[Kreton's Love Child]

For years, almost all my riding has been road riding. But now I'm considering more trail riding again and replacing my '95 Trek 8000 aluminum hardtail with a new hardtail. I know mountain bikes have gotten much more specialized over the last 25 years, so based on the type of riding I plan on doing it sounds like a moderately priced 27.5+ "trail" type hardtail would be the way to go for me.

However, I was shocked to discover the two bikes I'm most interested in - the Trek Roscoe 7 and 8 - actually weigh about 3.5 lbs. more than my old Trek. And that's even after I put a cheap aftermarket shock on it a few years back. With the original shock, the weight difference would probably be around 4+ lbs. Accounting for inflation and design and technological advancements in mountain bikes over 25 years, I'd expect the Roscoe 8 and 8000 SHX to be pretty apples-to-apples in terms of general level of performance and quality.

My question is, will the extra weight of a Roscoe 7 or 8 (or comparably priced hardtails) be offset by things like improved geometry and/or a more responsive frame, wheels, crankset, BB, etc., or would I just get a bike that maybe rides a bit better over rough stuff but requires more effort to pedal than my old Trek?

 

[Ailuropoda]

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?

 

[Harold]

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.

 

[shwndh]

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.

 

[*OneSpeed*]

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 👎

 

[Kreton's Love Child]

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.

 

[ocnLogan]

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 🤪.

 

[Honda Guy]

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.

 

[glenncz]

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.

 

[FishMan473]

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.

 

[Crankout]

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).

 

[Harold]

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.

 

[dysfunction]

... 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.

 

[Kreton's Love Child]

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.

 

[127.0.0.1]

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

 

[ocnLogan]

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.

 

[Wheelspeed]

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.

 

[chazpat]

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 Harold mentioned, a mountain bike is going to feel sluggish compared to a road bike. I think you will find that even more so with a plus tired bike and the wider tires aren't going to make any difference in balance. Ideally you test ride a 27.5+ and a 29 in similar bikes so you can feel the difference. I've got both and prefer the 29. I just checked your profile and you didn't list where you are, maybe if you live where there's a lot of riding on loose kitty litter type surfaces the plus would be welcome but I've found them too sluggish. Both my bikes I'm referring to are rigid and I thought I would miss the cush of the wider tires but I don't, though they aren't real far apart at 2.8 vs 2.4.

 

[goyo46]

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!

 

[jgivand]

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.