Is Retro faster?

[PeterPerfect]

Re: The Lard Factior

How true. All these weight weenies and their energy drinks. Their bikes are crap and will probably be recycled into toilet roll holders. True bikes stand the test of time which none of this current rubbish will.

 

[Silvergoat]

Re:

"Marginal gains", as the mantra goes. Slip streaming a London bus on the CS8, I can coast through Battersea to Vauxhall at roughly 33mph. I'm running a 7speed drivetrain (28-11t & single 46t ring) on 26 x 2.0 Onza Canis pumped to 45psi. This means I can get from Wimbledon to Waterloo sub 35 minutes, giving me some quality time snaffling cake and coffee whilst watching the skaters at Southbank.

 

[marge602]

Re:

I'll weigh in...
I spent most of last year putting my Genesis Latitude together, as and when funds allowed. It has big 120mm forks, 27.5 tubeless tyres that I can run at lower pressures for increased grip and comfort, powerful brakes and an upright riding position. It's also, as has been mentioned before, a weighty beast, around 29lbs.

My '95 Kilauea on the other hand has a long and low riding position, lightweight wheels and tyres that spin up easily and sharp and precise handling. It weighs around 26lbs.

The loop around my local woods is exactly 5 miles long. I've been round it plenty of times on the Kona, and if I really push it, can do a lap in just over 20 mins. I typically do 3-4 laps, and record it all using the Strava app on my phone. First time out on the Genesis was a few weeks ago, just finding my feet with it so to speak. Definitely felt slower up the hills, the extra weight making itself apparent. Obviously faster down the hills, and probably quicker through the nasty rocky section that has the Kilauea bouncing around a fair bit. On balance though, I'd have said my 20 odd year old Kona was the faster of the two.

Therefore, I was rather surprised to find out that when I went all out for one lap on the Genesis, the Strava verified time was only a handful of seconds slower than my quickest time on the Kilauea. Effectively, over 5 miles of varied terrain, no difference. I guess retro feels faster, but two decades of mtb development means that modern just works more efficiently.

Regards

Marge

 

[bm0p700f]

I have mtb's all rigid. 2 are 29er's both have a low position i.e i am quite aero on them. One of the bikes is a single speed. The other two are early 90's bikes both set up with an aeroish position both are quick bikes for retro's. I feel like and am a slow lumbering dinosaur on the old bikes. The modern 29er's and the gary fisher is not even that modern are quite abot quicker everywhere. Over rough ground i can ride the 29er at a faster pace, i can put more effort in si,plh because the bikes handle lumps and bumps better.

I remember my first race on my 29er. I was 10th. Never managed that before. I was not fitter than i was in the previous races i was just on a better bike a 29er.

Peterperfect that is quite some sweeping statement you have made. Bikes have a life cycle. Most people change there bikes every few years so that feeds into the design. They simply dont need a long lifecycle. That is not the bikes fault, that is what thr customer wants by upgrading all the time. A steel frame made in 90's has a similar life cycle to my steel 29er. Why should my old trek 8900 have a shorter lifecycle to my kenesis ff29. The old bikes that survive are the ones that have not been ridden into the ground. If a modern bike is not ridden too much it has every chance of being around in 20 years time. My kenesis in 20 years time will have way too many miles on it. It will be long gone by then. If i rode my old scott that much it would also fail at some point.

 

[k-rod]

Re:

Its a perception thing - much the same as a jet pilot flying at Mach 3 won't really sense that he or she is going all that fast at an altitude of 15,000 meters (and no other flying objects nearby) ... but put that jet down at an arm's length above the deck altitude, with trees and buildings and hills in the way ... and that Mach 3 will seem reeeeeeeeally fast!

The newer, full sus/long travel bikes are so plush over rough terrain, they eat it up in spades ... but the harshness of an old retro-hardtail may still have that old bike seeming to be quicker.

 

[Silvergoat]

Re:

Roots, rock gardens or rutted rock strewn terrain on a fully rigid 26er – if you managed to get through and stay upright without stacking it, there was almost nothing left in your arms after from all the shaking – that's what I remember from the early days. Most of the effort went into focussing on staying upright. It didn't seem as bad though after stepping up to hard tail and front suspension. I guess the modern mechanically reliable fully sussed 29ers have softened that painful element and allow to actually enjoy the ride.

Out on the roads, I can generally keep up with 700 wheeled road bikes but out on the trails on a fully rigid vintage 26er, I know I would be out smoked by a modern 29er. Funds permitting, I'd probably consider upgrading to a 'small brand' 29er. I'd also be keen to see how much difference a 27.5 would make in comparison of the sizes.

 

[Gaddmeister]

Re:

IMHO there are those with modern bikes that will ride slower than some on retro bikes and vice versa. I've never been the fastest and even if I splashed out thousands on a modern bike, I would still be at the back. However, I love riding when I can; I love riding the bikes I couldn't afford when I was younger and I am really not bothered if I am faster or slower than a modern bike. We have to put things in context though; a 1960's ferrari Dino would be faster than your modern day Mondeo tdci, but then would it, depending who drives it?

 

[k-rod]

Re:

And anyway, its not all about being the ultimate/fastest is it? Isn't it about the pleasure and the exercise and the fresh air and nature ...
challenging yourself and improving a skill-set?

 

[Kell]

Riding itself has changed.

When I started riding MTBs almost 30 years ago, there was no such thing as a downhill only bike. Most riding was a mixture of climbing and descending.

But in reality, no one can be seriously expected to believe that bikes have not got faster with 30+ years of development?

The first linked video doesn't really 'prove' anything, but has two different riders on the same course. Result = modern bike finishes much faster. It look to be a fairly flowing course too, with no huge hits where anything with longer travel and bigger wheels would have an obvious advantage.

Assuming they've got similar fitness and skill levels it means the modern bike is faster.

But why do people ride? Normally for enjoyment. So long as the older bikes give you that enjoyment, then there's no reason why riding them is 'wrong'.

The retro thing is like anything else involving nostalgia. The older you get, the better it was...

Hardtails: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoEdy_Vy_V4

Full Sus: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APz7mt9jYw4

Just interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cp9x9tAq8iQ

 

[M-Power]

Re: Re:

And anyway, its not all about being the ultimate/fastest is it? Isn't it about the pleasure and the exercise and the fresh air and nature ...
challenging yourself and improving a skill-set?

Exactly. Plenty if posts on FB from experienced owner/riders of both, stating that for most types of CX riding a top end retro is the equal of a top modern. Big differences only manifest during serious trail decents where there are clear advantages from disc brakes and modern DH geometry.

Modern bikes change like the seasons and their values drop faster than a FIAT leaving a showroom floor. Give me a rare steel, alu Cunningham/D.Brad Manitou or Ti classic any day.