Nobody likes being told that their bike isn’t good enough to enjoy this sport. That deterrent has been presented to people directly and indirectly for far too long and presents the notion that folks need to pay a lot of money to enjoy mountain biking.
Unfortunately, there is a pretty strong correlation between the amount of money spent and the quality of the bike. For a lot of people reading this, there’s a good chance that in the past year, someone has asked you/them what kind of bike they should buy because they want to try mountain biking. What did you tell them?
Most of us probably didn’t advise them to visit a big box department store or to find a 20-year-old relic off of Craigslist. It would be equally poor advice to tell a new rider that they should spend $9,000 on brand new carbon super bike. The topic and how that line shifts has come up in a few different ways for me over the past week and it got me thinking, especially since we are not really in a buyer’s market right now.
At dinner with a friend recently, he mentioned that he is trying to sell a roughly ten-year-old XC bike, but keeps getting lowball offers. The bike was listed for about half it’s ten-years-ago price, but still has geometry that says “I’ll think about the descent when I’m halfway down it and regret bringing this bike.”
Then there are the other things we remember about old XC bikes: long stems, two-by drivetrains, and short reach and wheelbases; the things we’re hesitant to pay for these days. But, then again, the market often dictates the price.
There’s also the fact that bikes depreciate in value much differently than a car would. Even five years ago, one-by drivetrains, dropper posts, and wheel sizes were still all over the place, whereas you could shop for a car today that is ten years old and still get the important things like air conditioning, power steering, and Bluetooth connections.
In an online forum, I saw a familiar post. Someone was deliberating about buying a bike and wanted advice from other mountain bikers. For $1,400, the seller was offloading a Trek Scratch, a bike that was phased out by the Slash model about ten years ago. The Scratch was sort of a freeride bike before freeride and park bikes were re-designated as enduro bikes.
The Scratch had 170mm of rear travel with a Fox Van coil shock and a 170mm Fox fork, along with a 2×10 drivetrain. Even though this 26-inch-wheeled Scratch could probably scratch its way up some climbs, it was a little too early to come standard with a dropper and the buyer would be relegated to the quick release clamp. Braking was controlled via Avid Elixers, the precursor to SRAM’s frequently cursed Guides.
The geometry on the Scratch is surprisingly modern in some aspects: a 75° STA in the low position, and a 66° HTA, with 439mm chainstays, but there are still some signs of the olden days like a short reach and wheelbase. The Scratch in this particular post actually looked immaculate.
Advisors were split in two camps: The proponents recommended buying because of its condition, and the Scratch is still somewhat modern-looking. If the buyer was planning to use it strictly as a park bike, they wouldn’t be disappointed.
On the other side, opponents mentioned the outdated geo, the front derailleur, the 26″ wheels, and the fact that $1,400 can still go a long way on a newer bike. Which camp was right? Both had good points and it probably didn’t make the decision any easier for the buyer.
Obviously, everyone comes to their own decision on a matter like this by weighing their own variables. How long will I have the bike? What kind of riding will I use it for? I don’t really care and I just want something that is durable and still works, so what does it matter? Sometimes the best part about these questions is splitting hairs, discussing the nuances, and peeling back the layers.
I am happy with my ~30 year old ridged steel MTB. It’s worthless on the used market. But, it takes me places I’ve never been before. I get my thrill as the bike gallops beneath me on easy downhills. To me, $1400 is years more riding — a nearly endless supply of tires, tubes, patches, and break pads.
How much that scratch cost brand new and how much they are asking by comparison now is really irrelevant. What matters, is what else could a person get with that $1400 today and how does it compare with what they are getting from the scratch for that same money. If you can’t get anything “better” with that $1400, then that’s a good price.
Interesting article and comments. I have been doing more road than mountain biking for the past decade or so but I’ve been thinking of getting back into it. I sold or traded all my early mountain bikes (starting with a 1983 Stumpjumper Sport that I purchased that year). My current choices are: fix up a 1992 GT Avalanche, a 2000 Rocky Mountain Cardiac, a 2009-ish Trek something or other hardtail running a hodgepodge of scrounged components, or buying a used hardtail. I’m leaning toward the latter option, of course. It sounds like the hardware has changed substantially from anything I’m used to riding. I wonder how well my skills would transfer.
P.S. Anyone interested in purchasing any of the afore mentioned “classics” feel free to reach out. 🙂
On one hand, a 170mm Fox 38 fork will cost about as much as that bike. I think if you compared a Scratch 8 to a current GT Verb or anything else in that $1500 price range, the Scratch is a lot more bike for the money. It may be heavier, but it’s got a lot more travel and is a lot more capable. I’d go for the Scratch personally.
https://www.pinkbike.com/news/Trek-Scratch-Air-8-Reviewed-2011.html
That is true the bike has some top notch components for the age however if your buddy is on a new entry price full sus trail bike and you ride it you be disappointed in your decision of buying a older bike even if its of high quality. Better to get something to just get you on the trails then buy into what you think is a good bike. Save and buy modern and there will be no regrets and do your homework. New bikes are almost to good to be true in how they perform.
I can relate. shopping for a decent MTB during confinment last year was complicated. most affordable new bikes were out of stock with very long waiting lists. use market was very overpriced with people selling 20 yo bikes 3x more expensive than blue bok value. it took me several months to source a 2010 rocky mountain slayer sxc 70 on pink bike in good condition and a few upgrades, for $750. I’m happy with it and it’s plenty for me as an advanced beginner, and was a good compromise being a solid bike that can take the abuse from a trail, that I wouldn’t outride after a few months. in some ways it’s a better bike than a new entry level trail bike, with better suspensions and brakes, but it’s also based on outdated standards, 26 wheels, qr Shimano HG rear hub (thru axle in the front). the upgrade potential is somehow limited but I eventually upgraded the aging group set to deore xt 1×11 + a dropper post.
I’m very happy with the result but if I had the choice I would probably go a slightly different route and spend a bit more for a more recent bike with thru boost axles front and rear, 27.5 + wheels, to have better compatibility with new standards. it’s getting harder and harder to find parts compatible with old standards, and when it’s available it’s often specialty products with a premium.
I have two bikes a Kona Coilair and a Gary Fisher Piranha that I purchased used. Both bikes are 2012 models and were purchased in 2016 and 2018 respectively. I have made some modern upgrades and both bikes are used frequently. On good name brand bike, any frames from 2012 and beyond have modern geometries and room for tires larger that 2.1″ wide.
IMO, if you can find a higher end used bike in good shape no more that five or six years old buy it. It still has plenty of life left.
No bike is too old. New bike’s aren’t faster than old ones. These 1X Drive trains are terrible for versatility. A tiny front chain ring makes for no speed on the street, or gravel, or downhill. What a joke of technology to ignore the versatility of a front derailleur. Peace out…
News flash, not all mountain biking is the same. I think it comes down to how and where you ride. If you are a casual rider who isn’t out for KOMs your requirements from a bike are a lot different than a big hitter pushing hard down double blacks. There is a whole spectrum of riders and terrain, and a whole spectrum of bikes to suit them.
Old bikes are fine for some people and not for others. Horses for courses.
Technology changes over time and things improve. Sometimes the shift is a large leap and it obsoletes the previous technology. Mountain bikes are just like cars in this aspect and there are a few characteristics to use as analogies.
1 – Brakes: rim brakes on a mountain bike are like drum brakes on a car. The previous technology (drum brakes and rim brakes) is obsolete and has been replaced with disc brakes. Does the older tech work – yes. Is it as safe or effective as the newer tech – no.
2 – Wheel size: 26″ wheels with non-boost spacing vs. 29″ wheels with boost spacing on a mountain bike are like 16″ X 6.5″ wheels vs. 19″ X 9.5″ wheels on a car. Are they all round – yes. Are the larger wheels stronger/stiffer and do they provide greater efficiency and rollability – yes.
3 – Geometry: a very upright head angle with a long stem and narrow handlebars on a mountain bike is like driving a 1967 VW Bus where you are hanging out in front of the front axel. Can you steer and maneuver – yes. Are you at high risk of winding up severely injured if you run head first into something because your center of gravity and weight distribution is biased disproportionately towards the front – also yes.
So the answer here is know the limits of what you are purchasing and gauge those characteristics against the trails you are planning on riding. If you predominantly ride smooth flow trails with gentler descents (<7%) and very few obstacles, a previous generation mountain bike would likely be safe and effective and provide a good experience. If you are riding trails with significant downhill grades, moderate to large obstacles, tight switchbacks, or needs for abrupt changes in speed, you should go for the modern technology that was engineered to handle that terrain.
For the record, I love VW’s!
I’m surprised you didn’t mention “Bicycle Blue Book” as a source of pricing info. I searched this bike and asked for value in excellent condition. Looks like its a little over priced.
https://www.bicyclebluebook.com/value-guide/product/22712/
However, I find they often under value bikes, especially now that supply exceeds demand for new and used bikes. Ultimately the market will determine the price and the more manufactures create niche appeal for bikes I would think lowers the resale of bikes.
This listing just popped up on my Facebook feed after reading this article the other day. https://www.facebook.com/groups/1582775988629785/permalink/2988553868051983/?sale_post_id=2988553868051983
riding a 2003 maverick reposado with du32 fork with a vittoria mota 29″ 2.35 and 26″ rear wheel with a wtb ranger 2.8 tire which gives a balanced smooth ride that eats drop offs and turns with anything out there… a 4″ dropper post and 1×10 10-46 sweetwing crankset and it weighs 27lbs… total investment about $3000. over the years… i test ride about five bikes a year, santa cruz, specialized etc. and for the money asked they can keep them…
I put a newer fork and shock along with a 1×11 drivetrain and carbon cranks on my ’01 Rocky Mountain RM7 and still ride it as much as possible. At 42# it’s a workout, but it won’t fail under me
To be honest, I don’t consider the older geometry “worse”, I nowadays just see it as different, and as long as it’s compatible with all the parts you wanna put on it, I don’t see an older bike as worse really. I love my 2006 stumpjumper’s geo, with 425mm chainstays and 420mm reach, and 68° HTA.
It’s super fun and playful, and it’s exactly the way I like my MTB to feel.
I also have a 1995 rockhopper, and I absolutely don’t consider it “too short” with a 435mm reach and chainstays.
Due to the fastback frame design when they started useing them to race the finnish times
Slowed down by 3 miles an hour per race .now the bikes of yesterdays without fastback frames
Times were faster.
Anything before modern geometry which started about 2016. And any bike with 26″ wheels, stay away.