Old vs New ?

[whutn18885]

It goes without saying that most people on this forum prefer old bikes to new but just wondering what are your reasons ? My personal reasons as to why I prefer older bikes to newer bike are (in no particular order):

And just for reference I have owned modern bikes and I don't hate them I just prefer older bikes. Also for the record I am not an old duffer who can't see past 1965 - I am 32 and work in IT support

Anyway my reasons:

1. A matter of shape - Most older bikes are based around simple steel round frames and in my opinion they just look more 'right', I find the fatter tubes and hydroformed style of modern bikes just looks messy. Take modern 29ers for example - They are huge ! Reminds me of Citreon Saxo's with 19" wheels - It just looks strange.
2. Simplicity - Round steel tubes - Easily repairable / Simple square taper BB and standard headsets etc. I even prefer friction shifters so much easier to setup and keep quiet. A modern bike with 11 speed cassette / Press Fit BB / STI shifters just makes for a more complicated setup and a higher chance of mis-alignment
3. Nostalgia - The best years of my cycling life was between the ages of 10-15 and as such I hold in high regard bikes from that era
4. Colours - I love the wild colours of road and MTB's from the late 80's and early 90's. The Raleigh Team Banana was a personal fav as are the fade Klein's.

Anyone else with some thoughts/reasons ?

 

[The History Man]

Steel.

Simplicity and familiarity.

Firing off memories my legs can't compete with.

 

[syncrosfan]

Old bikes from the 90's are on average also lighter than modern bikes (unless you drop a boatload of cash on the top of the range carbon bike, most mid level bikes nowadays are way too heavy with all that full suspension and stuff). Most people that ride those FS rigs nowadays are using them on fire-roads that do not need 130mm travel front and back. It's always fun blasting past those fools on a climb on my old school XC hardtail. Unless you're riding some gnarly downhill stuff, most FS bikes nowadays are overkill as far as function goes.

 

[dyna-ti]

Seen what you get for £700 these days :shock: Piss poor brakes and a bottom end groupset with lo and behold a 2nd top of the line rear mech :facepalm:
Forget hubs and headset being of any quality though if the BB is shimano youre likely to be OK, well as long as that isnt bottom end too :?

 

[mikee]

It's just same as it ever was tho andy , price pointed stuff
Mind you newer stuff seems to wear out quicker and be more expensive to replace
I had to laugh a few years ago when mbk did a b/b test
New tech octalink and all that stuff , the bearings are much better now and we regularly get 6 months out of them ( at £40 or more a pop )
They also had a un 52 sq taper that they only got 9 years out of ( for about £1
Dinosaur , who me ?
Lol
Mike

 

[fagin]

I do quite a lot of fairly serious riding with people half my age. I use a modern Kona FS for that (just short travel with a nice light scandium frame though). As most of them are on rather expensive long travel bikes I still can't do the gnarly stuff quickly enough to keep up, but they kindly wait for me.

The old bikes are just for fun. Cheap, cheerful and more suited to less rough stuff, which they were designed for anyway. And they look nice.

 

[mikee]

Maybe the age thing isn't just relevant to the bikes

Mike

 

[velomaniac]

Re:

Body memory, that is I learned to ride mtb's in the mid 90's and I cant seem to stop riding in the mid 90's manner. On a modern bike I cant keep my weight forward to make the bouncy forks work. I cant ride a modern bike as I'm meant to so I ride an old bike because I'm too stuck in the old mould to change.
Personally I think new hydroformed aluminium and carbon fibre are the beez kneez but because of above points I stay retro.

 

[mikee]

But you are the riding God of 90's steel bikes tho mate

Mike

 

[mattr]

Old bikes from the 90's are on average also lighter than modern bikes (unless you drop a boatload of cash on the top of the range carbon bike, most mid level bikes nowadays are way too heavy with all that full suspension and stuff).

Christ, what a crock.

My 1990 Trek was mostly xt, fairly top end steel, rigid and just dipped under 30lbs, the late 90s steel I would have replaced it with, almost full xt, Judy XC's and so on, was a smidge under 26 lbs (I upgraded to Ti and some hope at the last minute and dropped it by a pound or so)
My 2012 carbon (full xt of course) pretty much the same point in the model range, is about 22lbs off the shelf.

FWIW, my FS is about 26/27 lbs now, after i put some more substantial pedals on it.

The only thing that I have that comes close to my 90s steel is the rigid pig iron on one that i made out of left overs from other builds. At about 30lbs.

If you pick the same point in the range, you'll almost always get a lighter bike.

And I have no idea how some people get more than a season out of a square taper, the only one I've kept for more than year was a hope titanium that did two years and a record one that lasted 18 months. They always get gritty and notchy after a years racing.