There will be no comparison. The extra weight is trivial. If you asked the difference between a 2018 bike and a 2020 bike I'd say no big deal. But 25 years?

Have you test-ridden either of these two bike yet?

 

Yeah, all of the improvements over 25 years will absolutely massive. You won't care about the weight. The bikes in question absolutely will not be apples-to-apples with your old Trek 8000. They'll blow it away once you get over the fact that they feel different. That's going to be the biggest part of this, frankly. They'll feel so different that you're going to need to adapt your riding style some. Some people handle that just fine with a short transition period, but other people are too rigid and don't handle it well at all.

Honestly, while weight weenie-ism still exists, most people just don't care because bikes now ride so much better than they did back then, regardless of weight.

 

The new bikes are going to feel way different from your old bike. Top tubes are longer, stems are shorter, bars are way wider, HTA is more slacked out, front suspension is better, and wheels are bigger and wider. The geometry changes are the best thing. As mentioned before, bikes just ride better now that they are no longer modeled after road bikes with steep HTAs. You'll have to learn how to ride them but they are better. As far as weight - If you're concerned about weight, the X-caliber might be a better fit. It's the same frame with narrower wheels and some other minor changes to make it a bit more traditional XC. We have one and it's a really nice, versatile bike. You have space to run plus sized wheels if you want or go full XC.

You really need to test ride them though. I have some friends that don't like how the Roscoe feels but it can be adjusted changing up the cockpit.

 

So you're assessing the quality, fun factor, and value of your budget oriented bike by putting it on a scale before you've even ridden it?

Good plan 👎

 

Thanks for the helpful (with the exception of "OneSpeed") feedback. Since by old Trek feels like such a pig compared to my road bike, another 3-4 lbs. is a concern, but it's good to know other advancements would make a new bike the superior ride.

I'm just getting started, so next step will be to see if local dealers have some I can ride and compare.

 

Since by old Trek feels like such a pig compared to my road bike, another 3-4 lbs. is a concern, but it's good to know other advancements would make a new bike the superior ride.

ANY mountain bike is going to feel sluggish if you compare it to a road bike. They're for riding totally different things and totally different ways of riding. Don't compare a mountain bike to a road bike. You'll just end up disappointed in its sluggishness.

 

The weight in modern bikes is largely due to a few things. All of them are what I’d consider improvements, even though they do add some weight

The frames are simply larger. We’ve essentially taken length that was once in the stems, and added it to the frame to make the wheelbase longer, and bike more stabile.

27.5+ and 29in wheels and tires are heavier than 26in wheels and tires. They are also much wider, and run much better tires at more reasonable air pressures.

Dropper posts are now fairly universal for trail mountain bikes. They are great, but obviously they are heavier than a straight post.

Disk brakes have also been pretty universally adopted. They provide MUCH better and consistent stopping power in all conditions than rim brakes. But they do weigh more.

Additionally, frames and components are much stiffer/more reliable these days. The price of reliability at the low end of the market, is pretty much just weight.

Weight does matter in mountain biking. But in my mind it’s mostly a big deal if you’re racing. There are tables and calculations out there that will give you mathematically how much the weight should slow you down. And typically the change is fairly insignificant. Most of us don’t really care if we get to the top of a climb 12 seconds earlier or later.

If you want a sub 30lb bike these days, you’re likely going to need to look at a cross country focused bike, and/or a carbon fiber frame (or both).

Personally I wouldn’t let the 3lb difference bother me. But I ride a ~36-37lb bike everywhere I go (it’s my only bike). So maybe I’m not the right person to ask 🤪.

 

Any reason you are interested in 27.5+? Plus bikes are still around but having ridden both 27.5+ and 29 wheels in the same frame, I can say with confidence that 29 is way faster. A 3 inch tire has sidewalls that are much too tall and give a vague feel when cornering.

 

I had the same problem you have. Mainly road riding past 10 years and I sold my >15yr old Trek Fuel this summer during height of bike scarcity with thoughts of replacing it when things settled down. I first bought a used 29er, but found it too big and too heavy. The used 27.5 i replaced it with was almost 3 lbs lighter. Just the thought of lifting it on and on my car bike rack for remaining yrs was discouraging. I think 29 is overkill, so are these huge tires.

Someone above mentioned way wider bars. I don't understand them, feels unstable and why should grip be wider than shoulders? I simply cut mine down with a hacksaw, aahh much better!

Another difference. Only one front chainring. At first I didn't think it was right, but it cuts down on wt and I'm thinking it's for the better.

 

I think a lot of folks here are making some assumptions about the terrain the OP will be riding and type of riding the OP will be doing.

For example, here in the Midwest you could get by pretty well with an old Trek 8000, and on some trails a 'modern' bike will feel 'big' and lack the nimbleness to take advantage of the terrain. However, in other places a modern bike would completely outclass an old NORBA geometry bike. That said, improvements like thru axles, modern suspension and dropper posts would make some big improvements.

Bike weight matters. It matters a lot more than body weight or whole system weight. A lighter bike is easier to throw around on the trail. Its not just about climbing or racing, its about handling.

Kreton, the things is, your money just doesn't go as far these days as it used to. Some of its inflation some of it is spec-creep, disc brakes cost more than v-brakes, etc. An 8000 was a pretty high-end bike for the time (entry level race bike), now the same level will only buy you a mid-level bike, which means more weight.

I'd say get the new bike and find ways to reduce the weight a bit. A good place to start is converting to tubeless and buying some higher-quality tires (120tpi) that have an appropriate tread for your terrain and the type of riding you'll be doing. You might even get new wheels with some of those chinese carbon rims Nextie Patrick up there.

 

... An 8000 was a pretty high-end bike for the time (entry level race bike), now the same level will only buy you a mid-level bike, which means more weight.

I think this is a pretty accurate statement. Add to that comparing a cross country to a trail bike isn't generally very even for weight. I kind of wish I had a scale to compare my older (2008) XC bike to a current Banshee Paradox weight wise.

 

Yup, give them a test-ride and see how they compare.

That being said, there is something nice about those old hardtails (minus the front suspension).

 

Yup, give them a test-ride and see how they compare.

That being said, there is something nice about those old hardtails (minus the front suspension).

I think a lot of folks here are making some assumptions about the terrain the OP will be riding and type of riding the OP will be doing.

For example, here in the Midwest you could get by pretty well with an old Trek 8000, and on some trails a 'modern' bike will feel 'big' and lack the nimbleness to take advantage of the terrain. However, in other places a modern bike would completely outclass an old NORBA geometry bike. That said, improvements like thru axles, modern suspension and dropper posts would make some big improvements.

Bike weight matters. It matters a lot more than body weight or whole system weight. A lighter bike is easier to throw around on the trail. Its not just about climbing or racing, its about handling.

Kreton, the things is, your money just doesn't go as far these days as it used to. Some of its inflation some of it is spec-creep, disc brakes cost more than v-brakes, etc. An 8000 was a pretty high-end bike for the time (entry level race bike), now the same level will only buy you a mid-level bike, which means more weight.

I'd say get the new bike and find ways to reduce the weight a bit. A good place to start is converting to tubeless and buying some higher-quality tires (120tpi) that have an appropriate tread for your terrain and the type of riding you'll be doing. You might even get new wheels with some of those chinese carbon rims Nextie Patrick up there.

Yeah, I forgot to mention the type of riding I'll be doing and why I'm leaning towards a 27.5+ rather than a 29. I'm 63, and while I'm fit I simply don't have the balance I had when I first got into mountain biking 35 years ago. So I have no interest in the technical stuff and will be doing easy rolling single track without many tight switchbacks, rocks, roots, drop-offs, etc. It'll supplement my road riding and will be more for exercise than thrills. I want to enjoy the scenery without having to always be focused on the trail.

So I think a moderately priced hard tail in the $1200-1800 range will suit me fine.

 

as others say, the weight won't matta as you find yourself steering around and plowing straight through things far easier/faster than old steeper geo* [which held you up more than you realized]

*yes you can keep up on any old bike with old geo, it just takes a lot more work and huffin and puffin when things get chundery

 

I have two somewhat conflicting thoughts on this, after hearing your riding style.

On one hand, a trail hardtail with 2.8in wide tires will be great for riding that is not focused on speed. You can run tire pressures into the low 11-16psi range with that big of a tire. And that both lets it feel pretty cushy over the trail surface, and gives lots of confidence in corners/braking.

So if you’re after a scenic ride, and not worried about speed, but more about enjoying yourself, then that seems like a great option, as the bike would leave your mind more free to enjoy the ride in the parts that would otherwise be the most challenging

On the other hand, I can see a modern trail bike as being a bit foreign feeling. New bike geo is fairly different from old bikes, and super different than most road bikes. And depending on how you feel you’ll adapt, the difference may be off-putting.

Also depends on if you think the weight of a modern trail hardtail will be a problem (mentally, or physically).

A modern cross country bike could also be a good choice in that case. Their geo is closer to that of road bikes, they are lighter, and tend to be more optimized for going uphill, and riding a bit slower.

So I’d wager a new cross country bike would feel more familiar to you. Which likely means less learning curve, and potentially more fun.

Also, carbon wheels and frames really can make a huge dent in a bikes weight. But, even very cheap non branded carbon wheels (or name brands on big sales), would cost nearly as much as your whole budget. They (carbon wheels) tend to run $800-2600, which doesn’t really seem feasible/wiat your price point.

 

I know you mentioned you would test ride, but I thought I would just mention again that you definitely need to do that. I've been riding mtb for 30 years, and feel that the new geometry is NOT an improvement. I think it started out to give new riders more confidence, but then marketing hype took over and now you can't get away from it. But some bikes have more extreme new geometry than others, so you need to ride some. I wish my new 29er had a steeper head angle because it feels unwieldy on tight Pennsylvania switchbacks. Also, I'd probably go 27.5 instead of 29 if I was buying again, so I think you're on the right track there.

Dropper posts are worth the extra pound they bring. Otherwise, you have to bite the bullet and spend more to keep the weight near your small-wheel hardtail.

 

Pretty similar here, 61yo, done a lot of road riding but always been mtb at heart, here in the southwest. I used to have a Trek 8000...best early ht I ever had, except for the 9000, essentially the same bike with carbon main tubes, which I promptly broke.
TBH, your location makes a big difference in what bike you would want. After many different mtbs, all kinds of suspension, my new favorite is 29+ ht. Yes, it's slower and heavier. But for my size- 6'3", 215#, and at my age, the big tires are the final piece of the puzzle for my terrain, and now the Phantom sits idle. Bigger frame, bigger wheels, wide rims, wide saddle, wide bars, 140mm fork, 1x, dropper, hydros, all are big improvements. I can't imagine going back.
At my age, after 35+ years of being a hammerhead, I've got nothing to prove except how much fun I can have. Slow down and enjoy the ride!

 

Great discussion. I just got into mountain biking this year at almost 50 years old and have purchased 3 bikes that I share with my sons. I have a Scott Scale, a Rocky Mountain Fusion, and a Framed Wolftrax fat bike. Based on the description of what you'd like to ride, I'd strongly recommend something like a Scott Scale. You can get a really nice one for $1800 and you'll definitely be under 30 pounds with a decent front shock.

 

The Scott Scale 940 looks like an option for me. I guess I shouldn't rule out a 29" bike. I was under the impression that they also ran wider tires and I thought that'd just be too much wheel to push around. But I see the Scale runs a 29 x 2.2" tire which sounds doable. After reading some more posts here I don't think I necessarily need a real fat tire.

I like the Scott's carbon frameset and it looks like it's got decent components. I always like to get as good a frameset as my budget allows since you can always upgrade wheels and components.

 

I made the jump to a 29er after a break of many years. I spent a few weeks on the old 26er and then decided to join the modern world and got a steel 29er hardtail. The 29er impressed me with it's smooth ride quality compared to aluminum, as well as its rollover compared to the 26er, but the biggest difference was how much less effort you had to expend over distance to carry a certain pace. It's just so much easier to go faster with bigger wheels. After a year or so on the 29er, I thought the best improvement over a 26 inch bike would be a 27.5 bike, since the 29er had me thinking it was a bit unwieldy in the twists and turns due to its size. I couldn't help but wonder if that assumption would be correct, so I bought a very nice 27.5 full suspension. Once the novelty of full squish wore off, I had to admit it just wasn't as easy to maintain speed on that bike, and the rollover and ground clearance (pedal strikes) were obviously more of a problem than on 29er. I sold the 27.5 bike and I haven't felt any regret, since I'm sure the 29er is the better platform, for my riding at least.

I'll mirror what some people have said about tires too. Bigger rubber weighs more, and to carry bigger rubber you need wider rims, which weigh more. Overall weight isn't something to really worry about for what you say you want to do, but rotational weight makes a huge difference. I'd rather have a 30 pound bike with light wheels and fast rolling tires than a 30 pound bike with all the frame and other parts made out of carbon but it still has heavy rubber and rims. Tire foot print is absolutely something to think about too, because it increases friction in the system for every inch you ride. Having said that, I don't really see the value of plus size tires, at least not for what you say you'll be doing. After trying a bunch of tires, I've settled on a 2.35 up front and a 2.25 out back, and can't see ever needing any bigger. You would be very well served with 2.2 or even 2.0 tires, as long as you're not taking corners at break neck speed. The smaller tires weigh less and need smaller wheels, which weigh less, and the smaller tires have a smaller footprint which is less friction... I rode my local trails with 38mm tires on a hybrid forever and had loads of fun. You don't really need so much rubber, you just have to know how to ride within the limits of the equipment you have. I've ridden bikes my friends have with plus size tires and the grip is insane for sure... It feels like you're on train tracks and you'd never washout, but holly cow, the amount of effort you have to spend to ride at the same pace just isn't worth it to me. I'd rather be able to zip around for 10-20 miles and watch what I'm doing in corners to prevent a washout instead of doing all that work to ride a lap and not really enjoy it because I'm so worn out from pushing all that rubber around.

Finding the right tread pattern for your riding and the sweet spot of tire and rim width is the most important thing a guy can do for his bike, and worrying about weight there makes sense. Everything else takes a second seat in my mind, assuming you've got the right tool for the job to begin with, and weight on the rest of the bike isn't really something to worry about unless you are a contender in races.

 

Thanks again all. I'm in central TX just south of Austin. Most of the trails around here are hard pack with limestone rocks and cedar roots. They're are also a lot of dry creek beds which make for deep sandy conditions. Lots of clay in the soil which can become very tacky when slightly wet. The limestone breaks down to make for gravelly sections too, although it's different from the decomposed granite pea gravel I was used to in Colorado. I think having the wider 2.8" tire will help with these conditions, but since I'm not doing big rocky technical sections, I don't think a 29-incher is needed.

 

None of those conditions screams plus tires to me. Loose-over-hard conditions actually call for narrower tires to dig through the loose stuff and grab the hard stuff. Get a wide footprint on that and you'll float over the top, which means you'll be sliding over marbles, more or less.

Same thing for greasy clay, and tall-widely spaced knobs can help with that even more. Not much equipment-wise will help with loose, dry sand. Even fatbikes have a tough time on that because it just moves and sucks your tires in. Technique is best for that, IMO. And I rode on a LOT more sand than Austin has on 2.0/2.1 ish tires BITD. Try doing the Iceman Cometh race in northern Michigan in warm, dry conditions. Oh lawd, the sand. Even if your technique is good, everybody else's is **** and you're walking through the sand pits at the bottom of the hill, anyway.

29er wheels actually really shine in low-moderate technical sections. It's taken quite a bit of work to get 29er wheels to be good enough for bigger chunk, and that's a pretty recent development.

 

The reasons not to get a 29er are pretty obscure, things like the rear wheel hitting your behinds on a long travel bike, or doing aerial tricks.
For your case I would say that unless your are very short, stay with 29.
If you are concerned about the new bike being heavier than your old bike, one of the benefits of a 29er is that it is easier to pedal, so it offsets the weight gain somewhat.
And if you think you need wider tires, most modern 29ers can take some pretty wide rubber, though you are adding more weight.

 

When I'm looking at a new bike, or a used one, I look at wheels and hubs first, then suspension, then drivetrain, then frame. A sweet frame with a bunch of crap hanging on it will just cost you way more as you feel the need to upgrade it or you have to upgrade everything because it all broke; better to buy what you know you'll want in terms of quality, function and durability up front. Besides the chain with its hundreds of interfacing parts that run at 80-100 rpm, the wheels (and tires) are the most dynamic part of a bike and they will arguably influence its character more than anything else.

Sadly, most manufacturers spec junk wheels on everything to keep price down; usually running heavy house brand wheels with Formula or Novatec hubs. Even 6000 dollar bikes have crap wheels, but at least they run the seemingly ubiquitous industry standard DT Swiss 1900 wheelset, which isn't a really bad wheel overall, they just have a notoriously crappy rear hub for being an otherwise trusted wheel brand. I've seen a few manufacturers this year putting expensive bikes together with the 1700 wheelset, which is a better wheelset that has the much improved 350 hub with the star ratchet system. I personally feel the 1700 should be a minimum wheelset on any bike costing over 4 grand. I used to be a Shimano hub man myself, because the price for the value was there, but I had a XT hub go FUBAR on me and I vowed never again. I know lots of people have ridden thousands of miles on Formula and Novatec hubs and house brand wheels, and most new buyers would be perfectly fine with them, but once you reach a certain level of understanding, you'll want a better pairing of quality, weight and reliability from your wheels and will pay a bit more for it.

Past wheels and components, you should think about geometry. Bikes are different these days. Someone else mentioned already that it seems to be an industry wide thing expected from consumers, but I don't think the slack angles are all that necessary for the type of riding the average rider does. I've got a hardtail with old school geometry, with like a 72 degree head angle, and then my more modern full suspension has a 68 degree head angle. The slacker angle certainly feels more natural for going downhill, but the steeper angle feels better for everything else, and I bomb downhill on my hardtail as fast as they guys on the more modern stuff anyway, so it's not really a detriment. You should get on some bikes and try them out for feel of how they handle... riding such an old bike you may be disappointed with how odd the new geometry is, but you can find a bike that's closer to the one you have if you spend some time looking.

 

1st choice would be 29.
2nd choice would be 29.
3rd choice would be 29.