Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
13K views 134 replies 50 participants last post by  brent878 
#1 ·
Call me crazy. I still think old school bikes ride better than new bikes. I think my old '96 Kona Lava Dome weighed less and rode better than my new '11 Giant Revel One. Sure shifting technology and braking technology have gotten better. Geometry has changed. However I just think old school bikes rode better and weighed less.

Is it just me?
 
#7 ·
There's some cool name for it that only engineers would understand, making it pointless to most internet discussions. But one of the numbers that can describe a metal is the amount of tension it can withstand per unit area, per unit mass. Aluminum does better at that than steel, and carbon fiber cloths have really ridiculous scores.

I think a big contributor to feel might be the fork on the Revel. Rigid forks are almost always a lot lighter than even a really light suspension fork. The Revel does not have a light fork.

Disc brakes are heavy. The calipers are heavy. The rotors are not too bad, but still add something. V-brakes just don't have that much material involved.

I think the wheels are a good thought too.

I'd be surprised if the frame of the Giant is actually heavier. But rims have gotten burlier, and cheap ones are now insanely heavy. Tires have gotten fatter (and cheap ones are now insanely heavy.) Forks have more travel and more "stuff" inside them (and cheap ones are now insanely heavy - like more than the frame, probably.) Cassettes have more cogs. Cogs have gotten only marginally lighter, and probably not the cheap ones. But there are more, and the big ones are bigger.

I really wish more companies would follow Redline's lead, and stick rigid forks on bikes priced too low to have a "real" suspension fork. Anyway, you could probably drop the most weight for the least money doing a rigid fork and some wheels and tires that are lighter.

EDIT: Oh yeah - I think same-product line disc hubs are usually heavier than their non-disc counterparts.
 
#51 ·
Kona, you may want to pull your head out.

Frames today are lighter and faster than their 90s era counterparts. If you find that your Giant has sluggish acceleration, it's probably your wheels.

The fact that you "think old school bikes rode better and weighed less" than modern bikes just proves you haven't actually ridden a nice modern bike.
 
#59 ·
CroMo tubes are thinner than Aluminum tubes. I think someone alluded to the physical reasons for this near the beginning of the thread. Thin CroMo tubes are not necessarily lighter than thick Aluminum tubes. They are different metals that require different techniques of frame building to create a bike.

Man you bought this bike because you were on a tight budget and wanted to get riding again after a long break. I don't think an upgrade is in your books, especially if you are barely riding it. If you aren't riding it much then you will just be throwing more money away.
 
#72 ·
thoughts on bike fit....

First off, Kona, don't get discouraged on mountain biking,. unfortunately it seems you picked a bike that fit well physically in the store but does not come close to meeting your expectations on the trail. It happens more often than you think and is one of the biggest reasons newbies will give up on the sport.

To me, when it comes to bike fit for mountain bikes geometry is only the first part of the equation. Much more goes into how a bike rides and feels to you. Many aspects are physical including frame angles, tube lenths ect. The scale weight of a bike is highly overrated, unless you are a top tier road weanie or xc racer. when it comes to weight, the overall balance of a bike and the rotating weight of the wheels make the biggest difference. the most important factor of all is the weight and fitness of the ass in the saddle. Frame material can make a significant difference, especially in hard tails and rigids (though i don't think it matters at all in full susp bikes). Everybody has an opinion, but low to mid range aluminum has always felt dead to me. The gussets and such on modern aluminum bikes dont really change the ride much, they just keep the joints together longer. Butting and manipulation of the tubes is how you get better ride qualities out of any material. Sometimes it is just plain mental. During my shop years i tried just about everything that came through the door in my size and hated far more bikes than I liked.

Based on your comments and others posted IMHO there are a few things to look at as to why the giant just doesn't work for you.

I think comparing the giant to your dear departed Kona is a mistake, at least as equivelent bikes. The Kona was a high mid-range bike in 1996. The component spec was much better, the rotating weight of the wheels was much lighter and it was a pretty supple steel frame, especially for its price point. The bike also had a more performance oriented geometry. The giant is at the upper end of the entry level, therefore components will be heavier across the board, especially the wheels and fork. Being an entry level bike, the ride position will be more comfort orientated than performance orientated. Because of this the bike simply will not handle the same, regardless of new vs old. Geometry hasn't changed as much as everyone seems to think. The biggest difference in a 1996 bike vs 2010 is the head angle, which thanks to long travel forks are much slacker these days. Top tubes are generally longer and stems shorter, but old kona's had relatively long cockpits. most hardtails still have similar seat angles, stay lengths and bottom bracket heights.
Because this is more of an entry level bike, the fork is pretty much just a springy boat anchor and likely hinders more than it helps.

To give you a personal anecdote, I have owned and put significant miles on 4 hardtails in the years that I have been riding. The first I wont mention because it was killed in a tragic accident. I then rode a hardrock for several years taking it places and doing things an entry level bike isn't meant to do. At the time I loved it, but I knew it was holding me back even though I upgraded the snot out of it. After college I moved up to my current hard tail (fat chance buckshaver, still going strong at 15). A few years ago I decided to pull the ol' hardrock out off mothballs to set it up as a single speed (semi horizontal drops) In spite of setting up the cockpit with a very similar position to my other hardtails I could not stand the bike anymore. It was heavy, slow and the feel was all wrong when compared to the Fat. I also owned a late 90's steel rockhopper which with its much more aggressive charecteristics compared to the hardrock was a great bike to hammer on when I felt the need to ride rigid.

I think in this case, this modern bike just isn't what the brain and body need. If I were in your shoes I would not sink alot into upgrades and would probably sell. To get a fork and lighter wheels that might make the bike feel better you will easily spend another few hundred dollars. Put that and the sale proceeds towards a higher end ride. There really is a HUGE difference between a high entry level bike and a good mid range bike. If you really want to go back to the good 'ol days, I frequently used to see older Konas on both the Eugene and Portland craigs list. Also, don't be afraid to explore the used market in general, lots of nice mid range bikes can be had for a bargin. Test ride alot of bikes, there is a lot of parity amung mid range bikes but there are some gems out there.

Regardless don't give up on the sport, but don't be afraid to say enough is enough with this ride, If you don't like it now chances are that you still won't several hundred dollars of upgrades later.

Good Luck!
 
#94 ·
Isn't this a bit like comparing apples and pears. IMO the rigid long toptube, moderate chainstaylength lighter steel bikes of the nineties still are very good bikes. For fast rides on hardpack and light singletrack (and around townbikes)they are excellent. Of course a modern FS bike will be much much better than my POS 97 Proflex, but I would still love to have a 93 Kona Explosif (or wild dreams: a Hei Hei).
 
#95 ·
One thing I forgot to mention in my previous post is that Giants and Konas are very different feeling bikes, at least to me they are. In my bike shop days we carried both brands and I was one of the mechanics putting them together and taking them for test rides. For the most part Konas were a bit heavier but once I'm actually riding them they feel lighter and more nimble, throw some obstacles on the trail and there's no doubt that I'd rather be on the Kona.

With Giants it feels like I never know what the bike's doing or what it's going to do, I often felt like the bike was going to nose over, slide out, or do something bad, I never developed trust for the darn things. They also felt a bit sluggish and unconnected for some reason. Others had no problems riding them, different bikes for different people and all that. I had to fight the bike to get it down the trail whereas with Konas I just relax and let the bike do everything for me.
 
#97 ·
I didn't read your thread as complaining. The added features weigh more (extra travel, disc brakes, etc...). I'd guess the frames are comparable in weight as long as you're getting the same class of frame and the fun in front of you is changing out components over time to match your feel and style.
I recently got back into mountain biking and ten years ago I was riding a 99 Cannondale F??? (CAAD Frame), and I remember it being much lighter out of the box than the 2010 Cannondale F5 I just got. The frame looks a bit bulkier and wouldn't be surprised if it was 8 ounces heavier than the former one, but the weight is in that monstrous fork and the brakes. The extra weight just means I'll be in get in better shape. :)
 
#115 ·
I resurrected my old '96 Tassajara, put a Fox 80mm on it and made it a singlespeed. I still love riding that bike but I think the bigger fork has doomed it to an early death. Oh well, it had a good (albeit very hard) life. Something about steel makes it such a great material for hardtails, maybe that's where some of your perception of it being better than your new bike comes from. But I suspect that you've just gotten used to your old bike and anything different feels wrong, probably doesn't have anything to do with your new bike being of lower quality.
 
#131 ·
1 vote for a mix. Old V-brake frame w/ new rigid disc front. Thumb shifters are still kick ass. Do we really need a 10 speed cassette, or 4-6" of travel. I have 89 klein , 94 Klein SS, and a 04 Salsa SS. I'm looking for a Girvin "flex stem" so i can get some suspension on my bike. Its fun to have something that most people don't have. I have NEVER seen another one of my bikes on the trail. My Bike are all light and cheap enough. I vote for old school with an updated front disc brake.
 
#67 ·
:lol: the best part of this is the clincher of ending it with the whipper snappers comment.
Just makes me laugh.

BTW to the OP...
The "feeling" of bikes being lighter is all in your head. Maybe?
A dollar went farther back then. $300 for a bike would probably compare to a $900 bike today.

So a $300 bike from the 90's vs todays $300 bike :confused: Might be close on your weight opinion.

But $300 would have gotten you a higher end bike in those days too.

So compairing the higher end bikes, now and then, puts a :madman: in your thought. Check the #'s. It's a hard fact that bikes today are lighter and stronger.
:confused: Better built??? :confused: That's an entire different can of worms.
 
#5 ·
I think it wasn't that it fit me better. The Giant fits better as I was more stretched out on the Kona. I just think the Kona was lighter and that made all the difference. I think cromoly is better than aluminum. Pedaling this Giant feels like I'm driving a tank.
 
#9 ·
I have Kenda 2.1 inch small block eights.

I think what was said about the fork is right on. That sucker is heavy. I had a rigid Kona Project 2 fork on the Kona. Light Mavic rims as well.

Actually thinking about trading the bike in for a '00 Stumpjumper FSR.
 
#8 ·
I would say disc brakes are a nice improvement from those circa-'91 cantis and U-brake on my first bike. I don't miss the locked-up death grip hands after a DH section. I also think suspension has made a nice improvement in ride quality (my first fork was the original Manitou, ~1.5" of travel and a wet noodle in terms of tracking - with a fork like that it was a DH bike back then. I also think bikes on the whole are heavier now. Wider bars feel better than the skinny ones with bar ends we used to ride and I can't say I miss the super-long zero degree annodized purple stem thing. However, I would take my old-school XT thumbies over the newer stuff any day. 29ers are great. You don't need 10 @#$#@ speeds. I hated threaded headsets. A 28T on your 7-speed cassette with a 26 ring used to be more than adequate for a granny gear. There, my 2 cents. :)
 
#11 ·
Clearly you misunderstand. I've had bikes that are equipped with roughly the same parts. Yet it seems to me this one feels heavier. I will never enjoy riding it. Sorry.

This is the right sport for me. Just need a different choice in a bike. I was just thinking how old school was better for me.
 
#14 ·
YOu should get another kona HT. (though I hate HTs now) YOure right about one thing, my 2001
kona blast was a lot lighter than many hard tails produced today granted it had V brakes and a 80mm travel fork. But pedaling up steep hills I could pass up almost anyone because of its weight. (skinny aluminum tubes) The 2011 Blast still looks lightweight
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top