modern Bikes?

[drystonepaul]

Re:

Can we please try to keep this thread on topic?

Any more talk of the price of cheese or how handsome Al is and the thread will get deleted.

Thank you.

 

[al]

Re: Re:

Can we please try to keep this thread on topic?

Any more talk of the price of cheese or how handsome Al is and the thread will get deleted.

Thank you.

You heard the man, no more cheese and keep the compliments for al to a bare minimum.


As you were.


al.

 

[The History Man]

Nobody has mentioned FAT bikes as part of the discussion. Thoughts? I was tempted after riding one but decided it was a novelty that would wear off fairly quickly in my view. Went for the steel 29er. Still ride the 26 bikes and like both for different things.


My apologies re the cheese. Only sharing gvfm.

 

[al]

Re:

Fat bikes are another fad I just don't understand...

That's not to say the don't have their place in such places as Cheddar, Lancashire, Leicestershire, Wenslydale, and the crumbly trails of Cheshire. Each to their own I say.



al.

 

[The History Man]

My modern 21" 29er is a bit of a beast. Most would need to ride it with a ladder or stilt(s) on. Works well though. Especially downhill a rind here.

 

[firedfromthecircus]

Three 29ers and a fatbike. They are my most ridden. And the only retro that is built right now is a 650B!

All are rigid and mostly steel mind, so are they modern or not? Of course they are. And I enjoy riding them.

History man. I used to draw the line at discs. Then I rode discs. Nuff said.

Still like a bit of retro obviously, and I have said it before, but retro (and retrobike) is a state of mind. But the benefits of larger and wider tyres are unmistakable in my mind, especially for the body I have and the riding I want to do.

And while we are at it, no bike has soul. Certain bikes may make you feel like a god, or a chump. Some will have all sorts of great memories attached to them and make you feel all fuzzy and warm inside when you look at or ride them. But it does not equate to a soul, and you could be just as likely to find those quality's in something new as something old. IMHO obviously.

 

[cce]

fat bikes are mostly about perpetuating n+1

 

[highlandsflyer]

I don't know about that, they seem to provide an option for certain terrain that wouod otherwise be very difficult to cycle on. I guess that is the driving force for innovation in cycling, exploiting the niches. A lot of mountain bikes come in 2x10 flavour now, so there seems to be something in the argument that drivetrains got a little overly complex and perhaps that has impacted on their resilience, or at least their day to day usability.

Fact is though, there is a huge choice now if you want to be choosy.

There is really no reason you can't go out and buy a bike as simple as you want. They still make them. So perhaps this is not really a discussion about modern bikes at all, but about complicated bikes.

How far back do you have to go to reach a point where all bikes were 'simple'?

..and where is the simplicity most important?

I can hammer my 456 Carbon all day across the monadhliath without fear of a puncture thanks to current technology, and little worry about problems with the drive train thanks to 'modern' XT, same with the brakes. At 16 stone togged up with a backpack full of gear.

Thirty years ago I was doing the same sort of thing carrying an extensive tool kit and needed it! Every ride involved some down time for tweaking or repair.

I know which is simpler to me.

You can genuinely buy one bike to do it all for a decent price these days. Back in the day you might have just one bike, but the range of applications was limited. Many trips I made as a youth involved leaving the bike at some point when things got tricky. Nowadays the bikes so light and ridable over more of that ground so it rarely gets stowed in a bush or a cave.

Much simpler.

 

[SouthCoastRetro]

Re:

I haven't ridden in over 3 years, the last bike was an Orange Aluminium O that I restored but sold without ever turning a wheel in anger.

The new bike however (21" Cube 29er) has rekindled my love of getting out there and getting amongst it. That's all that really matters to me at the end of the day.

 

[02gf74]

now we are back on topic ..... and no, I am not turning it into a discussion about confectionary.

There seem to be a few committed retrobikers that will not accept times have moved on. I am guessing they were 12 or 13 reading mtb mags and drooled over bikes they could not afford. 20 years on, they have the cash and the older bikes are being sold off at a lot less in real times than they were when they were new so they are buying their dream bike(s). These same people with their rose tinted blinkers will say retrobikes are better regardless going as far as saying they have soul. Eh? Bicycles are bits of metal and plastic, inanimiate objects so could not possibly have souls, even if it could be proven souls exist. Then they say they are faster than modern bikes. I am not so sure about that. :? The equipment used by the top XC riders I would have thought been a good indication of what is faster over the terrain and that non of them are using steel framed rigid bikes with cantilever brakes seems to me to indicate retrobikes are not. Or that retrobikes are more fun because they make riding more difficult. Having front suspension and brakes that stop does make the trail easier but it makes it no less fun, just different.

If you subscribe to the theory of evolution, then it also would apply to man-made items: cars, computers, TV sets and bicycles. Other than the BSO from Argos or Tescos, you would struggle to buy a steel frame bike with rigid forks, horizontal top tube, cantilever brakes etc. Why? Simply because you can get the same tool to do the sme job better e.g. a bike with a lighter aluminium or carbon fibre frame, suspension forks, disc brakes that stop in the dry and wet and maybe even *shock * *horror* 29 inch wheels. :shock:

In short, modern bikes are better. The grand-daddy of mtbs says it all: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=km67fjE8DqE

Now that does not mean we should not love the old bikes. They are the reason we have better bikes today. :mrgreen:

I don't mean to upset anyone or start an argument but have deep admiration the retobikers who will go to great lengths to restore an old frame, sometimes something pulled out of a skip, kit it out with period correct components with a tendancy bordering on obsesivness by buying up old fire extinguishers to get period correct air to inflate the tyres!!! :shock: Just like classic cars (which similarly are not as good as modern ones think performance, reliability etc) it is nice to know that somebody is willing to spend time and sometimes large sums of money to maintain bikes that are part of our history.

Due to old codger disease, I cannot ride a rigid fork off road and would never give up disc brakes so do not partake in the retrobike restoration per se. My oldest bike is 'a 96 proflex that has been convered to disc brakes, 3x9 gears, a modern rear shock and carbon fibres bits that I will not part with due to sentimental reasons even though the swing arm flexes like cheese - oops, didn't mean to go there :facepalm: - weighs a ton and is not as good offroad as any other my modern FS bikes.

err so carry on, maybe we'll get to page 10!