Ugly modern bikes

yagamuffin":230m2r2f said:

If we compare like for like then yes they are all ugly in comparison with their ancestors. And even worse, they all look the same.

Take a look at a 2012 Kona, Specialized, Marin, Scott, Trek et al. They all look the bloody same. Boring, basic colours, with stripy stickers.

A Facebook friend posted a pic of his new road bike yesterday - I couldn't actually tell what make it was.

Look back 20 years. Even the cheaper models, the Rockhoppers, Lava Domes and Bear Valleys all had their own distinct style.

I realise a lot of it is down to the industry reaching a design zenith. The curved downtube, regular stays, long travel, aluminium frame is the best, most cost effective way to do bikes but they could still employ some designers to give each bike it's own identity.

I guess we were just lucky to be around when the manufacturers were still experimenting. E-stays, steel, various alloys, different angles. We were lucky.

I feel sorry for the kids today, all essentially riding exactly the same bloody bike!

Click to expand...

Brilliantly put

The early 90s was a great period in terms of experimentation with design and function, hence the myriad of wacky designs - most with little or no engineering science behind them, hence why they generally didn't work all that well.

The huge increses in CAD technology and finite element analysis has allowed designers and engineers to whittle down the pool of concepts and eliminate those which don't really work, so we're now left with a few known good concepts.

The work now is in the refinement, which is why many designs look broadly similar to an unfamiliar eye, but the movement of a pivot by a few mm here or there, or the change in progression ratio can have a vey large effect on how a bike feels and rides.

I can look at a silhouette of a bike from the last few years and give you a very good guess as to what it is. Try doing that with bikes from 20 years ago! Very often all that was different was the colour...

A lot of it depends on what you want from a bike - if your riding is of the less stressful (on the bike) nature, then I can completely understand why you would eschew proper suspension, hydraulic discs, etc. If you want to tear-arse down rock- and root-strewn trails at warp factor 9, be able to one-finger brake with complete confidence at the lat minute and so on, you won't find a better tool that a modern FS.

I don't need full suspension, far from it - but it's allowed me to ride at speeds and on trails I previously hadn't thought possible - which brings with it its own set of challenges and skills. Sure, hop on a 6" travel bike and ride the same trails at the same speed and it's going to feel dulled down and numb. Step out of your comfort zone and push yourself and you'd be surprised what you'd be capable of.

Don't feel sorry for the kids of today (patronising, much?), they're having too much fun on their bikes...

Hey, patronising kids is one of the few benefits of growing old!

gradeAfailure":c6uvwddr said:

The early 90s was a great period in terms of experimentation with design and function, hence the myriad of wacky designs - most with little or no engineering science behind them, hence why they generally didn't work all that well.

Click to expand...

It's no surprise that most of the bounce designs that actually work came from bigger companies really

I do think that's modern hard tails are more pleasing in terms of design and aesthetics than full sussers, and titanium and steel bikes are top of the pile in terms of looks. And the more one pays the trend is more towards nicer more elegant design. Apart from canondales and such monsters, god awful looking things.

Let's post some pictures and discuss?

http://www.cotic.co.uk/product/rocket



British-designed, 150mm full suspension, steel front triangle, lots of lovely design touches. Price for the basic Float R-equipped model equivalent to £800 back in 1992 - that wouldn't get you a Yo frame back then.

[/img]

ibbz":38mye95f said:

...And the more one pays the trend is more towards nicer more elegant design.

Click to expand...

Yes nice understated design is still out there.

One thing I don't like is that modern tyres and wheels need to have all these logos, grapics, or go faster stripes all over them.

There's different mindsets too. I have friends that say things like colour don't matter.
But to me it bloody does matter.

While I agree that some modern bikes look horrid (I'm looking at you bendy down tube, looks like you've been crashed ht!) I think there's some serious rose tinted specs being worn here. A lot of the mid 90's fs bikes were boggin and to make it worse, didn't work. As others have said, take the paint off many old steel bikes and you'd have to know your beans to tell the difference.

Those saying there's no need for this fork, that sus etc need to remember it's just the natural progression of what went before. Since sus first came out we all wanted more travel, smoother action etc on the next big thing. Front suspension has been a must have for most since the early 90's. Check out an MBUK from around 1994 and see how many rigid bikes are on test. If one of these modern bikes had been released bitd most of us here would have fallen over ourselves to get one.

Looking at my modern bikes, the 2007 Clockwork looks like a standard steel frame bike and can run 100mm forks (just the same as late 90's bikes) and the 2009 5 is a single pivot that looks similar to many early fs to me. :?

Things change but that doesn't make them bad. Not every bike in the 90's was a fillet brazed, hand crafted beauty

Modern , Yes. Light , yes. Brakes that work at any speed without needing vice fingers, yes. Forks that take the pounding out of the front end so I can ride all day and still work the following day, yes. Good choice of smooth shifting gears so I can tackle varied terrain, yes. fast rolling tyres so I don't have to pedal as hard , yes. Simple and reliable wash it and put it away till next time yes.
Pig ugly , no.
Enough said.
Matthew

you've gone and bent your down tube...