New or old? My story, your views

[jax13]

orange are a prime example of the new vs retro trade off.

a base level alivio / deore mix G series currently runs at about £700.

have a gander on the for sale section here and you could find a late 90's, possibly early 00's clockwork / c16 / prestige / p7 type frame, hope wheelset, xt / xtr group, a decent set of forks and some quality finishing kit & finish off by grabbing a cable set off ebay or CRC then have the pleasure of building it yourself.

The lower running costs of being able to service it yourself AND the saved money compared to a modern G series which spec for spec will be nowhere close to what you have built yourself should be enough for anyone to seal the deal!

What you will have is a bike that is a 10 / 12 year old version of a £1500+ bike bought today that will do exactly the same job. The downsides are the lack of any warranties, the time to build it vs the time to order and collect a new bike, a potential weight penalty however you would probably come in lighter on an older frameset, brakes might not be quite as good running V's as if you were on big discs (but thats another argument) and you may sacrifice some suspension travel but if you need more than 100 or 120mm then maybe you should be looking newer anyway.

 

[Raging_Bulls]

Can't say I agree with all of your points there Johnny.

There are plenty of modern bikes that stand out. Also you can modify them just as much as any old bike.
In terms of pure performance, there's no way a retro can come close to a modern bike, even if you build the retro with modern components.
A very skilled rider can ride around the problems or compensate for the lack of suspension travel, but few people actually have that skill level.

As for modern bikes being more likely to get nicked, a thief will nick anything that looks good. Age doesn't matter really.

To add one line to the bottom of your post, modern bikes also shift faster and have more and better-spaced gear ratios.

Don't get me wrong, I love my 503. In fact I love it so much that I just bought another one.
But when I need something reliable and comfortable enough for long-distance runs, I pick the modern one every single time.

 

[Matthews]

That's a very good question , I'm lucky as I still have the bike I purchased back in 91, having like yourself recently got back into the mtb scene and wanting a bit more comfort I picked up a slightly newer (2002) stumpjumper (the bike I wanted in 91 but couldn't afford) for not a vast sum of money to see what improvements have been made and to save my old MF for special occasions (retro only runs), having spent a few months riding both (and fitting niceties like discs ) I find the newer stumpy a lot easier to ride, more choice of gears better brakes and a bit of give in the front end (the DukeXC's aren't the plushest of shocks) so I've got to say I prefer the newer ride, so much so that after spotting an even newer Stumpy on the for sale part of this site have committed to by it, my 2002 model is a bit small for me so will be given to the wife and I'll look at selling her 91 Scott Windriver (17") as she just wants the easier bike to ride.
Bottom line is it's up to you but it's just as easy to spend silly money on retro as it is with new but if you don't mind a few years old you can get a modernish bike benefits at a budget price.
Still like riding the MF but it's hard work.
Matthew

 

[johnnypie13]

Can't say I agree with all of your points there Johnny.

There are plenty of modern bikes that stand out. Also you can modify them just as much as any old bike.
In terms of pure performance, there's no way a retro can come close to a modern bike, even if you build the retro with modern components.
A very skilled rider can ride around the problems or compensate for the lack of suspension travel, but few people actually have that skill level.

As for modern bikes being more likely to get nicked, a thief will nick anything that looks good. Age doesn't matter really.

To add one line to the bottom of your post, modern bikes also shift faster and have more and better-spaced gear ratios.

Don't get me wrong, I love my 503. In fact I love it so much that I just bought another one.
But when I need something reliable and comfortable enough for long-distance runs, I pick the modern one every single time.

The point about the retro bikes standing out is a matter of Budget for £50 to £300 you will struggle to find a modern bike that will stand out i might be wrong but that's my experience whereas £300 will buy a lovely Retrobike that will

the modern versus retro nicking observation comes from being around train stations leave a nice shiny modern bike there and you may lose it as opposed to a retrobike. some thieves are knowledgeable but the vast majority like shiny new things hence a lot of members have commute bikes reliable, good parts but not shiny and don't attract attention

completely agree with the faster shifting comment though mate

 

[johnnypie13]

Bottom line is it's up to you but it's just as easy to spend silly money on retro as it is with new

So agree Matthews

 

[Ollytron]

Some very interesting points, I just assumed that a new bike would have been lighter because of modern materials. Isf I did go retro it would have to be a LTS or STS because these were my dream bikes, I do like the idea of spending a Sunday tweaking. This is a tough choice,

 

[NAILTRAIL96]

A well spec'd and built LTS will probably be pretty light anyway and something to be ridden with pride knowing you're unlikely to see many others.
I'm sure a lot of modern kit would fit maybe even disc brakes.
I don't see why it shouldn't be as reliable as a modern bike either.
Some people would rather just ride than tinker and thats fine, I can see the appeal of a new bike, it's just not for me.

 

[trek_y]

Its not about the money, money , money ...
Thanks to Retrobike I now have 2 bikes I love - my Proflex for a full susser is still good up against it modern equivalents - same brakes, wheels, 4" travel (thats enough isn't it ?), lighter than most and cost under £400. My Airborne is a titanium beauty and will last forever and cost about £1000 all in, rather less if I had not succumbed to my bling fixation. Try getting anything remotely as good new for that - I don't think you can ?
But the most important bit is that it has been huge fun getting here and has rekindled an interest in bikes which I doubt would have happened if I'd just bought a new one.
Still want a Scalpel Carbon though... :roll:

 

[Drencrom]

Again, it depends on your budget.

 

[Ollytron]

The budget is a tough one because if i was to just go to a shop and buy a new one i can't see me parting with much more than 600/700 in one go. But if it's over time abit here and abit there then i can afford more.

I don't mind the tinkering, infact i like that.
It also appears from whats been posted that modern bikes havern't let forward in technology as much as i had imagined for the cost.


This is really pointing to a retro build isn't it LOL