Retro-advanced bikes

Got a general MTB question that doesn't fit anywhere else? Here's the place.
Aux1
Posts: 814
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 13:32 pm

Retro-advanced bikes

Postby Aux1 » Fri Jun 01, 2007 13:39 pm

I thought single speed and rigid forks were a thing of the past. The forks and derailleurs are an entire science now, with lots of travel and many gears. And then I see bikes like these... The Single Speed and the Rigid.

So what's the catch? These bikes sure look serious, aren't cheap, but they have single speed and a rigid fork respectively.

Regarding single speed, it definitely is lighter and A LOT simpler than a 27 speed bike. I'm sure it handles descents maybe even better than a bike with gears. On the particular Trek 69er, I like the bigger front wheel because it should mean it can go over bigger obstacles, not sure how it affects the maneuverability in sharp turns though but probably not much...

However, I can't imagine how I'd climb steeper tracks with something that's like middle chainring and the 3rd smallest sprocket (Insanely strong legs maybe?). Or how I'd ride 30+ km/h on flat road. That's the issue I have against the single speeder.

Regarding the rigid bike, obviously the carbon fork is to minimize weight, it has good components, probably would get more shaky on rough descents but would be great for climbing because it's light... I wonder how it would be to ride a real rigid again (I rode a cheapo rigid when I was like 15 [:D]), how it would feel like to go down roots and rocks with it, would you have to go a lot slower?

-----------------
<font size="1">To clip or not to clip, that is the question. Whether tis nobler in the mind of men to suffer the dings and contusions of unclipp'd riding, or to bind thy feet against a sea of gnarly singletrack and by these contraptions, ride o'er them with ease. To clip... to slip no more, and by clipping to end the buttache and the thousand natural shocks that ryders are heir to; tis a consummation devoutly to be honed. No clip - to slip perchance to be thrashed most heinously...</font id="size1">

KTM Ultra Flite 2007

Capt. Jon
Posts: 2177
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2006 22:13 pm

Postby Capt. Jon » Fri Jun 01, 2007 14:13 pm

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Frankie</i>

In this fast moving times we live complicated lives and many hark back to the days of simplicity. Where we knew the local bobby on the beat, bread was delivered to your door and you could leave your front door open without fear of being robbed. The rigid single speed is an expression of that yearnign for simplicity, where there is no need to choose the right gear or make sure your forks are correclty adjusted. Just get on and ride. As similar back lash is happening in the mobile phone industry, the most popular phones are now those whiach are just phones, none of the bells and whistles of cameras, video and MP3 player.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

There was me thinking it was cos retro is cool innit.

TyMBR

Support the UK bike industry
If you don't like what i've posted assume there is a winking smilie next to it you simpleton ;-)

Jinja Ninja
Posts: 154
Joined: Thu May 31, 2007 08:20 am
Contact:

Postby Jinja Ninja » Fri Jun 01, 2007 14:13 pm

Depends on the material I'd say for the rigid...
Steel has quite a bit of flex, same with carbon. Hence why on one bikes are quite popular with ridgid riders, they use a steel alu composite.

Alu is horrible to ride on rigid, you feel EVERY little bump the trail has to offer.

Not sure why people prefer rigid, Possibly weight saving or for more of a challenge rather then charging over all the rocks with a full bouncer.

<hr noshade size="1">
Theres only one return, and it ain't of the "king" Its of the Jedi

"Frankie's little Bro"[:o]

Aux1
Posts: 814
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 13:32 pm

Postby Aux1 » Fri Jun 01, 2007 20:17 pm

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by 13.5</i>

My first mountain bike was a rigid Raleigh Firefly that weighed about 30 pounds with a quill stem and 7 speed gripshift. Because I was poor (student) and didn't know any better, I took that bike to north and mid wales, devon, cornwall, kent, bristol and eppping forest. It was only my freinds that convinced me I needed a front sus because they told me I could ride faster. They were right but it still doesn't alter the fact that a rigid bike( even a pathetic hi-tensile steel cheapoid like mine was) can be a hell of a lot of fun and can go nearly anywhere.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

If it's fun to ride and if it doesn't break, it ain't pathetic... And I bet you could find some trails that would be mega fun on a rigid too! Actually, I think you can have a good time on any "real" (won't break, dependable) mountain bike, even a cheaper one, if it doesn't bother you that the other guys have all the fancy schmancy components on their bikes.

But then I don't think I could give up that first gear for big climbs and the high gears for road speed... so no single speed for me.

-----------------
<font size="1">To clip or not to clip, that is the question. Whether tis nobler in the mind of men to suffer the dings and contusions of unclipp'd riding, or to bind thy feet against a sea of gnarly singletrack and by these contraptions, ride o'er them with ease. To clip... to slip no more, and by clipping to end the buttache and the thousand natural shocks that ryders are heir to; tis a consummation devoutly to be honed. No clip - to slip perchance to be thrashed most heinously...</font id="size1">

KTM Ultra Flite 2007

Capt. Jon
Posts: 2177
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2006 22:13 pm

Postby Capt. Jon » Fri Jun 01, 2007 20:33 pm

I love my SS, it's perfect for my commute with skinny tyres on it and means by other bike doesn't suffer unnecessary wear and tear.

TyMBR

Support the UK bike industry
If you don't like what i've posted assume there is a winking smilie next to it you simpleton ;-)

Jinja Ninja
Posts: 154
Joined: Thu May 31, 2007 08:20 am
Contact:

Postby Jinja Ninja » Sat Jun 02, 2007 14:32 pm

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by thomasali</i>

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Depends on the material I'd say for the rigid...
Steel has quite a bit of flex, same with carbon. Hence why on one bikes are quite popular with ridgid riders, they use a steel alu composite.

Alu is horrible to ride on rigid, you feel EVERY little bump the trail has to offer.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

careful mate, you are talking twoddle! Steel, Carbon and alu frames can be really stiff or quite compliant it depends on the frame design! Also On one frames are either Cro mo steel (inbred, pomp, etc) Reynolds 853 (inbred 853) or scandium with an alu rear triangle (ScandAl) from the various reviews ive read the ScandAl has a very compliant rear end despite it being alu.

Kona Humu 29er

http://www.pinkbike.com/photo/899671/
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Meh, diden't want to go that far into it! To be fair, it wasen't twaddle. Steel has more flex then alu, so does carbon, Alu is lighter, and won't flex as much, with out going into frame shapes etc... The thing I was wrong on was the Cro Mo Steel, as i'm guessing cro mo steel isn't alu then?

If it is, it wans't twaddle.

<hr noshade size="1">
Theres only one return, and it ain't of the "king" Its of the Jedi

"Frankie's little Bro"[:o]


Return to “MTB General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: P.Bateman and 1 guest