The bike you need vs the bike you want.

[legrandefromage]

A bicycle that was due to be dismantled in favour of another after one last ride ended up reminding me why I liked it so much in the first place.

The bike it was to be sacrificed for was already using parts from a 3rd bicycle I intended to keep...

So the bike I want v what I need?

I seem to one set of unobtainable bars away

 

[CassidyAce]

Its nothing to do with marketing........i started on mountain bikes in 1984 having ridden trackies previously. The bikes i bought saracen etc, were a massive leap from my trackie....no more buckled wheels, no more searching for downtube gears, etc etc.

But in 1990 having had several bikes, the world of kona and marin (only pick those as they had good local dealers) changed things. Nothing to do with marketing.....i rode one....wow....lighter, faster, much more responsive.....game changer.

Its not just a perception either....ive still got a couple of premium mid 80s bikes.....they are still bricks to ride in comparison to a mid range kona.

Problem wasn't the geometry then.....its my geometry now!

As for modern 29ers etc....im not taking this thread down this road, but its apples and oranges. Not designed for the same thing.....i own one,.....slow, cumbersome and used as a winter hack.....but serves a purpose.

Im sure if your crashing cliffs in utar or downhill riding they are fine....but i do hours of technical ish cross country where there benefits are more flaws imho. But i can also see the heads up, slack head angle being ideal for countyside bimbling about.....maybe in my 80s ........

I don’t doubt that your 1990s’ bikes were more responsive than your 80s’ bikes—not just marketing. For some purposes, they are probably faster than a modern 29er too. But writing as if comfort and head-down-arse-up speed are necessarily opposed is the part that I think ought to be questioned. Specifically, is the now-uncomfortable part, the head-down-arse-up aspect, necessary for speed? You appear to have assumed that the answer is ‘Yes’ because you present them as alternatives that you must choose between. However, being head-down-arse-up is not such an important factor in modern mountain bikes designed for racing so why make that assumption? I suspect it’s a partial truth that was exaggerated by marketing. If that’s right, there’s a hope that you might enjoy both comfort and speed again. If you’re right, and that assumption about speed and comfort is not due to marketing, there’s no hope. For that reason, I hope you’re wrong.

Would a 1990s’ frameset with less racy geometry really entail that much loss of speed or even any loss of speed?

 

[The History Man]

I don’t think I should comment.

 

[CassidyAce]

I don’t think I should comment.

The triple handlebar design! The perfect solution, offering unrivalled altitude-of-backside in relation altitude-of-head variations. A bike for youth, middle age, and dotage all in one. I never fully appreciated the genius until now. Patent pending?

 

[legrandefromage]

one time, at bandcamp, I managed near identical strava times on a u-brake rigid MTB and then a 21st century xc full susser (both times some 20 minutes faster than the current fatty fatty have another pie time)

 

[grey-beard]

I love retro bikes, I like modern bikes too. The head down arse up stance, for speed, was never my thing, but it is still a thing, ask Nino Shurter? Racing was cross country, in the early days, then came downhill, now its all sorts, I'm rambling. A modern race bike is faster than a retro race bike, it just is, that's why the pros use them, but for me, what I need isn't a full on race machine, it's an all rounder and that may be retro or modern, I'm not trying to go as fast as possible all the time. If I was still racing, I'd probably try enduro, on a modern enduro bike.

 

[pw_pw_la]

One thing I will say, regarding marketing: see also current bikes and current bike trends.

(It's always been that way, after all)

I took a spin on a modern ti hardtail at the group ride the other day, and there's just no way 700mm+ width bars and a near-zero rise stem are particularly practical, nor improve handling or performance. Not unless you ride nice, wide (fire) roads only, anyway! A couple of people on the ride took spills from their bars catching on branches, Etc, on the narrower sections of the trail. It's hardly responsive either. Super wide bars feel terrible to me on a bike. Sure, it's comfortable, but that ti hardtail didn't feel like I could push it, nor trust myself taking it on something technical or steep.

Actually, the thing looked cool but felt absolutely horrible to ride.

Unless, maybe, I was cruising down the boardwalk to the beach...

Oh, and to make matters worse the disk brakes he had on it were spongy and unresponsive!

(I'm well aware that by virtue of ONLY riding vintage mountain bikes, with period components, my ideas of both comfort and responsiveness will be severely skewed)

 

[legrandefromage]

700mm bars

 

[MattiThundrrr]

@legrandefromage that is a spectacular cockpit. That is a bike I need.

 

[The History Man]

@legrandefromage that is a spectacular cockpit. That is a bike I need.

i thought that was just out of the picture.