Retro versus new - the aesthetics....

[al-onestare]

I've said it once and I'll say it again, there are plenty of modern day designs that hark back then take forward the traditional triangular design. Some are - dare I say - even prettier. I'm a big fan of the Cielo range.

 

[legrandefromage]

But I dont need a suspension fork?

 

[The History Man]

Tell me this isn't pretty Three years old.

 

[ultrazenith]

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.

Spot on mate!

Yes, I also agree with THM and others that a few brands are still making nice bikes, but these tend to be small operations catering to retro grouches like us.

I did some interesting analysis at the end of the summer after a big local 40 km MTB marathon event, which proved to me how little difference there is in terms of racing speed between modern and retro. I'm not especially fit as cyclists go, and my usual training is to do a 50-60 km off-road loop with 1000-2000 m altitude gain, once a week. Basically a classical day ride.

Anyway, in this marathon there were around a thousand entrants, everything from professional cyclists on the most expensive bikes money can buy (including several national team riders who rode in the last Olympics) to ordinary people on cheap and nasty modern bikes. And then me, on my 853 hardtail with v brakes and a Pace RC36 fork.

At the end when I looked at my time (I was something like 500 out of 1000), I discovered the winner of the men's elite category was 'only' 50% faster than me over the complete distance. Yes, that's a lot, but at the same time it lets me set a limit on how much faster a modern, super expensive XC bike can make somebody.

Being conservative, I'd guess the fastest riders have:
+10% speed advantage due to being 15 years younger and genetic advantages as natural athletes
+5% or more speed advantage from having near perfect nutrition and hydration
+5% or more speed advantage from having an optimal body weight unlike someone with a bit of a belly like me (regardless of cardiovascular fitness)
+??% for cardiovascular fitness - this is hard to guess about, but surely we're talking at least 15%, probably more.
Total: >35%, which leaves less than 15% for differences between the actual bike itself.

Another point is that the pro's and fastest riders can't even decide between themselves which wheel size is faster. If larger wheels were the winning technology they're hyped to be, we'd see Trek and others coming out with 30ers or 31ers, to get more of the advantage of large wheels. Likewise, if 650b was the sweet spot it's marketed as, then we'd see the top flight riders abandon 29 or 26 and all take up 650b instead. And we'd see riders of only one wheel size on the podiums, because even a 1% increase in average speed is more than enough to win a long race. The same argument can be made about full suspension.

 

[highlandsflyer]

Re:

Hardly wee operations..

 

[M-Power]

Re:

Good points re cycle industry marketing by LGF. Its clear that smarter riders can see through the marketing hype. I also prefer the retro frame style

 

[brocklanders023]

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:

This for me really. Bikes stopped being anything other than functional looking on the whole around the mid 90's. Show me a 1998 hard tail and then a 2005 and I would struggle to tell you which was which.

There are some nice looking bikes about now, and plenty of mingers with a huge section in the middle that look very similar, same as it has been for 20+ years.

As for wheel size, forks, shocks, etc.... To tar it all as marketing is tosh. Some is, plenty isn't but the simple fact is people like some thing new to buy. No different to 1990 or any other given date. Those who wish to argue it is are welcome to have a go on my 29" full suss with dropper post and 1x gears then tell me they see no difference. Up to you to decide if it's better but things have moved on and moved away from the past.

 

[M-Power]

Re:

^ Some would argue a Tesla S with ludricrous mode is more exillarating to drive than a 400 HP V8 M Car. Dont worry there will be se* bots for them too. Me, il stay old skool :mrgreen:

 

[mattr]

At the end when I looked at my time (I was something like 500 out of 1000), I discovered the winner of the men's elite category was 'only' 50% faster than me over the complete distance. Yes, that's a lot, but at the same time it lets me set a limit on how much faster a modern, super expensive XC bike can make somebody.

Being conservative, I'd guess the fastest riders have:
+10% speed advantage due to being 15 years younger and genetic advantages as natural athletes
+5% or more speed advantage from having near perfect nutrition and hydration
+5% or more speed advantage from having an optimal body weight unlike someone with a bit of a belly like me (regardless of cardiovascular fitness)
+??% for cardiovascular fitness - this is hard to guess about, but surely we're talking at least 15%, probably more.
Total: >35%, which leaves less than 15% for differences between the actual bike itself.

Your analysis has far too many overlapping variables to be of any use to anyone. It hasn't actually told you anything, other than possibly giving you "evidence" for confirmation bias.

Another point is that the pro's and fastest riders can't even decide between themselves which wheel size is faster. If larger wheels were the winning technology they're hyped to be, we'd see Trek and others coming out with 30ers or 31ers, to get more of the advantage of large wheels. Likewise, if 650b was the sweet spot it's marketed as, then we'd see the top flight riders abandon 29 or 26 and all take up 650b instead. And we'd see riders of only one wheel size on the podiums, because even a 1% increase in average speed is more than enough to win a long race. The same argument can be made about full suspension.

Erm, the pros have decided. 29er is the fastest size for XC, unless you have biomechanical restrictions, as theres a limit on how small a frame you can make and still use 29er "sensibly", see the compromises Schurter and some of the women have made to get a position set up on a 29er, neg rise stems, zero offset posts with the saddle slammed forward and so on. Pretty sure every world cup podium in 2016 was populated by 29ers. Edit, just checked, Schurter was on 27.5" prior to July. Every other podium rider was on 29er. Every podium since then has been 29er. Including the World Champs.

No one is going to go bigger as a) you can't get parts b) the size restrictions on frames and suchlike mean that only the very tallest of riders are going to be able to use them. c) bigger wheels are more fragile. (Which is why trail and DH bikes are tending towards 26 and 27.5, as you can still get the wheel (relatively) light and stiff.)

For social/fun riding. It doesn't really matter what wheel size you use.

 

[cce]

For social/fun riding. It doesn't really matter what wheel size you use.

This. For social riding none of it matters at all (as long as the bike doesnt break every two minutes, that's great way to lose riding friends)