Retro versus new - the aesthetics....

[02gf74]

Re: Re:

^^^^

Good point....and I take it on board.

You need to join a yatchting forum to do that.

Also with retro there were bikes we used to covet and drool over seeing them in mountain bike spotter monthly and could never afford. These same bikes, well mostly with exception of kleins, are on ebay for a fraction of the cost plus we are no longer in school or uni so have the wonga to buy them.

 

[mattr]

There are plenty modern bikes that look as beautiful as they ride. You just need to look for them. Seems people are forgetting all the mass produced shite that was around back in the day as well. A little like when people talk about how the charts used to have such great music back then, but if you actually look at them there was lots of fluff as well.

Each to their own, but I prefer nicely put together bikes of any age to something just because it is old and has some perceived superiority often retrospectively attached, as many of the bikes sought after now were just 'meh' back when they were current.

I agree. Thankfully a lot of the mass produced junk from the olden days has gone to the skip. And I've been insulted for pointing out that some bikes were terrible then and are merely old (and still terrible) now. Being old doesn't miraculously make things collectable.

The issue (?) with the nice looking bikes these days is that they don't actually ride or perform any better than bikes costing significantly less. So you really are only paying for the look.

 

[tufty]

Yep. Some of the modern bikes are nothing short of astounding in terms of looks as well as performance. The Ibis Mojo HD3, for example, or Yeti's ASR. And that's without bringing up the "Modern Retro" builders, (often) steel framed bikes with a retro look but modern geometry, for example Starling.

There's a pile of ugly old cack out there, but there always was.

 

[ultrazenith]

For me the retro aesthetic died around the same time v-brakes (1997) and the threadless headset became standard OEM specs (1994/1995), and suspension became more cost effective.

Prior to this, you had a rigid steel MTB which was practically the same as the next brand, and the main way brands differentiated themselves was with a cool paint job or colour-coordinated components. The bikes already worked about as well as technology of the time allowed, and the best way to upgrade or individualise your bike would be to buy some blingy anodized parts. Maybe some awesome looking cantilevers, a coloured seat post or bar, QRs, etc. The upgrades we did were almost always cosmetic and barely improved the function of our bikes.

I think over a period of a few years beginning in 1994 most manufacturers abandoned the concept of snazzy paint jobs, and there were two new 'must have' upgrades that were so cost effective that just about every mountain biker I knew went out and bought one or both: V brakes and Rockshox Q21R. I bought both, using up most of my pocket money in the process, but this stopped me from making aesthetic upgrades that I would otherwise have gone for.

Shimano's v-brake revolution had an especially strong impact. Their basic LX-level model worked well but was ugly, or boring at the very best. While XT and XTR looked better thanks to the parallel push mechanism and the slightly better finish, they still looked quite utilitarian and dull.

Sadly a number of component manufacturers simply didn't keep up. Dia Compe, Onza, and other aftermarket cantilever makers just seemed to give up, denying us the chance to have colourful or cool looking brakes. Avid, for reasons unknown, followed Shimano and produced quite ordinary and functional looking brakes.

In conclusion, as far as I am concerned 1993 was the last year when MTBs looked amazing, by 1994 the rot of utilitarian styling had started to take hold. Consider, for instance, the 1993 (1992?) Raleigh Special Products Dynatech Diablo, compared to a 1995 M Trax:

evolved to:

 

[Stick Legs]

I think that the real change came when the manufacturers started making the same bike. Not the other way around. In 1993 I could have chosen from Pace's externally butted square tubes, Cannondale or Klein's large tubes, Trek and Grizley's bonded aluminium frames and that is just one frame material.

Now everything is mainstream is monocoque carbon or hydroformed aluminium the only genuinely odd construction I can think of is Colnago's bonded carbon lugged construction.

Makes it less interesting choosing a bike for sure and means that why you choose a brand is all about marketing and not about choosing your preferred engineering solution.

 

[Mike Muz]

For me the retro aesthetic died around the same time v-brakes (1997) and the threadless headset became standard OEM specs (1994/1995), and suspension became more cost effective.

Prior to this, you had a rigid steel MTB which was practically the same as the next brand, and the main way brands differentiated themselves was with a cool paint job or colour-coordinated components. The bikes already worked about as well as technology of the time allowed, and the best way to upgrade or individualise your bike would be to buy some blingy anodized parts. Maybe some awesome looking cantilevers, a coloured seat post or bar, QRs, etc. The upgrades we did were almost always cosmetic and barely improved the function of our bikes.

I think over a period of a few years beginning in 1994 most manufacturers abandoned the concept of snazzy paint jobs, and there were two new 'must have' upgrades that were so cost effective that just about every mountain biker I knew went out and bought one or both: V brakes and Rockshox Q21R. I bought both, using up most of my pocket money in the process, but this stopped me from making aesthetic upgrades that I would otherwise have gone for.

Shimano's v-brake revolution had an especially strong impact. Their basic LX-level model worked well but was ugly, or boring at the very best. While XT and XTR looked better thanks to the parallel push mechanism and the slightly better finish, they still looked quite utilitarian and dull.

Sadly a number of component manufacturers simply didn't keep up. Dia Compe, Onza, and other aftermarket cantilever makers just seemed to give up, denying us the chance to have colourful or cool looking brakes. Avid, for reasons unknown, followed Shimano and produced quite ordinary and functional looking brakes.

In conclusion, as far as I am concerned 1993 was the last year when MTBs looked amazing, by 1994 the rot of utilitarian styling had started to take hold. Consider, for instance, the 1993 (1992?) Raleigh Special Products Dynatech Diablo, compared to a 1995 M Trax:

evolved to:

I beg to differ, I think the M600 V-Brakes , along with the Avids, are far better to look at, are less of a magnet for crud, don't get wobbly pivots, and when set up, look a lot better than the Parallel ones. Leaving less cable exposed above the wheel.

But each to their own.

I am about to sell both my most modern bikes. One road, and one mtb. I simply don't use them as much as my older ones, they just don't do anything for me. Maybe just my old-timer, rose-tinted point of view.

Mike

 

[LikeClockwork]

Re:

NO!!! Surely not, Mike, you, old timer.........

 

[ultrazenith]

I beg to differ, I think the M600 V-Brakes , along with the Avids, are far better to look at, are less of a magnet for crud, don't get wobbly pivots, and when set up, look a lot better than the Parallel ones. Leaving less cable exposed above the wheel.

But each to their own.

I am about to sell both my most modern bikes. One road, and one mtb. I simply don't use them as much as my older ones, they just don't do anything for me. Maybe just my old-timer, rose-tinted point of view.

Mike

I can see your point there actually, and the parallel pivot mechanism did look a bit over engineered.

 

[Mike Muz]

Re: Re:

NO!!! Surely not, Mike, you, old timer.........

Less of your cheek, young lady!

Honestly, the youth of today :roll:

 

[legrandefromage]

As before, geometry is not 'modern'. Dropouts and lugs had to be custom made if you wanted to change geometry from what was available from the suppliers' lugwork and dropouts.

The Overbury's Pioneer was available back in February 1986 with totally different geometry to the rather plain looking mainstream offerings (sound familiar?). Many bikes had been released with terrible angles making them almost unrideable offroad but many were successful. Other materials released builders/ designers and allowed them to run riot hence the idiosyncrasies of the late 80's/ early 90's.

Gearing has not really changed since the introduction of the ramped cassette. 'Oh my modern stuff works soooo much better than that old shite' - well it will do, the chain has sooooo much less distance to travel in a 9/10/11/12 speed system over 6 or 7 or even 8. Its physics Jim!

What has driven frame design for the last 20 years has been suspension and forks bringing the front end up higher and higher. Marketing has told people this is what they need rather than what actually works for each individual rider.

Marketing has told us everything. Marketing now tells you to dump that front mech and it happens. Marketing tells you that 2017's bike is soooooo much better than 2016 or 2015, 2014 or anything 30 years previous. How can you trust someone that tells you something so obviously untrue year after year?

Designs that work dont create income streams. It cant pay for share dividends if design A works so brilliantly that no-one ever needs to buy anything ever again. And thats what is wrong with cycling. It really is trying to re-invent the wheel every five minutes to generate enough hysteria to generate the incomes needed to sustain itself.