Forum menu
No.
Great to ride but I sometimes miss the simplicity of old bikes but get confused by the plethora of standards for parts ,plus cost of parts these days.
Grew up with steel bikes, with Cottered cranks, crap side pull brakes and narrow gear ranges. They were easy to fix though!
No, no they are not.
Modern bikes are great, old bike are great, all bikes are great.
There is more choice these days but still very easy to have a simple bike with tried and tested fittings (I manage it easily enough)
In many ways, no. But in some ways they're not as good as they should be - like the fact that we're being sold £5,000 bikes that still weigh north of 30lb for anything other than DH. It shows a lack of progression and innovation on manufacturers' parts.
Modern bikes are better than ever and people still love inventing things to whinge about.
like the fact that we’re being sold £5,000 bikes that still weigh north of 30lb for anything other than DH. It shows a lack of progression and innovation on manufacturers’ parts.
I'm not sure about that, there are plenty of bikes for that money that weigh around 25lbs (Transition Spur, YT Izzo, new Stumpjumper) and they are still much more capable bikes in terms of what they can ride than probably most of the longer travel bikes we had 10 years ago.
The more hefty bikes now will likely have lots of travel or they are sub £3k and they will still ride better and last a lot longer than the most expensive bikes from the past.
There are new technologies like self adjusting, all weather hydraulic brakes
I think that sentence says everything we need to know about how progressive the author is.
It's also easy to predict who on this forum will agree with the assertion...
we’re being sold £5,000 bikes that still weigh north of 30lb for anything other than DH. It shows a lack of progression and innovation on manufacturers’ parts.
That’s just one metric that, arguably, isn’t relevant. Those north of 30lb bikes still work better everywhere than the lightweights of 10-15 years ago.
#AllBikesMatter
Having a hefty bike can be reassuring. I get that really heavy is bad but, unless you’re racing professionally, I’ve never understood the whole obsession with weight thing.
All bikes are ace. Especially mountain bikes. There is just so much choice out there now. From frame materials to travel, Rigid with monster 29+ tyres through to full suspension with a plethora of linkage choices. Geometry has moved on so much too. You still have manufacturers producing bikes with conservative numbers and LLS. Choices everywhere!
There’s never been a better time to ride bikes. Unless you want a new one at the moment then you’re ****ed!
I actually listened to this whilst I was waiting to collect my shopping this morning and it didn't really make a lot of sense. Talking about electronic shifting being bad and "if your battery dies miles from home you are stuck", then said "I guess your gear cable could snap, but that's never happened to me before, plus you can carry a spare cable". You can just as easily carry a spare battery and swapping one of them over is a lot easier than fitting another cable.
Also seemed quite road orientated as talking about disc brakes as a negative and I'm certain no one that rides mountain bikes would say disc brakes are bad.
“we’re being sold £5,000 bikes that still weigh north of 30lb for anything other than DH”
But despite the weight they’re usually faster due to the bigger wheels and strong enough to be ridden a lot harder without breaking and less bendy so they handle better when ridden hard.
Yes
tomhoward
That’s just one metric that, arguably, isn’t relevant. Those north of 30lb bikes still work better everywhere than the lightweights of 10-15 years ago.
And those bikes have a dropper, wide rims, wide tyres, 29er wheels instead of 26, wide bars, and disc brakes. The weight saved has been put to good use elsewhere IMO
Some trends in modern bikes are IMO all about consumerism, fashion and increasing sales not improving riding and stuff like electronic shifting is a solution in search of a problem
the lack of interchangability really irritates me
On the other hand modern brakes and suspension is a vast improvement over offerings from years ago
Does anyone seriously long for the glory days of chrome rims, suicide levers and rusted up quill stems?
Marketing departments exist to convince us that we want stuff that we don’t actually need. So of course that means some people are riding around on bikes that are more complex and expensive than they need to be. But as long as they are happy I’m not sure it matters. You can still buy (or build) a bike that is fit for your purposes. You just need to think about what actually matters to you and not what someone else tells you that you want.
What tj said. "There's good and bad" like McCartney said also.
54m podcast from a random, no I don't need to hear it!
anyone who thinks that "self adjusting, all weather hydraulic brakes" are cutting edge probably isn't worth listening too.
Electronic shifting is a tiny niche I'd be amazed if its on more than 1% of even "proper" bikes
Some trends in modern bikes are IMO all about consumerism, fashion and increasing sales
T'was ever-so. Most leisure bikes have always been consumer items. They're built to a price point and a lifespan and have always had proprietary parts, and that's been the case since the dawn of mass consumerism. There has never been some "gilded age" when all bike parts fitted all frames, or were built to last more than a hand-full of years. To suggest that this is somehow a modern (and in what context do you mean modern) development is to have missed the whole point of post-ww2 capitalism
In many ways, no. But in some ways they’re not as good as they should be – like the fact that we’re being sold £5,000 bikes that still weigh north of 30lb for anything other than DH. It shows a lack of progression and innovation on manufacturers’ parts.
Couldnt disagree more. I'd take my current 32lb bike on a XC/trail ride any day over the 26lb bike I had fifteen years ago.
Modern bikes are brilliant.
In the 90s my mates and i would ride everything, dh xc dirt jumps etc and our skill progression was limited due to the ever present legitimate fear of what part will snap on me if i do this jump or that drop. Rims that would fold at the first suggestion of a hook up on a jump, handlebars that would snap if landing a drop to flat, fork top caps that would fire out into your chest. I really really like modern bikes in comparison
clickbait title.
A quick shufty at the blurb reveals what he is actually asking is
Are modern bikes soulless, disposable products with obsolescence built in?
The answer is yesno
The answer to this question is:
You must be incredibly stupid or have no experience to even think this is a question.
Still, it is a decent click bait title.
Having a hefty bike can be reassuring. I get that really heavy is bad but, unless you’re racing professionally, I’ve never understood the whole obsession with weight thing.
Or if the rider is very light. Think about a small engined car and and big engined car towing a heavy trailer.
I’m pretty light at 11st and still prefer a bike with a bit of weight too it tbh. Reassuring when you fall off/crash in to a tree that you know the bike can take a licking and keep on ticking 😀
But in some ways they’re not as good as they should be – like the fact that we’re being sold £5,000 bikes that still weigh north of 30lb for anything other than DH
OMG don't say that on here! You'll get death threats or something. 😉
They have got expensive though, haven't they? I've noticed that.
Out of interest; is there any actual scientific type data that 'modern' bikes are faster* than bikes from say 10 or 20 years ago, or is it all just subjective opinion as to how much 'better' they are?
*Being about the one metric that can be used to demonstrate any actual performance improvement.
is there any actual scientific type data that ‘modern’ bikes are faster
There probably is. But by the same token I'd bet money that Lemond, Anquetil, Hinault and so on would still be at the pointy end of racing if they were born later than they were. Also I'd say that lower geared bikes in general are probably a better thing, and at that point how fast they go is not that important and outside of a few folk, never really has been.
Back in the 90s my bikes used to break, one way or another, virtually every time I rode them.
Now I barely have to do anything to them beyond washing them.
Modern bikes are great.
No. Bikes have always had some level of obsolescence. Lots of wear and tear items. Even back in '88 there were lots of shiny things to buy to make your bike prettier. I regret letting my parents get rid of my Saracen Eiger when I moved out, but the chances of me preferring it to my current Airdrop Edit, or my previous Zero AM? Nil.
Out of interest; is there any actual scientific type data that ‘modern’ bikes are faster* than bikes from say 10 or 20 years ago, or is it all just subjective opinion as to how much ‘better’ they are?
Have you ever watched any 90's DH racing on YouTube? The fastest riders are still the fastest riders but they're also have much harder time on much tamer tracks.
Modern bikes look terrifyingly fast in comparison to the old ones which just look terrifying in general.
20 years ago I bought an Orange E6 for £1250. It had v brakes and the pads could wear out on one wet ride and rims might last a year. The forks would seize after one wet ride and the tyres were rubbish in all weathers. It was pretty light but terrifying when pointed downhill. Two years ago I got a Bird Zero 29 for £1800. Apart from changing the pads the brakes have been faultless, same goes for the forks. Really good tyres too. It's a bit heavier but climbs surprisingly well and it's an absolute blast when pointed downhill especially with the dropper that came with it. I don't know how the prices compare regarding inflation but you get a lot more your money now.
20 years ago I bought an Orange E6 for £1250. It had v brakes and the pads could wear out on one wet ride and rims might last a year. The forks would seize after one wet ride and the tyres were rubbish in all weathers. It was pretty light but terrifying when pointed downhill.
Yeah but did it have 'soul'? Whatever that is.
I don't miss any of my old bikes. They were fun at the time but everything since has been progressively better.
Nope.
I once read something along the lines of "Your favourite bikes will be the ones you lusted after when you were growing up".
Personally I think a lot of modern changes weren't really necessary (at least for the kind of riding I do).
Tubeless tyres seem like a pain to setup, same for internal cables.
11/12/13 Speed cassettes/rear mechs are hugely expensive, and need more precision when setting up.
Single chainrings don't really add any benefits over a triple setup, meaning you have to ride slowly on the bits inbetween trails.
Slack geometry may make the bike more fun to ride, but again slows the bike down on the non trail stuff.
Essentially if MTBs stayed how they were, gravel bikes wouldn't exist. Bikes have become more specialist so that you buy two instead of one.
anyone who thinks that “self adjusting, all weather hydraulic brakes” are cutting edge probably isn’t worth listening too.
You'd be mistaking a radio / presenter mannerism and his personality for a lack of expertise or perspective.
Thought it was an interesting discussion where 3 people worth listening to shared some opinions. Obviously the q is subjective, or it's a Betteridge's law thing.
we’re being sold £5,000 bikes that still weigh north of 30lb for anything other than DH. It shows a lack of progression and innovation on manufacturers’ parts.
This is rubbish of the highest order. Lack of innovation? Have you seen a modern FS bike with modern high end forks and shock? You now have a choice of fork offset and bikes are designed around that - blimey, when I started MTBing all handlebars even were a standard width! Choice is a form of innovation. People barely evenentioned geometry back in the early 90s, now people buy bikes based on the characteristics they want. That was never possible before. You had your MTB, that was it. Now look at a Specialized catalogue today Vs 30 years ago and tell me there's no innovation!
As for the weight - you can still buy a £5k bike that weighs 22lbs, but you can also buy an enduro bike weighing 28 and everything in between. Manufacturers now offer you a choice of heavy and strong (and stuff etc) or light.
Personally I think a lot of modern changes weren’t really necessary (at least for the kind of riding I do).
Tubeless tyres seem like a pain to setup, same for internal cables.
11/12/13 Speed cassettes/rear mechs are hugely expensive, and need more precision when setting up.
Single chainrings don’t really add any benefits over a triple setup, meaning you have to ride slowly on the bits inbetween trails.
Slack geometry may make the bike more fun to ride, but again slows the bike down on the non trail stuff.
This is why I’m glad change has occurred. All those things you’ve listed, plus dropper posts, are the best things to happen to mountain bikes full stop in my opinion. Although I do think the LLS thing is going too far now.
Single chainrings don’t really add any benefits over a triple setup, meaning you have to ride slowly on the bits inbetween trails.
Maybe not in terms of the available gears, but they do for things like no longer having chain drop or chain suck. Also now there is no big chainring and front mech, designers can use that extra space for more tyre clearance and suspension pivots.
One thing in a of this, whatever you think of older bikes Vs newer ones, I don't really have more fun than I did on bikes in the 80s. What/where/how I ride changes and I gain experience along the way but I expect I'd be rating the experience 9 or 10/10 pretty consistently throughout.
I do see things like internal cables and greater integration as a pointless faff and still see value in light steel rim braked road bikes, but things move on to give us more choices to pick and mix. Guy Andrew's point about being able to understand your bike is quite Zen and the Art of and the choices + tech may be a barrier to some, that's a flip side of having wider options.
This is why I’m glad change has occurred. All those things you’ve listed, plus dropper posts, are the best things to happen to mountain bikes full stop in my opinion. Although I do think the LLS thing is going too far now.
I guess I like the simplicity and cost of running tubes, 8 speed, external cables, triple rings.. easy and very cheap to maintain. Bought a load of SRAM 8 speed cassettes from Wiggle for £7 each a couple of months back, chains are £7-8, Rear Mechs approximately £20.
I'm intrigued why you think single chainrings are better than double/triples though, same with internal cables? Just a neatness thing?
Out of interest; is there any actual scientific type data that ‘modern’ bikes are faster* than bikes from say 10 or 20 years ago,
Yep, loads of it if you want to look. Have a search around on YouTube and see people testing old versus new using same power.
“ I’m intrigued why you think single chainrings are better than double/triples though, same with internal cables? Just a neatness thing?”
This: “ Maybe not in terms of the available gears, but they do for things like no longer having chain drop or chain suck. Also now there is no big chainring and front mech, designers can use that extra space for more tyre clearance and suspension pivots.”
Getting rid of the front mech is hugely beneficial to full-sus suspension design.
I think internal routing is stupid and hate it on my Levo. My hardtail is external, thank god!