RETRO CRISIS ???

[andrewl]

Somewhere it has been forgotten that its about the rider and not the bicycle

I disagree to some extent.

As an example Accu-trax forks (answer version) had a habit of cracking on our local trails when new and I don't think an additional 20 years will have made them any stronger.

Similarly broken Hyperlites used to be common place and so I tend to go easy on the older stuff as I know some of it can't be replaced.

That said the old 84 Bianchi is so overbuilt it will probably outlast your pet dinosaur and is more likely to break you before you break it...

 

[NeilM]

As an example Accu-trax forks (answer version) had a habit of cracking on our local trails when new and I don't think an additional 20 years will have made them any stronger.

Similarly broken Hyperlites used to be common place and so I tend to go easy on the older stuff as I know some of it can't be replaced.

That said the old 84 Bianchi is so overbuilt it will probably outlast your pet dinosaur and is more likely to break you before you break it...

This just illustrates the depth and bredth of interests encompassed within the term RetroBike. I see a lot of 'rare' items and bikes on these pages, it is wonderful to see and remember, but the pragmatists inside me knows that these items are rare for two main reasons: They were either so expensive that hardly anyone could afford them, or because they broke and were not replaced. Or in the case of some frames, they were very expensive AND they broke.

I have never ridden anything other than good practical bikes, Saracens, Dawes, I had a Lliyang for a couple of years, built like a Taiwanese out house, GT's, etc, all my bikes are fitted with solid components, and if something has a reputation for being good, but delicate, then it aint for me.

I am not a purist, never have been, my bikes are not factory standard, never have been, and hence I was happily flying down rocky decents and belting along root infested singletacks yesterday afternoon on my 16 year old Zaskar, on which the newest components are the fork seal kit and cables I just installed.

Like Stevo, I have tough practical bikes, and I see no reason to molly coddle them, or doubt their structural integrity just because they are old, especially as they are a darn sight younger than their rider.

Fascinating discussion, and very though provoking.

 

[legrandefromage]

Somewhere it has been forgotten that its about the rider and not the bicycle

I disagree to some extent.

As an example Accu-trax forks (answer version) had a habit of cracking on our local trails when new and I don't think an additional 20 years will have made them any stronger.

Similarly broken Hyperlites used to be common place and so I tend to go easy on the older stuff as I know some of it can't be replaced.

That said the old 84 Bianchi is so overbuilt it will probably outlast your pet dinosaur and is more likely to break you before you break it...

This happens on modern just as much as it did back then with boutique parts - carbon frames pop pretty often especially around shock mounts.

6 months may not be long in the industry but its long enough to give a snapshot of whats hot and whats not in the current crop of bikes.

 

[dbmtb]

If I know I'm going to be trashing the hell out of the bike then modern every time.

My retros just are to precious to damage and lets face it - a 130mm Fully is a lot easier to ride down rocky trails at silly speeds.

But Denmark is a good place for retro as there's not much here that you can't do on one.

 

[CAPIN]

Not to get too OT but this is the first time i saw some destruction tests.

SANTA CRUZ TEST LAB: ALU vs CARBON

I think CAD design, FEA stress simulations, greater profiling of tubes (hydroforming etc) made frames really better.

Lets imagine what would happen if they put our precious Kleins, Yetis, Fat Chances on that machine!


http://www.pinkbike.com/video/243228/

 

[Groundoggy]

Riding 17 years old equipment has limitations!.

Totally agree with that. It's not only 17 years old - it is likely either getting abused on the trail or neglected in a shed over those years. Neither increases the lifespan. I've even gotten the 'retro rubber' bug lately and that is probably not a good thing. Anybody considering an old MTB should weigh these warnings. One size does not fit all.

That's not going to stop me from riding retro bikes and shunning modern bikes. I'm just not that into modern bikes and don't wish to play a constant game of catching up to the latest technology that I don't really care much about.

With a surprising number of nice parts still available at decent prices I'm stocking up for the next 17 years.

 

[Raging_Bulls]

But an observation perhaps, but retrobikes seem to me to be more road specific design as though well they were really beefed up road bikes that could do a bit of off road, whereas what I am seeing now, seem to be designed for pure off road. As it is in my locale, on the road, my mtb has far better manners than what am noticing of modern bikes which appear to be downhill specific designed. So what I am understanding is the retro MTB's are a compromise between everything whereas what is now is not so much of a compromise.

Yes and no. BITD you had MTBs, and that's it. People who wanted to take their bikes downhill racing, just slapped on a longer fork and/or different handlebar, crankset and mech.
Nowadays you have bikes specifically built to suit a certain type of riding. There's DH, XC, Trial, Freeride, etc.
Perhaps the people in your locale simply don't choose the correct bikes for what they are doing. Many simply think that more suspension travel is better, and end up with bikes that simply were never designed to work with the kind of terrain they're actually riding them on.

Have a go on a modern XC or XC Supersport, and you'll probably change your mind. Those are perfectly suited for your preferred terrain.

 

[cce]

i walk the line.

I kit out my old school frame, which handles in a way i enjoy, with modern rubber and other newer bits too.

 

[Anthony]

I don't see there's any issue here. If you see somebody drive past in a TR3A, you don't assume it's because it's faster than the Golf he has outside his house. Nor that it's better round corners (anything but), or more comfortable, safer, more practical, more reliable, more economical etc. In fact, the family Golf wins hands down on every count, but he's driving the TR3A because he likes it, and it's more fun than the superior Golf.

 

[speedplay]

If you end up happy with what you're building, for gods sake dont throw your leg over a modern trail bike....

It cost me a small fortune!