my nicolai helius frame was bought in 2004. Loads of bits have been upgraded, some old stuff remains in place like Hope M4's. thing is, the frame is in great condition even though its been ridden hard in Uk and now in Austrlia. It will not break.....i'd like another frame but justifying it when the nicolai is still doing the job is hard. Should i be satisfied that my 1500gbp investment in the frame was fantastic value for money 8 years later!!
Why would it be? In theory alloy frames fatigue but in practice this does not seem to have a huge effect
Things have moved on. It's not until one tries something new that one realises how much.
My 04 s-works Enduro is still going strong and at £999 for the frame makes it even better value for money 😉
My 'nice' (carbon) road bike is 8 years old. I keep meaning to replace it, but I really like it. It's still a night and day improvement on the 'winter' bike, so it seems a bit pointless!
Chainrings are original too, must have a good 40,000 miles in them!
2005 FSR here, I'd love a new frame, but only because it would be new!
Considering a new paintjob to spice it up a bit as the paint is looking tired...
1996 Turner Burner is my bouncy aluminium bike of choice. Paid a grand second hand 11 years ago.
TandemJeremy - Member
Why would it be? In theory alloy frames fatigue but in practice this does not seem to have a huge effect
Yes it does. I've seem loads of frames (several of mine included unfortunately) break due to fatigue. Are you suggesting that bike frames don't fatigue to any significant degree?
I've seen loads of frames remain completely intact for years on end 🙂
thats the point clubber - some do - but some do not. 20 yr old ally frames still work. It appears not be as critical as some of us thought it would be
rocketman - MemberThings have moved on. It's not until one tries something new that one realises how much.
In what way have frame designs "moved on"
2006. Years left in it.
[img] 
[/img]
(Should be a Yeti pic there ^^ )
[i]Things have moved on. It's not until one tries something new that one realises how much.[/i]
Bullshit!
Right, ok yes, you're right - some do seem to be built in a way that they last much longer than you'd expect. Oddly enough IME, it's CAAD3 Cannondales which don't seem to live up to the Crack'n'fail reputation.
As to moving on, IME, full sussers are lighter and better all rounders than they were 10 years ago. Doesn't mean that the old ones don't work of course or that the improvements are worth spending the money on - only you can decide that.
My Epic Comp must be at least 9 years old. Everything is original apart from the tyres. I was going to sell it for a Singular Swift but have decided to keep it. Really Really REALLY want a Swift though :-/
My Enduro (warranty replacement) is 8yo this year, although the original frame would have been 9yo+ by now, if it hadnt cracked!
In what way have frame designs "moved on"
Shock design, and fine-tuning frame design for those shocks. Weight, too.
Things have moved on. It's not until one tries something new that one realises how much.
Bullshit!
Those forks aren't from 2006 though, are they? and those brakes look suspiciously like hydraulic discs to me.......
If you like it, keep it.
People are quite right about the amount of 'skill compensation' built into modern frames.
I remember Steve Peat winning downhills on a rigid Kona and he'd probably beat us all today on the same bike, as would Merckxx on his 70's steel 10 speed despite our carbon tubulars and electric shifting.
Only an opinion but I've been embarrassed too many times by folk on lesser bikes to think its the bigger part of the equation.
Oddly enough IME, it's CAAD3 Cannondales which don't seem to live up to the Crack'n'fail reputation.
I've got a 1992 3.0series in regular (if undemanding) use 🙂
For every example there is an equal and opposite counterexample 😉
Ballistic Squirrel model then?
I have a 2005 Orange Five and a 2004 GT Avalanche still going strong, both frames are in great nick, a respray would be nice but they still ride the same as ever. The five still has the original manitou shock on it as well!
Those forks aren't from 2006 though, are they? and those brakes look suspiciously like hydraulic discs to me.......
They aren't frames though are they.
hydraulic discs were well established by 2002 too.
2006. Years left in it.
Don't brake too hard as my mates rear triangle has just snapped!
Things have moved on. It's not until one tries something new that one realises how much.
Hills and mountains haven't though, not in the last 8 years anway.
My Epic Comp must be at least 9 years old
Can't be any older, they were introduced in 2003!
Those forks aren't from 2006 though, are they? and those brakes look suspiciously like hydraulic discs to me.......
Seriously? Fox Forx came about in 2002. Shimano started their XT 4-pot brakes in 2001 following Hope C2s and what not which had been around for several years.
My 2006 race bike looked pretty damn similar to my current one technologically!
2001 Superlight here, reknowned for exploding and maiming the pilot (apparently). I shall be riding it till it does.
Hmmm,
I suppose general thinking on certain types of MTB geometry has " Moved On" a bit, but we're not talking staggering seismic shifts in thinking really; a couple of degrees in head angle, maybe +/-10mm of top tube in some cases, but I doubt your bike is actually as "Dated" as you think it is, plus it all comes down to the reality of using it, is it actually un-ridable? or are you still enjoying riding it?
I'd suggest keeping it personally as it's gotten you this far, see if it can make it to the 10 year mark... By which point it will owe you even less.
A decade of use at ~£150 a year is a relative bargain...
Shiney new things bring their own problems when they fail to live up to the hype/expectations and they tend to dent the bank balance, the money you don't spend on a new frame could probably cover a couple of alpine trips, or carry in clocking up some interest ready for the next purchase in a couple of years...
Seriously? Fox Forx came about in 2002. Shimano started their XT 4-pot brakes in 2001 following Hope C2s and what not which had been around for several years.
Seriously? Do those forks look like they are 2002 models to you?
Nah, I don't think you'd see a huge difference by upgrading to the latest model.
And I'm saying that as someone who's fighting his hardest to resist the temptation of selling his own Nicolai FR to get an AC 29'er, but has the complete realisation that every time he rides it, he falls in love with it again, and it just keeps on giving and giving and being wonderful 😀
Just treat it to some new forks and a new shock and it will go on loving you for ages yet.
[i]Those forks aren't from 2006 though, are they? and those brakes look suspiciously like hydraulic discs to me.......[/i]
Forks are 2007, the 2006 ones only differed in that they had 10cm less travel.
Replaced the brakes to get rid of Dual Control. The performance isn't that much different from the 2006 XTR hydros they replaced. (The levers are a million times better though!)
Weight is easily on a par with 'today's 5"-6" travel bikes.
Seriously? Do those forks look like they are 2002 models to you?
Did I say that? Here's a 2006 one:
[img] 
[/img]
Not really that different is it? 🙄
Frankly the 2002 ones looked pretty similar save the decals!
What about your brake comment? Do you honestly think that 2006 was early for brake technology!?