Cheap Mountain Bikes | GMBN Presenter Challenge


Retro Guru
I hear what everyone is saying - big wheels are generally faster, you can make 26ers fast with tyres, the cost of new bikes is just silly, changing standards are annoying, and I agree with all of them.

My own observations are that the bigger the wheel the better it rolls - 29+ on the front of my Stooge just ignores bumps, roots, rocks, small mammals, medium sized horses, cattle and just rolls over them. I've got B+ on the back and it a great machine. However, it's not the whole story, as when I get back on a 26er, albeit a retro model with steeper angles, the quickness of the handling is really noticeable and they are just great fun to ride. I am in no doubt it is slower, but I don't really care; it's fun, it's different and I get used to it after about 5 minutes. The Stooge is fun too, so is the fat bike, so is the CX/adventure bike, they're all good.

As for the fat bike, I did an interesting test (not very scientific) when out with a few mates on skinnier tyres. On a a slightly downhill road section I would outpace them without pedalling despite really chunky tyres. The same thing on the trails of the Surrey Hills - constantly having to brake as gaining speed without pedalling.

A recent video I took on my 1989 Marin was so bumpy it was quite hard to watch - the same trails on the fat bike were smooth. Both rigid. Both fun in a different way, and I crashed the fat bike, not the retro despite the front letting go on a few corners.

As for the price of bikes - if a company like Specialized can sell a bike for £7500 then they will make one - so would I. It is crazy money though, and I even double take at the accepted price of "normal" bikes now that seem to be around £3000. But if someone wants to spend that on a bike then who am I to argue with them? I am often a bit smug inside at times though...

But, you can pick a really good second hand model after a couple of years when people have moved on to the latest thing. Wait 30 years and you have an absolute bargain, but I doubt many bikes that are around now will last 30 years, unlike the stuff we love.


Retro Guru
Interesting, but I think he needed to get his script memorised before doing the video - lots of dubious logic and repetition. But, £10000 quid for that bike! On what planet does anyone need to spend that amount of money on a mountain bike? If you're a pro it will get bought for you, but come on, that's mad. Still, if people buy them, they'll sell them.

It seems that a longer reach is better then - long, low, slack. Give it a few years and we'll see. I'm quite interested in Jones bikes and the reach on his bikes is very short and they seem to handle well.


Senior Retro Guru
Re: Re:

jimo746":2ycwyjhx said:
enc":2ycwyjhx said:

You're not wrong.

If you told someone in '88 what mtb's would be like today, they'd probably think you'd been sniffing glue :LOL:

Can you imagine telling somebody in 1988 what a mobile phone would be capable of 30 years in the future :LOL: battery life hasn't improved much has it :facepalm:

Mobile phone in 1988. ...

1988 – Panasonic D series
The Panasonic D series offered 60 minutes talk time and 8 hours standby time. This phone allowed you to change batteries mid-call without losing signal as long as the switch over was made within two seconds. The battery was designed for fast swapping. ... series.jpg


Retro Guru
I am a firm believer that you can ride many trails, especially if it's a circuit, quicker on thinner tyres. We do, however, need to be careful when we complain about changing standards. The imposition of standards by the UCI holds back road bikes. A decent rider could win any race if they had freedom to design what they like. Recumbents are not allowed and nor is streamlining, aero bars etc. in many events.
If this luddite mentality was applied to MTBs the sport would not continue to improve.