Should I get a new mountain bike?

January 31, 2016 3:02 PM

Is newer better?

1997: spent $1800 on a top-of-the-line Cannondale. Rode it often and hard for about four years, then put it away in storage. More or less forgot about it until (very) recently deciding to get back into mountain biking.

While at cycle shop to get tires, oil, stuff to tune it up etc, saw new mountain bikes for the first time in 20 years. They have things like:

carbon or carbon/alloy frames

varying wheel sizes, head angles, chainstays

hardtail vs full suspensions

One Cannondale I looked at had "Lefty 2.0 Alloy OPI suspension forks and RockShox Monarch RL rear shock, both with 120mm travel" (whatever that means...)

The bike I have was a great bike 20 years ago. It's heavy (27lbs), sturdy, made to take a hell of a beating, and rides as well today as it did when I first got it.

But it's 20 years old. Has no bells and whistles. Is an Apple IIe among iMacs.

Advice?

posted by BadgerDoctor to Sports, Hobbies, & Recreation (17 answers total)

Test ride a few, and see if they make a difference to you.

No one can answer this definitively for you, though I suspect you'll answer it soon enough!

If you do decide to buy a new one, do a lot more test riding and demos. It's really common in my circle to buy a 'first' full suspension, and then buy the one you realize you wanted.

But yeah ... suspension and frame materials have come a long, long way.
posted by Dashy at 3:23 PM on January 31, 2016

I'd recommend going out to ride local trails and see how you do - and see what other people are riding.

The really big difference is rear suspension and more front suspension travel, plus the geometry is very different. Does that make it worth buying a new bike for you? Depends entirely on what kind of riding you do. If you are just getting back into it, ride the bike you have for a while and then revisit the question.
posted by ssg at 3:44 PM on January 31, 2016

rides as well today as it did when I first got it.

And you satisfied with that kind of ride?

Your question is phrased oddly, because it's all about what's available and not about what you want. You can definitely get a better bike today. But you could have gotten a better bike in 1997. If you didn't, it was presumably some question of what you wanted and what you could afford. It's the same question today, so I wouldn't get hung up on the twenty years part.

I would recommend doing some more riding, if you're just getting back into it, and thinking about whether you want to upgrade your bike, period.
posted by d. z. wang at 3:47 PM on January 31, 2016 [1 favorite]

I would reiterate that you should go out and ride the bike you have to see if you enjoy it. Mountain bikes have changed a lot in the past 20 years and recently the advent of larger and fatter wheels have made selection almost overwelming. Any good bike shop can in your area will help you out. But getting on the trails and talking to the people there will give you a better idea of what you should be looking at. I will also suggest asking about demo days were you can ride a selection of bikes. Some shops will sometimes have rentals or demo bikes of their own that could allow for a longer trial.
I also say that working with a local shop is important and having a good relationship will make things go better.
posted by 123fakestreet at 4:00 PM on January 31, 2016 [1 favorite]

what kind of riding do you do?

just looking at the 1997 cannondale catalogue, you could get a full sus alloy+carbon bike with disks back then.

assuming you have a hardtail, i suspect the fork needs servicing (and maybe can't be). so you'll need a new fork (for 26" wheels). and i suspect you don't have disk brakes (which imho are the biggest improvement in the last 20 years).

i would buy a new bike. but i wouldn't go top of the line. but maybe you ride more challenging stuff than me.
posted by andrewcooke at 4:29 PM on January 31, 2016

Probably a 1" steerer tube, which limits fork replacement options to ... maybe 1. In fact, lots of things will be hard to find parts for or replace.

I have an old mid-90s hardtail on life support myself. And then I got a new fs, and this spring I anticipate a 29" fs, because I like to stay behind the times.

But yeah, just go ride.
posted by Dashy at 4:35 PM on January 31, 2016 [1 favorite]

I would hold off on buying a new mountain bike. Tune up your trusty Cannondale and get out there. If you find yourself wanting to go faster or take on terrain that feels beyond the bike's ability then head back to the shop.
posted by thebigdeadwaltz at 5:03 PM on January 31, 2016 [1 favorite]

I recently bought a new-ish Kona, after riding one from the late 90s all these years. I kept the old Kona too, and got back on it recently to ride a couple blocks. I cannot tell you how much harder it felt riding the old bike, after a couple weeks on the new one. Yes, you will feel a difference.
posted by miles1972 at 5:12 PM on January 31, 2016

Response by poster: Thanks for the answers thus far.

I would reiterate that you should go out and ride the bike you have to see if you enjoy it

Yeah, I absolutely enjoy it. I've ridden it a dozen times in the past few months. Though now in my forties, I've stayed in excellent shape and have had no trouble, physically speaking, getting back into riding.

But as it was then, so it is now. Weighing in at a nimble 27 pounds, the bike is a bitch on inclines. On declines, it has a lot of forward momentum and (controlled) braking can be dicey.

It doesn't have shocks or frame flexibility to absorb impact. Shock transfers to my shoulders, and sometimes my wrists, such that they hurt for a day or two after a ride. My tailbone takes a beating.

Are these the kinds of things that new technology addresses?

And it's not a matter of money. I'm a doctor, and make a really good living. It's a matter of whether a bike today is a better product than one of 20 years ago thanks to new technologies that cost so much.

Thanks again for the advice
posted by BadgerDoctor at 5:21 PM on January 31, 2016

Oh my goodness, if money is no issue, go demo some bikes and upgrade! You'll be so much more comfortable and have so much more fun. No question, in my opinion.
posted by bighappyhairydog at 5:26 PM on January 31, 2016 [6 favorites]

You want to go faster uphill? You and everyone else :).

It seems to me like the major brands reinvent the mountain bike every year, much more so than road bikes. The changes in wheel sizes have gotten ridiculous, for instance. I am pretty skeptical of the perpetual bike marketing hype. Is there a major difference in these bikes and the ever changing standards? Sure probably, but they all roll.

What are your goals here and what's the terrain like in your area? I'm mostly a roadie and the trails around here are 95% hard pack fire roads. I ride a suspension-less 1993 heavy steel frame with rim brakes and friction shifters, because I don't care how fast I go on the trails and mostly I'm just doodling around with my friends drinking beer anyways. Would be different if I lived somewhere with more technical terrain, or was entering off road events, or was out trying to improve my Strava rank.

Money is not a concern for me either when it comes to bikes, but I like riding the hell out of them until they're don't roll anymore. So if it were me I'd go buy a completely different bike from what you have now (a road bike for when you don't want to be sore for a week after thrashing around the trails?). Go buy a blingie modern mountain bike after your current one has given up the ghost.
posted by bradbane at 5:44 PM on January 31, 2016 [3 favorites]

I have a sub thousand dollar late '90s or early noughties mountain bike and a several thousand dollar road bike. My feeling on the mountain bike is that if I'm riding on mountain bike terrain, I'm likely to do things like shear the derailleur off or thrash the rims or what-not, and I don't want super expensive components for stuff I'm going to bend and bang.

The one thing I wish I had on my cheapie mountain bike: Lockout on the front fork suspension. I've ridden a modern fully suspended bike that didn't have as much power transfer issues as older full suspension bikes, but for climbing, the front fork absorbs a lot of energy, and the rear suspension removes a lot of the nuance that can keep you from slipping on steep dirt.

I can lose 5 lbs off my gut for cheaper than I can lose it off the bike, so saving a few lbs isn't an issue.

I like bradbane's suggestion: If you feel the need to trick something out with modern components, get a load of what a modern road bike is like in a paceline, with super quick shifts and all that.

And unless you're doing mostly bomber downhill runs in full kevlar, enjoy the mountain bike you have 'til you crack the frame.
posted by straw at 6:15 PM on January 31, 2016

Modern full suspension and geometry make a huge comfort difference. The newest thing is a dropper seatpost, which makes descents all that more plush.

I got my first fs bike 6 years ago, then a few months later broke my back badly (titanium cage), and the fs was what let me get out there again at all. Even now that I'm mostly healed, I cannot imagine putting up with my hardtail now.

Have fun!
posted by Dashy at 6:27 PM on January 31, 2016

And to answer your stated question: what you get for, say, $3000 is really astounding compared to what that would have bought you in 1997, even without adjusting for inflation.
posted by Dashy at 6:35 PM on January 31, 2016

ok , to try answer your question more directly, here's my take on the new tech:

• disk brakes are worth it (an improvement). more reliable and you care less about wobbly rims.
• plastic frames are worth it for full suspension, not for hard tail. they make complex fs geometries easy and light.
• geometry (headtube angle) is slacker than it was. worth it for gnarlier downhill, but not trail riding.
• handlebars are wider for no apparent reason.
• rear sus geometry has improved (less bounce), but the best are patented, so you need to pay more for those.
• rear sus is worth it for gnarlier downhill, but not trail riding (controversial).
• dropper posts are a good idea (get the seat out of the way when you need to move your body around).
• 1x11 drivechains are not worth the current (high) price unless you're a mechanical incompetent (controversial). they have less range and larger spacing.
• wheel size has changed for no apparent reason.

i think that covers most of the changes in the last 20 years.

and since you seem to not have front suspension despite buying a top end bike (which seems odd to me - maybe i misunderstood), that is definitely worth it unless you live in a very flat, damp place.
posted by andrewcooke at 2:45 AM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]

also, thru-axles are worth it with disk brakes (make removing and replacing the wheel more consistent). and i suspect gear changing has improved (smoothness, quickness, consistency) over the years.

and headtubes have got fatter for no particular reason unless you're doing really nasty downhill stuff. and bottom brackets have changed a million times for not much gain.

if i were buying a new bike with money no object, i'd get something like a jamis dragon pro at 27.5. a nice steel framed hardtail with decent components.
posted by andrewcooke at 5:09 AM on February 1, 2016

I'm a road cyclists who does a little bit of mountain biking. The point by point summary from andewcooke above is spot on. There are a lot of changes but about half are debatable whether they are really that important. For my part my mtn bike is about 15 years old with 26" wheels, rim brakes and a triple chainring. It looks nothing like what people ride now but it is just fine. I did a demo day and rode the newer kind on the trail. It was lighter and it felt pretty good but it fundamentally did the same thing.

I suggest you keep riding your old bike until the wheels fall off or it gives you some problem that needs newer equipment to resolve.
posted by dgran at 12:44 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]