There are modern MTBs that fit that role
My Genesis Longitude is just a bigger and better version of a 90’s rigid steel MTB IME. I’ve had an array of 90’s Konas, Dawes, Rockhoppers, Saracen, Raleigh/M-Trax and never going back. Curiously, the one I enjoyed most was a Raleigh Apex which I customised circa 2007 for gravel-type day-touring in hilly country. It was a workhorse. Brookes B17, some high sweep bars, and one of those riser stems ie
Handling was interesting. But I could ride it in comfort all day long with considerable cargo.
Nowadays geometry/fit is much improved, MTB-wise. I never really got into the arse-up, head-down cricked-neck scene so would at the very least fit high riser bars on any early MTB.
even the most basic 90s MTB had a huge amount more reach than a modern day gravel or CX bike
That would explain why this 90s MTB, which was supposed to fit my wife (who is 5" shorter than me) seems to have the same reach as my gravel bike. A bit of a surprise though as I though MTBs had got a lot longer recently. Did they get shorter after the 90s before getting longer again?
90s MTBs had long distance to the bars, because 130mm stems were normal, and you got a stretched-ish roadie style position - a lot of MTBers had previously been roadies so that's what they were used to; but the actual reach measured by modern standards wasn't that long I don't think. That coupled with the steep head angle meant that the front wheel was pretty close to you. They never used to discuss reach as a measurement in geo charts in those days.
These bikes do climb well because they are more or less based on road bikes, because early MTBing was based around either XC racing or simply covering ground, which has similar requirements to road biking.
My Genesis Longitude is just a bigger and better version of a 90’s rigid steel MTB IME.
Aren't you Cardiff based? That Genesis is probably the perfect Valleys bike. Fancy a classic Valleys ride after I'm done digging my garden?
There are modern MTBs that fit that role but guessing people don’t buy them as much (or marketing/media would suggest that anyway)
No, and there aren't as many out there to buy. Mostly marketed as 'bike-packing' bikes.
Mine is a Salsa El Mariachi, but there are others:
Shand Bahookie
Big Brother
Genesis Longitude
Surly Karate Monkey
Trek 1120
Salsa Cutthroat or Fargo (ok so those both have drop bars but they're still MTBs really)
Rigid 29ers not that different to flat-bar monstercross but usually MTB gearing and yet more tyre clearance.
I still use my 90's Diamond Back Ascent with XT and LX. I've fitted full guards and use it in the crappy weather on local trails
The only reason to ride the towpaths and bridleways is to get to somewhere to actually ride avoiding roads.
That might be right in the south-east but doesn't apply in huge chunks of the country. I could manage the bridleways of Dartmoor or the Quantocks, for example, on my gravel bike, but I have much more fun there on a MTB. And that's what I ride whenever I'm there, normally thinking that I should have taken a bigger travel bike because this bridleway is most unbridleway-like.
"These bikes do climb well because they are more or less based on road bikes"
Also because a decent one was a lot lighter than a modern bike! Mine wasn't far off my road bike in terms of weight. Would have been lighter too without the 130mm stem 😀
nice one @roverpig - I've recently retired my - later - Stumpjumper M2, and am left with a 1993 Kilaeua to connect me to the heady days of 26" rigid MTBs. Rear disc would make all the difference.
Prior to the M2, I had a black steel rigid Stumpjumper (must have been around 1988 vintage) and my first bike, a Rockhopper from about 1986/7 with the chain stay U brake.
Also because a decent one was a lot lighter than a modern bike!
No, not really. A decent XC bike now still weighs under 10kg which was still ballpark for 90s bling. The only problem was that back then there weren't other options. In some ways you can't compare an early 90s bike to a modern trail bike because they are really pretty different things. When you choose your 27lb carbon Enduro sled now you're buying something that simply didn't exist in any form then.
Here's what i was riding at the weekend - my 20s FS XC weapon being hors de combat due to a warrenty issue. Rejuventated the '98 Rockhopper Comp. Resonably quick climbing, bumpy on the flat, and exciting on the descents. Get those cool dual control levers!
Here’s what i was riding at the weekend – my 20s FS XC weapon being hors de combat due to a warrenty issue. Rejuventated the ’98 Rockhopper Comp. Resonably quick climbing, bumpy on the flat, and exciting on the descents. Get those cool dual control levers! Don't seem to be able to upload images tho....
Aren’t you Cardiff based?
Not I. Other end of the M50. Only 2 stops away by train tho . Parents in N Wales.
Fancy a classic Valleys ride after I’m done digging my garden?
That’s a great offer thnks, deffo after restrictions lift and when I can get up to scratch(ish)
Have been enforced off MTB (and most road) last 6 months with re-injury. Exploratory MTBimble last week of 5 miles was disappointing. Plenty of walking up hills and swearing. Singlespeed is my future with emtb plan B.
Just bought a set of frame bags so remaining optimistic after close to sacking it all off last autumn.
#notalostcause
#biffer
first bike, a Rockhopper from about 1986/7 with the chain stay U brake.
That was my 2nd MTB, bought as a used frame and swapped parts over from 1st. IIRC the flat bars I specced were about 450mm 🤣🤣
I’ll never fully get why early MTB designers (and us serial fettlers) seemed to think that a slammed front end and narrow bar = the ideal offroad experience. Even remember toptubes sloping forwards (presumably offering extra fallover clearance)
I’ll never fully get why early MTB designers (and us serial fettlers) seemed to think that a slammed front end and narrow bar = the ideal offroad experience.
Because when you're used to road bikes, and you get on an MTB like that it feels natural, like the 'right' setup. My mate runs his 2005 MTB like that and likes it, cos he's really a roadie and doesn't care for anything technical. It climbs well but is frighteningly unstable when you try and do what you're used to doing on a modern bike.
When you get on a new bike you sort of want it to be like your old one - it takes a bit of effort to un-learn what felt right on that one and figure out what's right on the new one. And most adults who were MTBing were outdoorsy people who wanted to get out in to the hills, or roadies who fancied a different sort of race format. It was us kids who were trying to do jumps or seeking out the bonkers steep stuff to try and get down with your arse over the back of the saddle.
^ Most likely some truth to that, especially the race format of the time.
It’s interesting to me as my first ‘grownup’ bike @ 15yo was a 54cm Carlton (road) racing bike. Before that I’d had a Tomahawk and a 26” ‘tracker’ (kids road bike that I put cross tyres and cow horn bars on) for ‘jumping’ and ‘downhill skidding’
The bike I’d ridden (friend’s bike) that I most liked offroad was a Raleigh Grifter. I never got to own one but it just felt right.
FFWD to 1989/90 my road bike was broken and I’d seen these MTBs/ATBs in my LBS so went for a look. I was sold. I chose a frame the same size as my road bike (first ‘mistake’ but the reach was correct even if the standover was nutcracking)
I dug the higher front end (was a riser stem) and nearly everything else about it. It was more ATB to be fair. Wealthy-parented peers on Alpinestars and racey GTs seemed much more bent over into the wind.
FFWD a bit and a few issues of MBUK marketing soak was taking effect on my sensibilities. Soon enough I too wanted to get into the head-down lightweight business, so slammed my stem and chopped the bars. Raised the seatpost. Bike looked cool like Mint Sauce’s, but I can’t say I enjoyed riding it like I enjoyed viewing it. Polar opposites. Then switched to a mid 90s Cinder Cone, fitted high riser Monkeybars and higher/shorter stem and MTB began to feel a lot better. Things had begun to change for the better by 1994 but it was going to be the work of decades to get where we are.
Most likely some truth to that, especially the race format of the time.
I remember plenty of singletrack in the races I did at the time, none particularly technical but it would definitely have been better on a modern bike. But no-one really realised what was possible because no-one had ever conceived the bikes we now have. A load of roadies and road bike designers were asked to design bikes that could be ridden off-road, and that's what they came up with. Cycling was all about fitness, speed or getting places, or any combination of those things. People had started doing 'rad' stuff but it took a while for people to realise that bikes could be significantly redesigned for it, and even longer to realise that people might want a combination of rideability and technical ability.
I remember plenty of singletrack in the races I did at the time,
No, there really wasn't. I started racing (and helping organise) races in Wales in the mid 90s. If you raced anywhere is south Wales in that period, we were probably on the same start line, and I'd possibly laid out the course. There WAS singletrack, just not much of it at all, and just as likely to be around or down a tussocky, grassy hillside as anywhere else. At Afan we raced almost entirely on fire roads, even when we followed the course of what became Penhydd a couple of years later. The most technical course I remember was at Barry Sidings, and that was because of how steep it is, not how difficult it was - most of the descent was on fire road again.
I recently read a report of the '99 Mountain Mayhem, where the writer said that a team member got scared because the course was so technical. Sandwell Park, too technical!
I recently read a report of the ’99 Mountain Mayhem, where the writer said that a team member got scared because the course was so technical. Sandwell Park, too technical!
That is hilarious!
If you raced anywhere is south Wales in that period, we were probably on the same start line
I did a handful of races in Shropshire/Herefordshire, and there was definitely singletrack, by which I mean not fire-roads or wide tracks but 'paths'.
@RP (and anyone else interested)
Part 2
https://advntr.cc/how-to-turn-an-old-mtb-into-a-gravel-bike/
Thanks @NM Some good tips in there.
K think this belongs here then
I've given the old RockHopper a bit more love.
[url= https://i.postimg.cc/br2Rq4y0/EAAF8960-EF47-45-B9-9-B22-0-DDB78-B755-CC.jp g" target="_blank">https://i.postimg.cc/br2Rq4y0/EAAF8960-EF47-45-B9-9-B22-0-DDB78-B755-CC.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
Doesn't look that different really, but it was stripped right back to the bare frame and rebuilt with a number of new parts. In particular it now has V-brakes (instead of cantis) and the drivetrain is a "9 of 10" setup with ten speed shifters, mech and cassette but with the smallest sprocket removed so it fits on the 7 speed freehub.
It's not particularly pretty. The new chunky stem doesn't work visually with the skinny tubes and some stick on cable guides would look a bit neater than that zip tie on the top tube. But it all works and actually feels pretty good.
I'd agree with Spindatt that it's not fast. My current best guess is that it's around 10-15% slower than the gravel bike on a mix of roads and very tame trails. That's comparing with the gravel bike running moderately chunky 650x47mm tyres. Putting on the slicker 700x38mm tyres makes the gravel bike almost 10% faster again. It would get a lot closer on rougher trails I'm sure, but once I get to those I'd rather be on the full-suss MTB anyway. But this bike isn't about speed. It's just a bit of fun and those old skinny steel frames do have a nice "spring" to them.
Set some Strava PR's on my old 90's MTB yesterday. Just bridleways, not particualrly bumpy, and cheap 2.0 tyres and mudguards. Much faster than the Minions on the FS.
