Is it me or...

[unafraid]

Let's face it: I hardly get excited anymore when I see new mountain bikes. Modern designs sure are efficient as hell, but they're not just as exciting to me as the bikes from the 80's and the 90's when all major makers and custom builders were exploring every possible way to build frames, components and suspensions. Nowadays, it seems all bikes look alike. It's boring and sad (except when you actually ride those bikes). That's probably why I keep going back to my old MBA/Mountain Bike/Mountain Biking/MTB/Bicycling magazines after depressing over a new issue.

On top of my head, bikes that excited me back then:

-Sotello SRS
-Trimble
-Kestrel
-the first fully suspended Trek with the rubber donuts
-Crosstrac Sonoma
-Bushido
-anything by Hannebrink
-the first Proflex bikes
-Ritchey, Breezer, Otis Guy, Merlin, Litespeed, Mountain Goat, Sycip, Retrotec, Klein, Cannondale, AMP Research, JP Morgen, Mantis, etc.

Way too many to list!

 

[Sithlord]

Could not agree with you more fella, the new bikes are like new cars ,, nowdays, bland and look all the same.. no individuality and no craftsmanship..

Long live retro..

 

[Mr Chicken]

i could weep when i see a modern pace

here's another

is it a bmx? is it for trials? if i removed the stickers i would have assumed both bikes came from halfords.

 

[LeeDevelopment]

Spooky Cassius is drop dead gorgeous
Brooklyn Machine Works SR8 is amazing
Intense 951 looks like mutts nuts.

I still get excited!

 

[sam264]

I'd actually disagree, modern full suspension frames at least are as interesting looking as they have ever been, maybe less wacky than they looked 10-15 years ago but i wouldn't say they all look the same. As for hardtails, i guess once you find the magic recipe for something though, you don't change it. The orange p7 looks very similar to how it did 20 years ago, i guess the roange R8 would be the modern counterpart to that now though, granted there aren't as many strange looking hardtail frames out there now like the old square tubed paces etc but i like to think my reasonably modern scott genius is a bit of a looker, you don't see many about, particularly bikes with pull shocks. Again, with forks, once you find something that works, you don't change it, though some of the retro stuff was very cool, i still love the old marzocchis with the cnc'd bolt on braces, mmmm.

 

[mr_ship]

I'm in agreement unafraid. Picked up a couple of UK mags the other day and flicked through them in next to no time. Nothing very interesting. Take the decals of a lot of new bikes and I wouldn't be able to tell the difference. Probably something to do with them being mass produced in the same factories in Taiwan / China.

Also the prices really are starting to take the p!ss aren't they? How can a 5.5k bike be good value? or 7.5k for a plastic Scott? Give me an Eriksen anytime and I'll spend the change on beer

 

[bojangle]

Funny you started this topic, i was about to post something similar.

Last month (i think!) saw MBUK do a article on 'The history of XC' in there the look at some old designs and have bit of a laugh, but what the younger generation fail to understand you have to endure the crap to know what is good.

There have been many excellent bikes in the past, most of them listed above but also some rubbish (i'm not going to mention any names!) But i do agree to a certain extent that bikes have become jelly moulds of each other.

It also got me thinking about failed bikes or kit that have been and gone and future chaff that is out or coming out. One item in particular that springs to my mind is the new generation of 'Drop seat posts'. I can't see the point in them! They are ugly, heavy expensive and solve a problem that never exsited! I always thought the idea of XC riding is that you have the bike set up to tackle 99.9% of terrain, for how often you would need to drop the saddle is the weight, cost gain worth it. Look at the XC racers do the feel the need to drop their saddle on stupid steep decents?????

I mean, come on, which do you prefer?


This one? http://www.wiggle.co.uk/images/grav-dro ... c-zoom.jpg



or this one? http://www.wiggle.co.uk/images/ritchey- ... atpost.jpg

I digress a little!

Perhaps bike design and material usage has got as far as it can go, the one thing that doesn't help is the new European Standard of bike frame building, it's demanding that bike are made to a certain standard/strength!!!

All very good for the likes of sub £150 bikes but most are strong as an ox, i was looking at buying a cotic soul but now due to the ES it has gained a few pounds and i am now looking at another frame or second hand.

Anyway thats my rant over with.

 

[tintin40]

I agree concerning frames/forks details. But some modern parts are fine. But then i don't use V's , disc's or underbar shifters.
But if a rear mech is from 94 or 2010 is no different

 

[brocklanders023]

i could weep when i see a modern pace

here's another

is it a bmx? is it for trials? if i removed the stickers i would have assumed both bikes came from halfords.

Although I agree to a point, using the p7 as an example seems strange. As was said above, it's nearly the same as the first ones in '93 except adjusted to take modern longer forks and kit :?

Hate all those ?hydroformed? modern hardtails though (spesh and marin hang your heads) as they look woeful. :x

 

[legrandefromage]

what happens if you dont want a suspension adjusted frame? Are you considered mad? Are you then to be carted off to the funny farm (where the cows do chicken impressions and stand-up) muttering 'rigid, just wanted to go rigid and have my seat higher than my bars...'