Forum menu
njee20 - MemberRide a modern FS bike, 'climbs well' is very subjective! I assure you that there's a day and night difference between 10 year old and current bikes
That sounds like something that someone that works in a bike shop might say! 😆
Not a chance, none of them did a 24lb bike that worked. If nothing else, shocks were crap, so single pivots were awful, so SC and Marin are out, Intense were overbuilt Specialized.
I'm going to have to disagree with you there, Nick. I prefer my current Scott Genius (OK, so that's an "old" design!) but it's not actually significantly better than the Marin MV I bought in 2000. IIRC that built up at ~25lbs, though I could have got it a bit lighter - had a Fox Float R shock, which might not have had any of this fancy platform damping stuff, but still worked pretty well. Not sure what your "climbs well" criteria would be - looking it the basics it's all about geometry and power transfer. Now the MV had pretty conventional modern geometry - not much different to similar travel "race" bikes of today. As to power transfer, I did a 26 minute 10 on it (with proper off road semi-slick tyres) - bearing in mind I had no lockout, that's really not too bad is it?
No, its something that someone who's ridden both says. As Marc rides a 10 year old FS bike he's clearly looking at it through Rose-tinted glasses! It's easy to say that what you have is better than something you've never tried!
Fair enough Chris, opinion is divided on modern designs, so it stands to reason that we'd disagree on older designs too. FWIW, I couldn't ride a Scott because I don't like how they ride, never got on with the Spark, although clearly plenty of people do. Like I said, it's very subjective. Certainly older designs rewarded a smooth pedalling action.
njee20 - Member
If nothing else, shocks were crap
can't really agree with you there..
Shocks weren't crap 10 years ago, your average rider just had even less of a clue about suspension back then.
I was riding custom shimmed Fox RC shocks 10years ago and TBH they performed as well as (possibly better than) all but the very best performing (CCDB/Bos etc.) shocks do today.
the main advance in shock/fork technology has come from the understanding of the importance of quality compression damping IMO.
I wasn't saying my bikes better than what I could buy today. Just that it's 10 years old and works; which related to the posts saying that bikes of that age didn't.
That's comparing it to the climbing ability of the hardtail it replaced.
and there is sod all difference in weight or geometry between a ten year old Titus racer-x and one you buy today, and only 12mm difference in rear travel. I've ridden a few bikes myself njee20 and i'd say the diferences are small, and certainly not 'night and day'as you suggest.
The Rocky Mountain ETSX climbs very well, and that must be getting on for 10 years old.
You find it hard to agree with people sometimes i've noticed njee20.
There's light years of difference.
Ha ha! 'Light years'?? 😆 Utter nonsense!
There's a fair amount more marketing shite about these days and apparently even more mugs to hoover it up.MTB "technology" such as it is hasn't moved a billion miles since the 90s..
This, however, is true.
Most 'MTB' technology is in fact motorbike technology scaled down to suit a pedal bicycle. Suspension designs aren't exactly rocket science! It's just about fine-tuning stuff to work well for a lightweight pedal vehicle, so hardly 'light years of difference'! 😀
My personal observation of the 'evolution' of cycle technology, is that parts wear out quicker now, which supports the 'marketing shite' comment above. Stuff is made to last only until the next flashy bit of kit is available. Truth is, there was nowt wrong with square taper BBs for the vast majority of riders, the industry just wanted something new to sell us. HT2 type stuff doesn't seem to be a particularly good evolution from SqT. I've had SqT BBs last me 10 years or more...
How I judge things is by my level of enjoyment I get from MTBing. TBH, that's not 'improved' over the years, along with technology. In fact I often think I'd be quite happy with XT thumbshifters, over the 'cost loads use it for 18 months chuck it away' overpriced tat we now have to endure.
V-brakes were a significant development in [i]pedal cycle[/i] technology. As perhaps was indexed shifting, and clipless/SPD pedals (refinement of ski-boot tech). Suspension systems have been tweaked to be more efficient.
The rest is simply marketing bull to get us to spend money.
Oh look, it works...
the MV had pretty conventional modern geometry - not much different to similar travel "race" bikes of today
Errrrr, marin had BB's so high you needed a pilots licence. Remember they tried to sell 'alpine links' which lowered/slackened the bikes making them simply higher than everything else rather than clown bike levels of tall-ness.
Take the cannondale prophet, everyone dismessed it as "a marin copy from the 90's", untill they rode it, geometry is everything!
Perhaps I'm coming at this from the wrong angle and didnt ride the right bikes 10 years ago, but I just think of old SIDs, XC4s as the cutting edge brakes and Float RL shocks. All of which give me nightmares!
there is sod all difference in weight or geometry between a ten year old Titus racer-x and one you buy today
Hard to compare really when the bike's evolved to the X, but I'll give you that, I had a 2005 one and it was a good bike, but I still maintain that with an older shock they were far more prone to bobbing unless you ran them firm/locked out.
You find it hard to agree with people sometimes i've noticed njee20
I disagree 🙂
Errrrr, marin had BB's so high you needed a pilots licence. Remember they tried to sell 'alpine links' which lowered/slackened the bikes making them simply higher than everything else rather than clown bike levels of tall-ness
Surely the alpine links were for the longer travel versions - the MV had a fairly standard BB height, not something I ever really noticed. I actually wish my Genius was a bit higher, as I sometimes get pedal strikes I wouldn't have got on the MV.
Perhaps I'm coming at this from the wrong angle and didnt ride the right bikes 10 years ago, but I just think of old SIDs, XC4s as the cutting edge brakes and Float RL shocks. All of which give me nightmares!
My MV had a Float R, an RC36 and XC4s. As I said before, nothing at all wrong with the Float R provided you don't need platform damping, the RC36 were also a very decent fork, and nothing like the flexy SIDs of the time. I'll take your point in the XC4s - though they did work OK when they worked, they were a bit of a pain (what with the wind in dial), and I had a couple of failures. Have only just retired my B4SLs though which weren't a lot newer - and the R1s they've been replaced by aren't even any lighter!
I think there were some evolutions around that time that made a marked difference, Fox Forx, decent, affordble disc brakes, I guess you could argue that 1997-2002 brought bigger changes, but I personally wouldn't revert to a 10 year old bike, which is perhaps what I shouldve said from the start, YMMV!
[i]When did mountain bike technology reach its peak?[/i]
2057
😯
i've got a 1999 Orange MrXc (4.5" travel, fox air shock) with sid 100s, full xtr, king hubs, hope C2s. Weighs in under 25lbs. The suspension action isn't as sophisticated as modern day, but if you compare it to the 2010 '5, its probably pretty close
XC4s as the cutting edge brakes
Well to be fair I still have a pair of them and the SO love them. I am wondering what modern brake is going to be able to last that long. I for once concur on many of the comment of the ELF above. Look at the best DH bike right now (commencal), well it's just a copy past from a RM7. Which was just a copy/paste of motorcycle design.
how is a commencal the best DH bike just now?
and how is it a copy of a RM7?
I hope the technology hasn't peaked yet!
As bikes seem to improve over time, I get older, fatter, and less fit. So I still get up the hills and back down the other side in the same time as I did on a shonky rigid.
I reckon in the next five years bikes are going to struggle to keep up with my decline mind.......
how is a commencal the best DH bike just now?
and how is it a copy of a RM7?
Well how many times in the past 3 years have the atherton won a world champ on this bike 😉
Look at the linkage. It's the same. The rear end just make the bike more stiff. This year have a floating shock. Something that has been going on for ages in the world of motorcycle.
so based on World champs is a demo or a sunday or v10 or Supreme the better DH bike?
or based on Team performance would it be a session 88 or an M9 or.. actually who cares
what a ****ing tool. 🙄
FWIW there are (and pretty much always have been) many many single pivot linkage actuated shock DH frames out there. RM7 was not the first (it wasn't even a DH race bike FFS!)