And to further my comparison between the old Orange Mr XC and a new Canyon Lux CF 7.
Just look at them and tell me the modern bike is not better than the old one and which one you would rather ride
I would put a lot of money of it being faster than your Orange on any terrain you want to ride on.
All well and good if speed is your aim.
I'm in it for the giggles. I was having a few riding a fully rigid, 700x38mm tyred bike yesterday.
I do think modern bikes are better - smoother gears, better suspension, stronger brakes, much better tyres, nicer positioning, stronger. Faster, yes.
However, 'character' can be fun. I'm fed up of the silly multiple standards and the amount of maintenance/lack of long term durability of suspension bits.
I’m in it for the giggles. I was having a few riding a fully rigid
So am I, which is why I ride a single speed rigid bike as my only bike. Nothing to do with speed.
I’m fed up of the silly multiple standards and the amount of maintenance/lack of long term durability of suspension bits.
Not a problem for me, see above. Pick the good bits, don't pick the bad bits/bits you don't like.
Doesn't discount that on the whole a modern bike is better than an older bike for riding over any given terrain. If you don't like modern standards then just ride an od bike but don't pretend it is a better bike for actually riding (which is the bit I am interested in)
I’m fed up of the silly multiple standards
This is never going to go away, I'd make your peace with it.
“ I’m fed up of the silly multiple standards”
I remember my Dad complaining about this issue with MTBs in about 1990!
I've said this before, but I used to have a 2007 Kona Heihei which I thought was brilliant. I got rid when I realised how much worse it was that my 29er on rough ground. Several years later I borrowed my mates 2005 Kula and it was absolutely awful on any descent. The front wheel was under my chest, which meant it was doing all the work in corners and if it were to slip I'd be on my face.
Awful but very familiar. I'd forgotten that preventing myself going OTB or trying to conrber without the front wheel washing out was the main focus on descents when I started MTBing in the 90s.
I think the problem for me is what constitutes "modern" nothing I own is brand new, pretty much all of my bikes are about 5 years or more behind what is currently in the shops.
Maybe having the odd thing like tubeless tyres, using 1x or droppers means I'm not completely out of touch, but I'm sure plenty of you wouldn't touch my bikes with somebody else's.
But "Modern" bikes viewed through the lens of "not quite modern" bikes don't seem quite so advanced really, they generally just have an extra click on the rear shifter and a degree less on the head tube to warrant triple the asking price.
I keep an interested eye on what what's being sold by the industry every year and I think the point made towards the beginning of that podcast holds some water, perhaps the industry is at the "thin end of the wedge" there's not all that much change year on year for Road, MTB and now Gravel bikes really. And it's almost all at the top end of spend. What people seem to mean by "modern" is more often than not "top of top end, Megabucks toys" eventually those too run out of new-shineyness and the company's pushing them have to default to a mini price-point war...
TBH I'm more interested in middle to bottom end bikes and kit. 12 speed, leccy magic AXS/Di2 is all well and good but, it's so far out of my (sensible, not divorced) financial reach today as to seem like fiction sometimes...
For those of us looking more at the Alivio/Deore/SLX/X5/NX/SX/GRX400/105/tiagra/sora/Rival/Apex levels of kit (or even cheaper) things are actually pretty sweet (IMO). Yes some of these groups are essentially providing the same levels of function that was available a decade or more ago, others have some slightly more 'current' features, but generally there's good choices in terms of affordable components, durability and function...
Someone asserted that "we're being sold £5000 bikes..." earlier in this thread, the truth is we're not all being sold £5k+ bikes. And I think the diminishing returns and evaporation of "residual value" for those more expensive bikes, often makes them a terrible choice for a lot of people...
Are modern (current, bleeding edge and expensive) bikes rubbish?
I don't think so, they seem pretty nice when viewed from the cheap seats, I'll let you know when I catch up in another half decade or so...
Really? It seems like you’re claiming that everyone is wrong and newer bikes aren’t faster?
Where have I claimed that 'everyone is wrong' Where have I claimed 'newer bikes are faster'? Think what you like, but please don't make stuff up.
Certainly wouldn’t be difficult.
Will I be doing it for you, and wasting my own time – not a chance.
So- you're not actually providing any evidence to back up your claim then. Look; it's fine, I'm not disputing that newer bikes aren't 'better'. All I'm asking for, as someone interested in actually buying a new bike, is some sort of indication that these improvements are measurable. Helping educate someone isn't 'wasting time'. It's just being helpful.
Mid to low end bikes are amazing these days. Back in the day there was so much rubbish around that we were always striving for more expensive kit. My Fire Mountain in 1992 was £450, that's £952 today. It was nearly 30 lbs in weight.
For £1,100 now you could get a Calibre Bossnut which is vastly better in every way. Never mind the more capable geometry* and disc brakes and whatnot, but you also get FULL suspension (back in 1992 forks alone would have added another £300) which clearly adds far more to what you can achieve (and before you accuse me of skills-compensator blablabla my most ridden MTB now is fully rigid).
I mean yes, I was young then, things were exciting, but it's hard to objectively call the older bike better. And it's not like it was some reliable workhorse. By the time I got rid of it the rims had already been replaced; I changed the brakes in an effort to get stopping power; the rear mech was so floppy that it started to click on the next gear if I leant over too much in a corner; I'd had to replace both rims; the headset was an absolute notchy rusty mess, I had to regularly clean and re-grease hubs - and I only owned it two years. And I only rode it once a week! It was an entry level MTB.
I could write war and peace about this, but i would put it simpler over my 30 years with MTBs, back in the 90s and 2000s, i found that bikes were hit and miss, some good, some bad, be that down to shocks or kit, or geometry, you could find one that worked well, or one that struggled, i had that issue a few times.
Nowadays i just don't really see a 'bad' bike, they are all R&D'd well, modelled, put together with the appropriate shock and kit to suit their required market, there is also way more choice in the market, which again drives up the quality.
I just find anyone saying things like 'modern bikes are rubbish' are doing it to start a discussion (or argument!), rather than actually having any evidence. We can all put on our rose tinted glasses and reminisce about the old days, but as much as i loved older bikes, i would have much preferred my current ones if i could have had them back then!
I hope the bike world doesn't go the way of the guitar world.
Not only do ancient beat up old cheap student guitars from 30 plus years ago get lusted over and are sold for thousands to people who don't and can't play them properly but the big 2 manufacturers are making brand new guitars look like they've been sliding about in the back of a transit van for 30 years and are charging thousands for the privilege.
They are more expensive at the top end though. My bike was full bling (xtr, chris king, etc) and was £3k. That’s about £5.5k now. I’m sure you can get a bike that rides better for £5.5k, but a top end bike is now double that. I guess as we’ve all got older and richer, the industry has kept up
That is simply 22 years of inflation...
https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetary-policy/inflation/inflation-calculator
... £3000 in 1999 is £5316.76 in today's money
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?
Yes. Strava. As I've tuned my Stumpy Evo (mulleted, long shocked etc) I've got consistently faster on tracks I've been riding for 10+ years. In fact, on its maiden voyage I beat several PB times that I'd had since pre-kids, pre-injuries, and while I was still racing. At over 40 with 2 kids under 6, injuries and less riding time, it's 100% not me making those times go down! 😂😂
Clearly we’re all wrong and short steep 26” bikes are better and that’s why they’re used for everything from the Tour Divide to WC DH nowadays.
To be fair, Pros will be forced/encouraged to use the latest tech from manufacturers, regardless of whether it's better.
As someone who prefers older bikes, as with most issues I think this boils down to priorities and rider preference. Newer bikes are more specialist, and work better at their intended purpose, usually at the expense of others. Faster on trails, but more of a pain to pedal to the trails. Better handling downhill, but harder to climb fast on. Perfect gearing for trails, but spinning out on long fireroads. Neater cables, but harder to maintain.
Certain technology like dropper posts may transform your riding, but I'm not personally convinced a £300 12 Speed Cassette offers a 15 x performance increase over a £20 8/9 Speed model - for others money isn't a factor and it's worth every penny.
But hey, as long as we're all happy riding, it really doesn't matter.
“ To be fair, Pros will be forced/encouraged to use the latest tech from manufacturers, regardless of whether it’s better.”
If better is faster then no - most pros are trying to place as highly as possible when racing. Unless there’s some kind of agreement between all the teams to collude to use new tech that makes the bikes no faster or even slower, then the bikes will get quicker over time. This is the nature of sports science and technology. Competition drives the development of quicker bikes.
All I’m asking for, as someone interested in actually buying a new bike, is some sort of indication that these improvements are measurable
And as multiple poster have suggested, if you that interested, go have a dig about, if you're too lazy to do that, mleh. so's everyone else. If you can be bothered go on Youtube and watch Yoann Barelli ride the Grim Donut
Exactly, you are the one who is so keen to see the evidence that a modern bike is faster as apparently you are looking to buy one. If anybody should spend the time doing any sort of cursory research then it is you. Or you could just believe people that have experience in comparing and have watched many videos and read various things over the years.
If you are happy on whatever your current bike is then just keep riding that as what you don't know (or can't be bothered to find out) won't hurt you.
but I’m not personally convinced a £300 12 Speed Cassette offers a 15 x performance increase over a £20 8/9 Speed model
But that's not a fair comparison is it? What you should be comparing is the cheapest 12sp to your cheap 8/9 sp, and that's a Deore for at a glance on Google; £94.00, and that's without looking. And of course with the 8/9 speed cassette you're going to need the cable and mech and shifter on the front to get the spread you need, and because you need a front mech you're not going to benefit from all the suspension development that getting rid of the front shifting allows, and as a by-product of that, the wider and stiffer BB shells, either. etc etc.
So at worst the 12sp is 'just' 5 times the price (not accounting for the other stuff you have to buy, and I think we both know it'll probably add up to about the same) but all the other advantages that frame development has benefited from as well...
I know which I'd rather have,
There are lots to love about modern bikes - gearing, gear shifting, suspension damping - all so much better. Great and reliable disc brakes, dropper posts, and stiff forks are not even exclusive to bikes less than 5 years old or £2000+ retail.
I think we perhaps have lost a little of the all-rounder elements in bikes meant to be general purpose...? Peak-performance may have arrived before we reached the current position of LLS...
Other opinions may differ - but that’s cool, others may be in a better position of youth, fitness and skill to really get the most out of the latest geometry!
Anyway - not sure any of it matters. Woods, hills, bikes out on trails are what really is important!
Have fun out there this weekend! I know I will!
Exactly, you are the one who is so keen to see the evidence that a modern bike is faster as apparently you are looking to buy one. If anybody should spend the time doing any sort of cursory research then it is you.
Oh I'm doing my own research, don't you worry. I'm just finding it amusing that you've made claims that you have so far failed to substantiate. I'm not arguing one way or the other; I expect a more current bike to be somewhat of an improvement in certain areas, over an older bike (depending on brand and model of course; there are still a few brands producing mediocre products, I'm sure). Make a claim; be prepared to back it up.
I don't think we need to substantiate it do we, in this context? I mean it's my opinion that modern bikes are better, having been riding the things since 1992, and I'm.hapoy with that. If you aren't, then fine. I'm in no mood to put any time into researching speed data. After all, the question is 'are modern bikes rubbish?' not 'are they faster than old bikes?'. If old bikes were faster I'm sure racers would be on them.
I don’t think we need to substantiate it do we, in this context? I mean it’s my opinion that modern bikes are better, having been riding the things since 1992, and I’m.hapoy with that. If you aren’t, then fine.
And that's ok. Because you are making the distinction of explaining that it's your opinion, rather than attempting to state a fact, as some people seem to be doing. And that's all I'm after really.
How about reversing the question. Are old bikes better?
I borrowed my boss' old Stumpjumper to give it a service. Like a lot of old bikes it's pretty much box fresh despite being 20 years old!
But dear God it's impossible to ride. It's a 19" frame, but it's so cramped that when you lean forwards you have to try and find space for some elbow origami.
Just rolling down the grassy bank in the car park feels gnar! 5 minutes previously I'd arrived and sprinted across the park, and launched off that same bank on my Scandal, a blind huck to flat!
It's a double whammy, the old bike just doesn't inspire any confidence with it's short wheelbase and steep geometry. And I trust those 35mm forks and hillowtech BB not to snap a lot more than the Dukes dukes and squaretaper on the Stumpjumper.
And this is comparing two ~£1k bikes, not even allowing for inflation.
Between the two you've got incremental changes each model which make less of a difference each time but add up. I still like my "old school" singlespeed 29ers like the Swift, el mariachi etc, they might be rigid with long stems, but they're still a million miles from that horrible old Stumpjumper.
And it's not just XC bikes, I made the mistake of revisiting old 26" steel "hardcore hardtails", they're better, but not much!
Newer bikes are more specialist, and work better at their intended purpose, usually at the expense of others. Faster on trails, but more of a pain to pedal to the trails. Better handling downhill, but harder to climb fast on.
You're thinking of modern trail bikes. But there are many many types of bike available now besides trail bikes. You can get.modern bikes that fill the same niche as the old ones (like mine), and they are still better.
I’m just finding it amusing that you’ve made claims that you have so far failed to substantiate
Substantiate, schmubstantiate. I am not making claims's about anything and I don't have to substantiate anything I say. This is a bike forum for talking shit about bikes not a scientific peer reviewed study.
Reading posts from this thread from people who have ridden many bikes for many years (I have ridden MTBs since 1988) we are saying that modern bikes are better in a lot of areas. We don't need to have data to back that up, take it or leave it.
You’re thinking of modern trail bikes. But there are many many types of bike available now besides trail bikes. You can get.modern bikes that fill the same niche as the old ones (like mine), and they are still better.
Exactly. I ride a modern bike and it has 68.5 head angle and 74 seat angle and it is great for general riding and not specialist in any area at all.
Those people thinking old bikes are better are either being too nostalgic, never ridden an old bike, or never ridden a modern bike.
My 1989 Kona Cindercone was considered radical at the time with straight forks, sloping top tube, and bottom chainstay U brake, though the U brake was a stupid idea even back then and seemed it light years ahead of the Emmelle Cougar it replaced. But even if I had a new Kona Cindercone sitting next to my hardtail Procaliber 6 I'd grab the 6 every time. It's lighter, faster, better handling and everything on it is better built.
Sure I miss the good old days of everything being standard, 26" wheels, 1 1/8th headset, BSA bottom brackets, 135mm spacing, and simple Sram and Shimano cross-compatibility but times change.
Exactly. I ride a modern bike and it has 68.5 head angle and 74 seat angle and it is great for general riding and not specialist in any area at all.
My 2015 bike has 70.5 HA and 73 SA, it's great on road and smooth trails, it can handle most off-road I care to take it down. It's 29er, has 2.3" tubeless tyres, and a rigid carbon fork. It's also front mech compatible.
This thread is so redundant. Anyone who thinks old bikes are better than new ones is smoking crack.
You're wrong and I can prove it scientifically on an Etchasketch.
Anyone who thinks old bikes are better than new ones is smoking crack.
I'm afraid you are going to need to substantiate that claim
My memories of several sets of Bombers (Z1, Jnr T, Shivers) and their smooth, smooth action (they were flexy admittedly) compared to the air forks I've had on my last four bikes (manitou r7, Recon silver, manitou markhour, rs revelation) are misrepresenting dreams of better days gone past then I guess.
I’m afraid you are going to need to substantiate that claim
Simple physics. Apparently.
I think we perhaps have lost a little of the all-rounder elements in bikes meant to be general purpose…?
All rounders still exist.
My vote on a true all rounder would be a 120 travel hardtail, head angle around 67, dropper, 29er, change tyres based on application.
I’d put money on it being a better ‘all rounder’ than any historic all rounder, at any price.
Problem is, these days, ‘master of none’ comes to the fore. There is no place where the above mentioned bike is the best solution. You can get a better descender, a better climber, a better racer, a better bike Packing/long distance; and before you know it, you are broke and divorced.
I’m afraid you are going to need to substantiate that claim
Glances up at amazing 29er hardtail and thinks back to the shonky 27" bike with chrome rims, downtube shifters, and constantly wobbly quill stem I used to ride when I was a kid.
If you think old bikes were better than new ones, I think you must be either very young or have a very poor memory.
My memories of several sets of Bombers (Z1, Jnr T, Shivers) and their smooth, smooth action (they were flexy admittedly) compared to the air forks I’ve had on my last four bikes (manitou r7, Recon silver, manitou markhour, rs revelation) are misrepresenting dreams of better days gone past then I guess.
I've got a set of old Bombers still (MX Pro's).
They're alright but:
They're heavy as they're filled with oil
They've got a very odd spring rate as there's little/no negative spring. They're stiff, then not stiff, then really ramp up.
The damping is pretty basic. There's no high/low-speed rebound circuit. You set the rebound so it just about stops clunking on top out and hope that feels ok on the trail (it's generally too slow so you have to accept some clunking to stop them packing down).
They've got the rigidity of spaghetti, I'd make a worse analogy but that needs saving for the original SID's, or even just the earlier Z1's with the bolt-on crown.
They have quite low stiction. But I think that memory is mostly tinted by how bad subsequent generations of air sprung forks were. Pre ~2002 Marzocchi forks were great and everything else was rubbish (but often lighter). 2002-2008 ish almost* everything was absolute junk (Dukes, Psylo, R7, Minute, and Fox stanchions were water-soluble). Then RS got their s*** together with the Pike, Revelation etc which were a massive leap forward. Compared to modern forks they're no longer that special.
I think my last Marzocchi fork was a set of anniversary Z1's (orange, RC2 cartrige, with the bolt up CSU), they were amazing, but weighed more than the frame they were bolted to! And still weren't as good as the Lyrics that eventually replaced them.
*Noteable exceptions, the Manitou Dorado for DH, Sherman TPC+ for Enduro before it was enduro, Fox F80 and F100 for XC. Even marzocchi had some clangers, I had some Z1 SL's (the silver 20mm bolt through, 150mm travel air sprung ones) that just didn't move they were so sticky.