Classtime 

I've never thought that my C&V road bikes were a disadvantage on fast group rides. I'm thinking about getting a MTB but I thought I'd ask if anyone rides their classic hardtail or maybe an earlier zero suspension MTB with their buddies on reasonably technical single track and can keep up. I know Amy old bike that is tuned up is a blast anywhere but I'm talking about keeping up with the dudes who have the latest. In other words, Does anyone do Leadville on a hardtail?

clubman 

Serious riders I know giggle when it's suggested that early offroad bikes are competitive with the new gear. I suspect the 29er design is a game changer. Experienced riders will likely tell you exactly why.

LesterOfPuppets

Yes, lots. 2016 was won on carbon HT. I haven't read about the 2017 race yet.

LesterOfPuppets

I still like riding tech stuff on rigid steel. Trails with long rough downhills are less fun sans squish, of course.

LesterOfPuppets

Looks like both 2017 winners were on full suspension.

wschruba

No contest between even a modern hardtail and an early mountain bike. The gap between the same early bicycle and a full suspension bicycle intended for similar use (XC?) is enormous.

For one, early mountain bicycles have comparatively long wheelbases and top tubes--excellent for climbing a steep hill, but not so good for lofting the front wheel over obstacles. This says nothing of weight or braking ability.

I suppose there is more to say, but it's as simple as taking a 25 year old mountain bike down a trail, then riding the same trail with a modern bike. Provided there's even a little bit of "tech", the difference is night and day.

Piff 

Another here to say that it's no contest, the new stuff wins by a mile for technical trails.

If, however, you want to just ride some groomed fire trails, the old mtbs work fine. You can push them, but only so far. It becomes difficult to the point of unfun.

On the other hand, if you're a pro, you can ride anything and still shred. Still, notice the quite modern geometry of the frame- I doubt he'd fare as well with a bike from 1983.

mstateglfr 

Vintage rigid mtbs are going to be slower/more difficult to navigate over terrain/beat you up more.

Simple as that.

But it can be a lot of fun to ride with a rigid bike- you need to pick your lines better and it can really improve your riding overall.

HTupolev

What sort of terrain, and how significant does something need to be for you to consider it a "handicap"?

I mean, if I've got a vintage road bike that weighs four pounds more than a "similar" modern road bike, and I climb a couple percent slower as a result, I call that a disadvantage. Is it significant? I dunno. When I'm riding with people of very similar ability, it can decide which of us summits a hill first; but it doesn't go very far toward deciding whether we can ride together.

MTB technology has evolved dramatically over the years. Geometry changes have refined the handling, suspension has made vast improvements, tubeless tires can be happily used at lower pressures, drivetrains are stabler, brakes behave more consistently.
None of this matters all that much on stuff that isn't very technical, hence bikes that people build for gravel roads tend to just be wide-tired road bikes. But it can make for fairly tangible gains in comfort, control, and confidence on the gnarlier stuff.

Yes, but I'm not sure why that's an "in other words" question. Hardtails aren't a vintage versus modern thing, they're still part of the current mainstream, and still get used in high-level racing.

rosefarts

I have a new and cheap Nashbar SS 29er. Heavy (28lbs) and hardtail with a steel fork. I converted it to 1x10. Total cost including new tires is about $500. Stock was under $300. It's not a serious bike by any stretch...however

It rides better than any of the bikes I had in the 90's, and they were all mid range to high end. $2-3000. A Zaskar LE with XTR, a Xziang also with XTR and a Palmer fork, a Proflex 855, a Trek 8000, and a Cannondale Super V. All of these old bikes are junk compared to this bottom of the line Nashbar bike I bought to get my dog some exercise.

I doubt I could keep up with modern fancy bikes ridden by serious riders with my new rig. I know that 17, 18, or 19 year old me on my Zaskar or whatever and feeling serious probably rode the same speed as 39 year old me rides now on just messing around. All these years of advances have been like free skill for me. I'm fitter than talented, so your mileage may vary.

T-Mar

It all comes down to the physical conditioning and skill disparity between you and your riding companions. Assuming you're equal, you will be able to keep up, for a while. But the physical and mental fatigue will hit you sooner and you'll eventually be dropping back.

katsup

I ride a modern hard tail and the geometry, air suspension and hydraulic brakes allow me to have much more confidence when it comes to trail rides. The majority of these same trails I would not enjoy on my 90's MTB, especially if I am trying to keep up with a group. Not to mention 80% of the riders on my local XC trails ride full suspension bikes.

Wordwreckin

That is an awesome video. The Mongoose ATB threw me off until I realized they recently did a limited run of them. Explains the modern geometry, and how differently it handled compared to my 1984 Mongoose ATB. That is a cool video, thanks for posting

Piff 

Glad you liked it! Though I'm sure most people have already seen this one, I'll post it as well. Can't have the homage without the source material!

cs1

Agreed I own several vintage Stumpjumpers and Rockhoppers. They're great fun and a piece of history. But no suspension can beat you up pretty bad on longer rides. Mine are all road or very mild off road now. Personally I think they excell in that roll.

Trakhak

The Cannondale Beast of the East of 1987 or thereabouts, with its 26" front wheel and 24" rear wheel, might have been the first to use a shorter-wheelbase geometry approaching the modern standard. The name refers to the predominantly single-track riding encountered on the East Coast versus the long Repack-like trails out West.

Chrome Molly

No doubt modern MTB's will easily beat a vintage bike around the trail with much less effort.

What vintage bikes have in their favor is flexibility as gravel bikes, commuter bikes, and the ability to ride what modern MTB riders find to be boring trails and have it be interesting. Old MTB's are like old Land Cruisers or International Scouts. Reliable and trustworthy but not built for racing.

clubman 

Great video. The retro accessories made it sublime. White tube socks and pink fanny.

Classtime 

Ok. Seems like 3 big things to consider. #1 “Vintage” suspension and brakes will beat you up more but my naivete tells me maybe that can be negated somewhat by conditioning and the idea that i have not been spoiled by modern technolgy.
#2 Wheels and tires 26 inch clinchers being less efficient/cushy than 29 inch tubless.
#3 The shorter wheelbase of the modern MTB.
What about the geometry has changed besides wheelbase? If you lock out the suspension, how have ST and HT angles, chainstay length, trail, etc changed. And of the vintage MTBs, which ones were ahead of there time in this regard.
Please pardon my ignorance. My only experience on a MTB is two C class races on a turn of the century Rockhopper.

WFdave

I don't think the vintage bikes are a handicap for a ride depending on terrain but as I get older the newer bikes sure do make it easier.

I have 2 vintage bikes (93 Fisher steel Hoo Koo E Koo and 93 Trek 8000 ZX series), and one maybe not quite vintage yet (2003 Cannondale F500). I love'em but may put the two older ones up for sale as I picked up a 2017 Scott Spark 960 29r a few months back. Not carbon and not the top of the line components but wow it really helped me enjoy riding the trails again. If I weren't riding root rutted or some of the rocky areas it wouldn't make as much of a difference.

Dave

kunsunoke 

A lot depends on where and how you ride. I wouldn't want to go to a terrain park or a ski resort with one, but for tight singletrack and high-level, slow-speed technical riding (the rule rather than the exception in the northeast) the old 26ers are still relevant.

My Bridgestone MB-1 with RS Mag 21 fork still hangs with 29ers and is much more maneuverable in tight singletrack. Of course it helps that the bike can handle modern tires.

exmechanic89

I love old mtbs, they're a lot of fun and very versatile, but imo they can't compare with the modern versions if you're talking about keeping up. Geometry changes and suspension have really allowed modern mtbs to go almost anywhere quickly. I also personally think the 27.5 wheel standard is an improvement as well.

Classtime 

Modern tires? Tubeless and/or 29er?

Bikerider007

Of course. MTBs have changed from their early years more than any other bike. They are high tech machines that assist the rider.

Doesn't mean some can't ride the crap out of a rigid but also can get bucked much easier. Early's MTBs had an identity crisis.They wanted to be different but were really a mix of BMX, road and cruiser and have gone through decades of updating to get where they are.

John E

For me, the rider's lifelong lack of physical coordination and intolerance of risk are far more important factors than any limitations of my 30-year-old non-suspension mountain bike, which continues to serve me extremely well for what it is, but far more importantly, for what I am.