Old mountain bike any good?

Ghost Rider 3000

My friend has a steel frame mountain bike which must be 20 years old! :shock: with no suspension of any kind :shock: The bike is in perfect condition just 2 decades old! Would anyone buy one of these and just upgrade the things that needed upgrading? or would it be better to just buy a new one?

supersonic

Some bits might not be upgradable due to the standards used. But if it works, it should be fine for easier trails (or harder, if he is a good rider!). Also see Retrobike forum.

passout

I've been riding MTB bikes for 24yrs and I can confirm that new bikes are better. Obviously the technology, geometries etc have evolved. I always thought that the aheadset system was a big advance - I was forever tightening up quill stems & I'd miss disc brakes off road. I'm actually lesss bothered about suspension. That said an old could MTB be used as hybrids are used today, XC routes & may actually be pretty durable. Some of the old shimano / suntour componets used to last ages - XT thumbshifters etc. May as well use it as is (for lighter duties) I reckon. I wouldn't upgrade though - not worth it & modern suspension forks would probably raise the front end etc.

cooldad

I have one from '87 and while I can ride the same places, albeit somewhat slower, it's nowhere near as much fun as my full sus.
Hurts more, especially the arms and hands. There's a reason why discs have replaced cantis amongst sensible people.

binka

My mountain bike is over 20 years old withno suspension. Don't think suspension was invented when I bought it! It's an awesome bike and goes over and down anything I chuck it at. Saying that I've never ridden anything else so maybe I don't know what I'm missing!

Rigga

Weight will be the main factor which will of course slow you down climbing hills etc. A new bike even with front suspension could be as much as 10lb lighter or more.

cooldad

Rubbish. Weight depends on how it was made, not when.

Rigga

cooldad wrote:

Rubbish. Weight depends on how it was made, not when.

Steel framed 20 yr old bike? Whatever

cooldad

Rigga wrote:

cooldad wrote:

Rubbish. Weight depends on how it was made, not when.

Steel framed 20 yr old bike? Whatever

There were a number of seriously excellent, lightweight frames - steel doesn't mean heavy.
My very old Reynolds tube road bike (large) is significantly lighter than my son's modern, aluminium Trek.
My '87 steel Rockhopper is a similar weight to my fairly recent aluminium Marin HT.
And my full sus Kona is lighter than both.

There's a difference between gas pipe BSOs and well designed butted frames.

The Rookie

Steel framed road bikes used super slim tubes, MTB's didn't, my 1997 Steel GF frame is competative with modern steel frames but at just under 2.5Kg it's 3/4Kg heavier than my Carrera frame and the steel forks are heavier than my 100mm suspension forks while the (1 1/8th) Quill stem weighs a frankly unbelievable 0.5Kg.

For light XC however it could still be a nice ride and we have a few people in our club that wheel out Retro's occasionally when we agree we'll select a slightly less rough route, and a few die hards who ride rigid almost all the time anyway, modern lightweight tyres, slightly wider than would have been used 15-20 years ago make the ride a bit nicer.

Bishbosh10

Rigga wrote:

cooldad wrote:

Rubbish. Weight depends on how it was made, not when.

Steel framed 20 yr old bike? Whatever

Kona Kilauea, 1992, 22lbs with front suspension. Whatever.

nicklouse

Rigga wrote:

cooldad wrote:

Rubbish. Weight depends on how it was made, not when.

Steel framed 20 yr old bike? Whatever

Year right. There were a lot of very light steel frames back then.

As said it all depends on what the bike is. Just like now there are and we're a whole pile of heavy bikes.

Can say I can see any comment on what the bike is or even what the year is.

So offering any advice come down to what one may think the bike is.

http://oldmountainbikes.com/catalogs/ri ... 992_02.jpg