Getting used to a modern bike?
- Thread starter jonboy
- Start date
:roll:
- Feedback
- View
Anyway <shoves LGF aside>, it is 2021 soon and the most recent bike I've ridden is 2012 models of all types.
9 years on and there is absolutely no comparison between those and something new although its rumoured the bottle cages are transferable.
I would like to try something new but I think I have missed the boat on being able to actually afford anything, even if I sold all the old tat in the garage, a 'reasonable' 2021 Giant Trance or a Bergamont Trailster sits at around £2800 - will certainly have a think for next year.
Looking at the new stuff out and about, we're finding even ten speed gets bunged up very quickly and theres some nasty cheap brake pads out there. And we're being bullied by the ebikers which is not nice.
But we're still riding older 26 and we ride to what we have - that Strava tells us we're doing quite well :xmas-big-grin:
...and I find my roadie shape still likes the 44t front and 28t rear for where we ride (which is flat!) and relatively narrow bars.
I'd probably love it/ hate it/ worry too much about what 'standards' I'd nailed my flag to as something new pops up for 2023
<goes off to the shed to see what he can sell>
*from the friends of friends that have very new bikes, they have suffered from very quick bearing/ seal failures on Hope bikes and Specialized but thats friends of friends*
9 years on and there is absolutely no comparison between those and something new although its rumoured the bottle cages are transferable.
I would like to try something new but I think I have missed the boat on being able to actually afford anything, even if I sold all the old tat in the garage, a 'reasonable' 2021 Giant Trance or a Bergamont Trailster sits at around £2800 - will certainly have a think for next year.
Looking at the new stuff out and about, we're finding even ten speed gets bunged up very quickly and theres some nasty cheap brake pads out there. And we're being bullied by the ebikers which is not nice.
But we're still riding older 26 and we ride to what we have - that Strava tells us we're doing quite well :xmas-big-grin:
...and I find my roadie shape still likes the 44t front and 28t rear for where we ride (which is flat!) and relatively narrow bars.
I'd probably love it/ hate it/ worry too much about what 'standards' I'd nailed my flag to as something new pops up for 2023
<goes off to the shed to see what he can sell>
*from the friends of friends that have very new bikes, they have suffered from very quick bearing/ seal failures on Hope bikes and Specialized but thats friends of friends*
2manyoranges
Old School Grand Master
- Feedback
- View
Re:
Big Cheese....ah....not sure you need to blow quite so much...and not sure you need a double bouncer. The new generation of hard tails are incredibly capable, cheaper to run than FS, and can crash through most things. For sure not with the straight-line ploughing of a 160-at-both-ends enduro rig, but anyway, I prefer a little finesse. I was sold a 27.5 wheeled Ragley mmmBop frame on here by a kind soul, with an excellent Mattoc 170 fork attached. Thoughtfully overforked, just how I like them, so I can then run at 30-35% sag. Wheels were 300gbp from TrueWheels (Hope, Hope and Sapim) and 35mm internal. Transmission was around 150gbp. Nukeproof carbon bars from CRC at 49.00gbp. Nice. The whole build was well under 1000gbp and it’s top kit throughout. This is a sensationally capable bike, and bejezzers is it fast and stable downhill.
Big Cheese....ah....not sure you need to blow quite so much...and not sure you need a double bouncer. The new generation of hard tails are incredibly capable, cheaper to run than FS, and can crash through most things. For sure not with the straight-line ploughing of a 160-at-both-ends enduro rig, but anyway, I prefer a little finesse. I was sold a 27.5 wheeled Ragley mmmBop frame on here by a kind soul, with an excellent Mattoc 170 fork attached. Thoughtfully overforked, just how I like them, so I can then run at 30-35% sag. Wheels were 300gbp from TrueWheels (Hope, Hope and Sapim) and 35mm internal. Transmission was around 150gbp. Nukeproof carbon bars from CRC at 49.00gbp. Nice. The whole build was well under 1000gbp and it’s top kit throughout. This is a sensationally capable bike, and bejezzers is it fast and stable downhill.
Re:
I'm 6'1" and I've always preferred to have a medium in road or mtb. When I bought my first modern full suspension and it was a new 2016 specialized camber in medium as that's what I always had. After a while it just didn't feel right so I purchased a longer stem ( it came with a very short stuby stem as standard). This made my rides more enjoyable as I wasn't hunched up. I sold that bike and my next was a large, I don't like the look of large framed bikes but unfortunately that's what I need. I would never get a medium again as it's just too small for me.
I'm 6'1" and I've always preferred to have a medium in road or mtb. When I bought my first modern full suspension and it was a new 2016 specialized camber in medium as that's what I always had. After a while it just didn't feel right so I purchased a longer stem ( it came with a very short stuby stem as standard). This made my rides more enjoyable as I wasn't hunched up. I sold that bike and my next was a large, I don't like the look of large framed bikes but unfortunately that's what I need. I would never get a medium again as it's just too small for me.
Bit worried this is what a large will feel like. :facepalm:Re: Re:
Looking through all the comments and advice that have been thoughtfully offered, I think it's about 5 x 'go large' (size up) versus 4 x 'go medium' (size down). So a pretty split set of opinions.
I called the shop earlier this week and changed my order from a Medium to a Large after having spent last weekend worrying my choice of medium was wrong! (I suspect the shop owner has just about had enough and can't wait to see the back of me - It's taken me 5 weeks and 3 changes of mind to now be committed to a large which should be ready to pick up next week).
kalex":2hv9w4bt said:
Looking through all the comments and advice that have been thoughtfully offered, I think it's about 5 x 'go large' (size up) versus 4 x 'go medium' (size down). So a pretty split set of opinions.
I called the shop earlier this week and changed my order from a Medium to a Large after having spent last weekend worrying my choice of medium was wrong! (I suspect the shop owner has just about had enough and can't wait to see the back of me - It's taken me 5 weeks and 3 changes of mind to now be committed to a large which should be ready to pick up next week).
Re: Re:
I think you've hit the nail on the head with this comment - the reach could be the most critical measurement. (vertically above BB, horizontal measurement to the centre of head tube)
This is relevant to being stood on the pedals, rather than in a seated position. If your preferred type of riding is about being in the 'attack position', then the seat tube angle and effective top tube measurements become less relevant. If the sort of riding you do is more seated then the consideration of top tube length becomes more important as well as the reach.
When comparing modern geometry to retro, my thinking is you need to add the stem length (horizontal component not actual stem length) to the reach to make the comparison meaningful.
Eg: Modern bike size large: 18.9" reach + 1.7" stem = 20.6"
1994 19" Spec FSR: 16.5" reach + 3.5" stem = 19.8"
Wider handlebars will also add about another 0.5" to the effective reach, over a retro bar width, which I guess should also be considered.
The above sized bikes are/were aimed at a similar height rider. So is it to be expected that a modern geometry bike have a circa 1" longer reach?
2manyoranges":1ei8syx3 said:
I think you've hit the nail on the head with this comment - the reach could be the most critical measurement. (vertically above BB, horizontal measurement to the centre of head tube)
This is relevant to being stood on the pedals, rather than in a seated position. If your preferred type of riding is about being in the 'attack position', then the seat tube angle and effective top tube measurements become less relevant. If the sort of riding you do is more seated then the consideration of top tube length becomes more important as well as the reach.
When comparing modern geometry to retro, my thinking is you need to add the stem length (horizontal component not actual stem length) to the reach to make the comparison meaningful.
Eg: Modern bike size large: 18.9" reach + 1.7" stem = 20.6"
1994 19" Spec FSR: 16.5" reach + 3.5" stem = 19.8"
Wider handlebars will also add about another 0.5" to the effective reach, over a retro bar width, which I guess should also be considered.
The above sized bikes are/were aimed at a similar height rider. So is it to be expected that a modern geometry bike have a circa 1" longer reach?
Similar threads
