Rant !!!

[Sithlord]

Hi Guys,

Just thinking , How Old does a bike need to be to warrant, the term Retrobike ?

also...

I dont know if this subject has been covered. So I apologies in advance..

Bikes dont seem to made anywhere near the quality that they used to be, there seems to be no feeeling in the production of bikes anymore, all the gods have gone for good ...

Having ridden bikes of all descriptions and quality over the last 25 years, :shock: I think I have a feel and can comment of what I have seen 'develop' over that time.

The bikes used to be made with care , attention to detail and most of all they seemed to have character, feeling.. and designed for what they were intended for.. to get you across terrain , using the skill of the rider, Ok the brakes were pants compared to discs of today, but hey was not that just part of the fun, made you careful and respect the terrain !! and you took more of the scenery in ! less accidents..blah blah, Am I the only one feeling like this..

Lets face it 27 spd gears going on 30 on some builds is just stupid, the chain will get thiner and thiner making it a liability when in the middle of nowhere , worn out after a few rides, fine on the road Yes not a problem, but off road.. where are they going with all this eh!!

The 7spd Xt setups were the best, all of the cassette sprockets used to be able to be stripped down , to be cleaned and you could replace 1 sprocket if you needed not the whole cassettte.. try doing that now on an 9 sp setup..

All the materials used to last for ages... not ay more, all made of cheese I think..!

I could go on but does anyone else feel the same ?

 

[clockworkgazz]

just did a rant about new shifters, totally agree mate, not made like they used too.

 

[andrewl]

Hi Guys,

Just thinking , How Old does a bike need to be to warrant, the term Retrobike ?

About 5 minutes, retro refers to a style of the past without necessarily being old, vintage on the other hand...

I could go on but does anyone else feel the same ?

Actually no. While there are certainly some poor quality parts around today, there were equally some extremely overpriced bits and pieces which were absolute rubbish BITD too.

Maybe you need to take the rose coloured glasses off, new stuff is not all bad and old stuff is not all good

Opps hit the quote not edit button.....

 

[Pickle]

http://www.retrobike.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=16889

I started this thread beginning of November, its kinda similar, all about the 'define retro' age.

 

[Iwasgoodonce]

Tend to agree on the gears. More is good on the road when jumps in ratio between gears is a bad thing. When I ran 7 speed on my MTB I never had a chain snap despite only changing the transmission when Chuck Norris could use the middle ring as a ninja weapon! Also bikes lost something visually when the microdrive revolution arrived. Small mincy chainrings that don't overlap the rear tyre just look wrong.

If I had to choose ratios for the rest of my days they would be 24-36-46 on the front and 12-28 seven at the back.

 

[hamster]

I tend to agree on frames - simple steel ones much nicer than the coke can stuff nowadays. The cracking tendencies of Alu mean that they won't be around in 20 years time..unlike my steel Marins and Dawes Tandem.

To get a nice light steel MTB frame nowadays requires a custom framebuilder...and a brand new one of those would certainly be called a Retrobike according to me.

 

[Huntso]

What cracking tendencies? Those old Zaskars are still about despite taking a right battering and many a M2 Stumpy is still going strong.
Any frame can break incl Ti.

Not sure either why a steel frame is much nicer than an alu one, more about angles and the way a material is used.
I had an old Orange Clockwork that was a rotten thing to ride and an old alu Rockhopper was so much nicer

My favourite bike to ride ever is a M5 S-works hardtail
Just comes down to personal preference and not a failure in any specific frame material

 

[stevek]

I think he's referring to the fatigue life of aluminium being less than steel?

You're right, any frame made from any material can crack.

 

[velomaniac]

I cannot say that bikes and components of the past are better than today as I was always at the budget end then and still am now. Budget bikes and components are not good then or now, heavier, cruder, sloppier tolerances etc.

A comparison:
Townsend Beartooth ATB circa 1994
Heavey Hi-Ten steel components that rusted from day one.
Chainset that could only be removed by a blacksmith after only 6 months,
Tyres that did not grip laterally etc.
Emmelle Missile ATB circa 2004
Alloy frame with 1" steerer so no aftermarket forks would fit. Steel suspension forks with zero damping.
Deraliers that broke within months and cables that rusted despite grease.

The past is no rosier than the present but I got great enjoyment out of both bikes none the less !

 

[hamster]

I think he's referring to the fatigue life of aluminium being less than steel?

You're right, any frame made from any material can crack.

That's correct. To stop the fatigue problem Alu frames have to be made super stiff to stop the cyclic flexing which causes crack propagation.

Of course a meanly engineered piece of nastiness in any material will crack and break (look at the latest batch of Litespeeds now they are not owned by Lynskey) - steel frames in particular had problems with stress raisers around gear bosses, especially when fitted just next to a frame tube butt area.

Zaskars were finely engineered for their task, and GT did a good job- which is why they are still around. But Alu's problems with fatigue cracking means that on average steel ones last longer.