Are modern bikes significantly better than they were 30 years ago?

Retrogamer

I would say the quality of some metals may be of lesser quality than 30 years ago, however the technological & engineering advances over 30 years has made bikes better for sure.

Nasqueron

sacsquacco wrote: »

I agree mostly with Nebulous2 but my Planet X carbon bike with its small 23 mm rock hard tyres relays every little crinkle or roughness in the tarmac directly through to the suspension area, thats my buttocks. I m now watching the road like a hawk to avoid the rough bits which are mostly close to the kerbs. The forks are pretty steeply raked too and for comfort a bike with a more gentle slope on the forks is preferred and they re less twitchy too.
In my bike touring days I never got one blister in the bum with my Jack Taylor which has forks and frame meant for touring. But if the OP is like me he will want a modern racing bike not a heavy mountain bike with heavy suspension.They are a pain to ride but they are certainly as comfortable as an armchair.

With the road bike, try 25mm tyres on around 100psi - most of the pros ride 25 now and most testing shows the rolling resistance is on a par, even faster than 23 and you can run a bit lower PSI for comfort

There was a bike project on one of the funding sites for a saddle with mico-suspension, have a look at that for a bit more give on the bumps

brat

I do think modern bikes are better than older bikes. There is constant development and innovation which initially appears in the most expensive models, then filters it's way down to the cheaper frames, groupsets, wheels etc.

I've recently changed my winter (commuting) bike from a whyte charing cross (2012) model with alloy frame, carbon fork and tiagra groupset with a Canyon Inflite which is an alloy fork, carbon frame with ultegra groupset. It was £350 dearer, but the difference in quality is massive. Whether that is due to developments in frame quality or just a better groupset, I find it much more comfortable, yet with a stiffer frame. It is predictable, stops much better with hydraulic discs, and feels really good to ride.

I'm almost tempted not to replace my broken Supersix Evo because the Canyon feels really good to ride.

I have no experience of older quality bikes, because I didn't own any, so I can't offer any experiential advice on what I prefer. I do fancy buying an old steel framed Pinarello to enjoy a bit of nostalgia, and rose tinted riding.

But I've recently had a look at the Canyon Endurace with hydraulic discs and top end carbon wheels. It's a beaut, and the flex of the seatpost and the geometry makes it look like a perfect buy. It's top end of £5,000, possibly nearer £6,000 when they put Sram Etap wireless electronic shifting on it...

...but it's got to be worth a look!

glasgowdan

Modern bikes won't be massively faster, but they will be more fun to use

fishybusiness

An old myth, carbon is stronger than alloy and a crash that kills a carbon frame would kill an alloy frame - carbon is used in planes and F1 cars, if it was fragile as the old stories go, no-one would ever use it.

Not strictly true. Both have their strengths and weaknesses.

Carbon composites are incredibly light and stiff, aluminium alloys less so. The AA's are more ductile and actually just as damage tolerant.

One of the big +'s of carbon is in its long term resistance to fatigue, something aluminium alloy (and certainly cycle frames) do suffer from.

Both are just as 'good', depending on how you want to term 'good.

Nasqueron

fishybusiness wrote: »

Not strictly true. Both have their strengths and weaknesses.

Carbon composites are incredibly light and stiff, aluminium alloys less so. The AA's are more ductile and actually just as damage tolerant.

One of the big +'s of carbon is in its long term resistance to fatigue, something aluminium alloy (and certainly cycle frames) do suffer from.

Both are just as 'good', depending on how you want to term 'good.

Only going on lab testing of frames

Carbon is there for a softer/smoother ride like steel, alloy is a different beast and has its own use (I speak as a rider of a full carbon roadie, an aluminium commuter roadie and a CX alloy with carbon forks)

You can throw titanium into the mix as well for confusion

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xreZdUBqpJs

glasgowdan

Most carbon bikes are very stiff. In mtb I've seen a lot of cracked and broken frames. It's usually in high stress and bonded areas.

Richard53

It depends on how you define 'better'. For me, I don't think so. Modern bikes are lighter and more efficient, and therefore faster and easier to ride, but there's more to cycling than just speed.


The comfiest and 'nicest' bike I have ever owned is a Raleigh Amazon (rigid MTB), bought new in 1992 and recently refurbed on my driveway. It's got a steel frame, no fancy suspension, and it's worth buttons, but it suits me and I enjoy every mile on it.


I'm a big fan of steel for frames. My ebike has massive fat Schwalbe tyres, suspension forks and a suspension seat post, and an aluminium frame, and yet the ride is noticeably harsher than the Amazon, which seems to float over road imperfections by comparison.

somersethillbilly

+1 for retrobikes.

I have a small collection of bikes and one of the sweetest rides is a Reynolds 531 Raleigh