Retrobike Forum Index

It is currently Wed Nov 21, 2018 3:52 am

* Login   * Register * Search  * FAQ



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 35 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Dec 12, 2017 3:52 pm 
Old School Grand Master

Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 1:55 pm
Posts: 9211
Location: New Forest, UK
The other point they didn't compare was weight - my bet is that the 97 was a kilo or two lighter, even with a suspension fork.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 12, 2017 4:30 pm 
King of the Skip Monkeys
King of the Skip Monkeys

Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2007 4:34 pm
Posts: 29666
Location: in the shed
Thinking further, the article is pretty much pointless.

The modern Kona has a lower unit cost so is far cheaper to build than the older one - ooh, steel spring Suntour forks!

I equate the modern Lava Dome more to the Raleigh Activator II - just because that had the latest 'technology' (suspension), it doesnt mean to say that its any good.

Naive, yes, informative, no. Frame materials? What weird aluminium were planes flying around with 30 40 50 years ago then? Or cars, or bikes etc. etc. Very naive.

As for the modern Kona, you could slap just about any name on that down tube (especially Carrera!) just as you could 20 years ago with many brands. At least the older bike has unique identifiers that made it a Kona. That new bike is just bland.

Nasty forks, nasty chainset, nastier mechs - buy cheap, buy twice

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 12, 2017 4:49 pm 
King of the Skip Monkeys
King of the Skip Monkeys

Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2007 4:34 pm
Posts: 29666
Location: in the shed
al-onestare wrote:
Reposted by Kona themselves...where to start on this article?

http://ride.io/news/bikes-getting-expen ... lava-dome/

    A 97 Lava Dome but it shows a 94 catalogue shot
    The LD wasn't the bottom of the range bike in 97
    I'll take STX over the quality and longevity of that modern drive-train
    The % of disposal income is very different today compared with 97

That said, always nice to see love for perfectly capable steel hard tails!


Always annoys me, these sort of articles (but what doesnt these days?? :lol: ) - totally misinformed wide of the mark hoity toity claptrap. No useful content whatsoever. ''I sell new bicycles, I want you to buy new bicycles because..''



Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 12, 2017 5:43 pm 
Old School Hero

Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2014 2:33 pm
Posts: 193
Location: Germany
Apparently according to the article we were all stupid back in the 90s not riding 29ers.

I don't think current bikes are expensive. Our taste has become expensive because what it should be premium stuff (XT and above) seems to be the bare minimum for many online "experts".

It's pretty much impossible to compare bikes from the 90s to actual ones. Even if accounting for inflation, he's missing a few other points:
-back in the 90's you could outsource to Taiwan, cheaper than US but not rock bottom cheaper like nowadays China & Cambodia where worker rights are a joke
-in the 90s, if you wanted a bike you HAD to go to a bike shop. Now you can go to a bike shop, a sports warehouse, a Korean online shop, etc. So margins are definitely tighter
-in the 90s, the model of this year was maybe 10% different to last year's. Now, last year's Boost X is now Boost B, 29" is gone and here comes 27.5+, etc. So it's easier to get good deals on "obsolete" models.
-many other etc.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:56 pm 
Old School Grand Master

Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 1:55 pm
Posts: 9211
Location: New Forest, UK
Hmm, just had a look...it's 14.9kg!!! 32.8lbs.
That is 3kgs more than the 1997 (11.8kg)...add another 0.5kg for a for swap to suspension.

And all that cock in the article about modern drivetrains and technology, the 2017 is 8 speed...about as high tech as a fax machine.

Just a fat pig, and with Altus kit on it then come back STX, all is forgiven. Yuk.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 12, 2017 8:25 pm 
Retro Guru

Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2009 12:31 pm
Posts: 253
I had a 2013 Cinder Cone. Rode like a big squashy pig. Sold it and got a 1991 Fire Mountain. Loads better. I don't like "modern geometry" - it's not as if the human body has changed shape in 20 years - disc brakes are more trouble than they're worth, riser bars are just awful DH-aping things with no place on an XC bike and you don't need the weight and handling penalty of suspension forks for singletrack.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 12, 2017 8:32 pm 
King of the Skip Monkeys
King of the Skip Monkeys

Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2007 4:34 pm
Posts: 29666
Location: in the shed
Current Altus mechs are very bendy


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 12, 2017 9:06 pm 
retrobike rider / Gold Trader
retrobike rider / Gold Trader

Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 9:48 am
Posts: 7688
Location: Bristol
My inbred is made of pig iron and weighs five or 6 pounds more than my Merlin XLM did. RRP of the whole bike is probably half what the XLM frame RRP'ed at back in the day

It's faster everywhere except up smooth climbs and on roads.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 12, 2017 9:12 pm 
King of the Skip Monkeys
King of the Skip Monkeys

Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2007 4:34 pm
Posts: 29666
Location: in the shed
cce wrote:
My inbred is made of pig iron and weighs five or 6 pounds more than my Merlin XLM did. RRP of the whole bike is probably half what the XLM frame RRP'ed at back in the day

It's faster everywhere except up smooth climbs and on roads.


Kind of pointless then? :lol: :facepalm:

I have to be honest, I didnt like my Inbred for the exact reason that it didnt go uphill very well.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 13, 2017 12:44 pm 
Old School Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 2:33 am
Posts: 3593
Location: daaan saaaf
Up until the mid 90s and the advent of fairly long travel suspension and suspension corrected frame geometry, ATB/MTB frame geometry wasn't that far removed from a road/touring bike and as such, slap a set of road tyres and it made a robust and capable touring or commuter bike.

I think modern MTBs are much more wholly off-road focused and no longer make a passable road bike with just a tyre change.

This may be in part due to the fact that more people now will drive to the start of a known route and do an entirely off-road ride. Whereas I used to, and still do, set of from home on the bike and go out and explore, which would often involve a fair amount of riding on tarmac.

I wonder if the age that people start riding has also changed. Reading posts on the forum, many of us started riding as teenagers, before we could drive, so driving to a ride wasn't an option. When I was a teenager, most kids had a bicycle, even if they weren't "into cycling" specifically, they would occasionally use one for getting about on, or perhaps riding to school on.

The number of cars blocking the roads around schools in the morning and evening would suggest that children these days are ferried around in cars far more than they used to be. When I was at both primary and secondary school, only a handful of children were driven to and from school, the vast majority of us walked, cycled or got the bus. I imagine that far fewer children have a bicycle these days than used to be the case, so perhaps those that start cycling do so later.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 35 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ridevintagemtb, rjsdavis, VanIsle and 9 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