Modern geometry - should I give it a go?

[BurningLegs]

I had a Peugeot 106 from the 90s. Yes it had drum brakes, no airbags, no central locking, electrical faults, and terrible economy but surely cars haven’t developed that much since? After all, my Peugeot did have brakes and wheels, and it got me where I needed to be..

 

[Ming the Merciless]

Two links s above for @YukonBoy

Looks like they'd be slow cross country but maybe looks are deceiving.

 

[Levo-Lon]

Looks like they'd be slow cross country but maybe looks are deceiving.

There not CC bikes, ones a down hill and the other is a trail bike.


My 2019 Cross country bike

 

[SkipdiverJohn]

The difference is really about speed. No doubt about it, anything with suspension is potentially faster over rough terrain than something where the tyres are the only spring medium. With a fully rigid frame you have to pick your line carefully and be a lot more cautious. You cant just tear about like a nutter and expect the suspension on the bike to keep you out of trouble. A rigid will punish mistakes more readily, and how fast you dare to ride one depends on your tolerance for risk and the amount of surface vibration shock your body is willing to take.
But then, unless you are racing, cycling isn't really about speed anyway. I just like to pootle around whether riding on road or off, so a 26" rigid is perfectly suited to that sort of use and also performs adequately on tarmac. Modern MTB's are too discipline-specific, IMHO, and have lost the ability to also be useful general purpose transport as well as coping with rough surfaces. Back when MTB's first became popular, most riders just had one MTB, and used it for all sorts of riding. They didn't have to have multiple MTB's, because some of them were unsuited to anything but one narrow type of use.

 

[BurningLegs]

Modern MTB's are too discipline-specific, IMHO, and have lost the ability to also be useful general purpose transport as well as coping with rough surfaces.

Almost everyone I see riding in my pan-flat city choose to do so on a modern MTB. I’d say that far more people use them for ‘general purpose transport’ than anything else!

 

[ChrisEyles]

@SkipdiverJohn I'd agree with that. I ride the same trails on a rigid properly old-school MTB, an older full sus bike, and a more modern hard tail. The retro full sus is easily fastest, the modern-ish hard tail is easily the least scary on the steep rock stuff, and the rigid is great fun in a terrifying "bouncing off all the rocks oh shoot these vee brakes aren't slowing me down much holy crap I'd better get back on the smooth line fast or I'm gonna die" sort of way.

Generally I'd say I can ride anything I'd tackle on the modern hardtail on either of the other bikes. I'd be a lot slower and more cautious on the rigid, and really steep stuff would still be sketchy on the full sus (though a dropper post would sort this).

As you say I'm not a racer, so it's all about having fun at the end of the day. Sometimes I pick the rigid, sometimes the HT or the FS - they're all great fun in quite different ways. I can imagine that a more modern HT might be a lot of fun in a different way again, hence my wanting to try one out and my curiosity in how they compare to older bikes.

None of them are as practical as my old tourer/commuter bike, but they don't have to be - they're just big boys toys and that's fine with me.

 

[rogerzilla]

The old geometry was more elegant and easier to get a decent fit IME. With modern frames you may need the longest seatpost on the market and the shortest stem on the market (I had a 410mm post and a 30mm stem on my Inbred...it looked awful).

 

[SkipdiverJohn]

Very few modern bikes are what you could call elegant in appearance, whether MTB, Hybrid or Road. They've nearly all gone down the same ugly route; fat tubes, small frames, absurdly long seatposts.

 

[Levo-Lon]

Very few modern bikes are what you could call elegant in appearance, whether MTB, Hybrid or Road. They've nearly all gone down the same ugly route; fat tubes, small frames, absurdly long seatposts.

You've got to be on something..

Bikes now are bloody stunning creations.
As for an old steel 3 triangle thing, i just wouldt cycle if that was the choice.
I didn't like them years ago and as for 26 wheel.. You really do need to ride a modern bike instead of continually trashing them.

I'll leave you to your rather unfounded belief..

 

[Hacienda71]

I have a 2004 Stumpjumper, a fully rigid 90's bike and I have just bought a 2020 Bossnut which I have ridden at Coed-y-Brenin and Llandegla this weekend. They definitely are different in how they perform. Yes the rider is the most important part of the equation, but put an average Joe on a modern bike or a 20 year old bike and they will notice a difference in capability. The new bike climbs better on technical stuff and feels confident on fast downhills. I don't regret getting the new bike. To the op if you fancy trying one and can afford it go for it.

 

[Jody]

I just like to pootle around whether riding on road or off, so a 26" rigid is perfectly suited to that sort of use and also performs adequately on tarmac.

You can’t compare shopping in an urban setting on a 40lb 90’s rigid to riding a light, capable modern MTB where it is meant to be ridden. Regardless of how you try and dress it up.

 

[Crackle]

@SkipdiverJohn I'd agree with that. I ride the same trails on a rigid properly old-school MTB, an older full sus bike, and a more modern hard tail. The retro full sus is easily fastest, the modern-ish hard tail is easily the least scary on the steep rock stuff, and the rigid is great fun in a terrifying "bouncing off all the rocks oh shoot these vee brakes aren't slowing me down much holy crap I'd better get back on the smooth line fast or I'm gonna die" sort of way.

Generally I'd say I can ride anything I'd tackle on the modern hardtail on either of the other bikes. I'd be a lot slower and more cautious on the rigid, and really steep stuff would still be sketchy on the full sus (though a dropper post would sort this).

As you say I'm not a racer, so it's all about having fun at the end of the day. Sometimes I pick the rigid, sometimes the HT or the FS - they're all great fun in quite different ways. I can imagine that a more modern HT might be a lot of fun in a different way again, hence my wanting to try one out and my curiosity in how they compare to older bikes.

None of them are as practical as my old tourer/commuter bike, but they don't have to be - they're just big boys toys and that's fine with me.

Don't tell me you've ridden that bouldery descent from Princetown to Burrator on a rigid!

 

[Drago]

The difference is really about speed. No doubt about it, anything with suspension is potentially faster over rough terrain than something where the tyres are the only spring medium. With a fully rigid frame you have to pick your line carefully and be a lot more cautious. You cant just tear about like a nutter and expect the suspension on the bike to keep you out of trouble. A rigid will punish mistakes more readily, and how fast you dare to ride one depends on your tolerance for risk and the amount of surface vibration shock your body is willing to take.

But when it comes to a climb, particularly a technical one, you're suddenly carrying g extra useless mass, and even the best suspension arrangements waste pedalling g effort.

There is no all round panacea, no one type of mojntain bike that is best at everything. There are times when a decent suspension bike (with a rider suitably skilled to exploit it, which too many aren't) will be quicker, and times when a front squidge or even a rigid will flush its head down the toilet and steal its lunch money. If anyone tells you that one type of mountain bike is better all rou d then you know you're speaking to an idiot.

 

[ChrisEyles]

Don't tell me you've ridden that bouldery descent from Princetown to Burrator on a rigid!

Hell yes! There's a cracking descent down from Dunkery Beacon (highest point on Exmoor) which is even more punishing on the wrists on a rigid too

Other than the battering you take on the way down, it doesn't really take that much more riding ability to ride that sort of stuff on a rigid vs HT, as long as you take things a little slower.

 

[rogerzilla]

Don't tell me you've ridden that bouldery descent from Princetown to Burrator on a rigid!

I have! On an aluminium Cannondale M1000, no less. It hurt.