy you anything new that will match up to a £500 1997 s/hand bike, if you are looking for a light xc machine. Bar the original forks, everything else on the 97 bike should be much higher quality.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is Retro faster?
PostPosted: Tue Jul 30, 2013 10:29 pm 
Retro Guru

Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2013 2:57 pm
Posts: 1301
Location: Porto / Plymouth
Russell wrote:
Have you seen how light a modern 26" bike is?

I have modern bikes with disc brakes and full suspension that weigh less than the rigid, canti braked retro bikes that sit next to them in my garage.


From browsing my local shop, and reading the odd review, I gather that a rigid 26" at a price point of 1000 pounds weighs in at about 13 kg (29 lb). Initially I was surprised, but I guess the long travel forks add a kg or so, and the additional cost of the forks means the other components need to be cheaper. It's possible I was looking at 29ers by mistake, perhaps :oops:

My rigid 96 Diamond Back Apex weighs roughly 11 kg, without having made much effort to use the lightest parts (hope hub aside). I guess weight isn't all that important anyway, and riders / speccers have figured that out after the 90s weight weenie madness. What different does an extra kg make to a 75 kg rider+bike combo? 1-2% difference in total weight.


Last edited by ultrazenith on Tue Jul 30, 2013 10:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is Retro faster?
PostPosted: Tue Jul 30, 2013 10:31 pm 
King of the Skip Monkeys
King of the Skip Monkeys
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2007 4:34 pm
Posts: 26154
Location: Moomin Valley
I remember how much 'faster' I could go in 1993 when I bought a Zaskar to replace the then rather old fashioned, yet only two years old, lugged steel 531 Magnum Claud Butler and what a revelation it all was.

I just dont get that same feeling when out on a new high end MTB, something is missing and I dont know what it is.

Road bikes, different ball game, they are just mental and I love it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is Retro faster?
PostPosted: Tue Jul 30, 2013 10:32 pm 
King of the Skip Monkeys
King of the Skip Monkeys
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2007 4:34 pm
Posts: 26154
Location: Moomin Valley
highlandsflyer wrote:
It really depends on the application and the price point.

£500 will not buy you anything new that will match up to a £500 1997 s/hand bike, if you are looking for a light xc machine. Bar the original forks, everything else on the 97 bike should be much higher quality.


£500 bikes are monkey metal and cheese, all the bells an whistles to look good but perform badly


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is Retro faster?
PostPosted: Tue Jul 30, 2013 10:35 pm 
Old School Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2006 12:33 pm
Posts: 11105
Location: The Home Of Mountain Biking, And All Great Things.
£1000 would put you together a super spec Ti 'retro' machine with modern forks.

"£500 bikes are monkey metal and cheese, all the bells an whistles to look good but perform badly"

Concur 100% LGF, yet £500 will buy you an excellent lightweight 'retro' xc steed.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is Retro faster?
PostPosted: Tue Jul 30, 2013 10:38 pm 
Retro Guru

Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2013 2:57 pm
Posts: 1301
Location: Porto / Plymouth
Yeah I remember getting my Ti / Alu / cromo M Trax 400 in 1994 after years of riding a Raleigh Marauder, it was a quantum leap and a half. My MTB buddies were literally queuing up to take it for a spin around the block.

Going off topic for a moment, which suspension forks are thought to work well with mid 90s hardtail frames? Forgetting about keeping the period look.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is Retro faster?
PostPosted: Tue Jul 30, 2013 10:41 pm 
Old School Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2006 12:33 pm
Posts: 11105
Location: The Home Of Mountain Biking, And All Great Things.
Depends on the design of the frame, but guessing you would be talking less than four inches of travel generally for that era, so any Fox Float with around the same travel 100/80/60mm would work well.


Last edited by highlandsflyer on Tue Jul 30, 2013 10:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is Retro faster?
PostPosted: Tue Jul 30, 2013 10:43 pm 
Retro Guru

Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2013 2:57 pm
Posts: 1301
Location: Porto / Plymouth
highlandsflyer wrote:
Depends on the design of the frame, but guessing you would be talking less than four inches of travel generally for that era, so any Fox Float with around the same travel 100/80mm would work well.


Might a Dynatech / M Trax bonded Ti frame. Essentially, I don't want to rip the head tube off!


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 208 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 21  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: boswell, Klein-aficionado, shinobi 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