Alot of the New/current Frames Look alike.

Spoken like a true O S er

They’re so much better now tho, they do look similar with the main differences being seen in the styles of frames, for example you can usually tell the difference between a street frame and a park or trails frame.

I mean, yeah?

Bike frames tend to resemble bike frames.

Just because a bike is unique looking doesn’t make it better. The reason why BMX frames look the way they do now is because it’s a tried & true design.

BMX wise... They were still trying to figure out/try out lots of things back in the 1980s.. I would hope they've settled on/figured things out after 30+years..

My 2020 is dialed AF, not missing my 1987 RL 20B really too much..

That would be because:
geometry is much more refined than back then,
weight is a much bigger design consideration these days,
parts are stronger, due to better design/build, so they don't need shitloads of gussets and bracing

Yes, this has been the case for awhile

Back in the day an s&m warpig looked nothing like a Dk sob which looked nothing like a standard sta

Now all bikes are super generic looking and got away from the unique designs

readybmxer wrote:

I mean, yeah?

Bike frames tend to resemble bike frames.

Just because a bike is unique looking doesn’t make it better. The reason why BMX frames look the way they do now is because it’s a tried & true design.

But that's not true...the wishbone and pierced top tubes are stronger than the designs we see today...its just that the tubing is superior today

Part of the reason why some companies are going back to them

You’d love mountain bikes if you want something different. Literally everything is different

80's was a goofy time for freestyle.

I'll take a modern bike that rides well, doesn't break as easily and functions how I want it.

No one is doing Miami Hoppers or Quickspins or Wilkerwhips anymore.

Coopers25 wrote:

You’d love mountain bikes if you want something different. Literally everything is different

You're not wrong there.
I have two MTBs (an older Trek and a newer Giant) They look completely different from each other.

I just really like the older frame styles like
GT Pro Performer and Freestyle Tour
Dyno
Hutch Trick Star
Haro Master, Freestyler
Torker
SE Quadangle, PK Ripper,

and some of the other cool frames back then.

I wished they still made them all (with updated geometry) in 20, 24, 26 and 29s....

They may look more a like, sure, but I love the nuances in geometry that's more readily available today. The level of specs were never published back then the way they are today.

98% are made in the same factory too lol

I gotta say I like the old headtube badges. Way nicer than the stickers you get these days. They are dead weight in a way but so classy.

readybmxer wrote:

I mean, yeah?

Bike frames tend to resemble bike frames.

Just because a bike is unique looking doesn’t make it better. The reason why BMX frames look the way they do now is because it’s a tried & true design.

younggotti wrote:

But that's not true...the wishbone and pierced top tubes are stronger than the designs we see today...its just that the tubing is superior today

Part of the reason why some companies are going back to them

Not just the material is better now, the welding is better too which makes a massive difference. So wishbones and pierced tubes are just added weight.

Those big clunky mid school frames still broke pretty often. We just didn’t have the internet for everyone to post pictures on and moan about it

Yeah we weren't worried about weight, we had teenagers riding around on 35lb bikes

But if you take the old designs with the new technology, you would have much stronger bikes

Companies are getting back to those designs a bit, like the trey jones signature, the new wtp kruk frame, the everlast volume frame etc

younggotti wrote:

But that's not true...the wishbone and pierced top tubes are stronger than the designs we see today...its just that the tubing is superior today

Part of the reason why some companies are going back to them

I call bullshit. Where does it say that wishbones are stronger?

I mean sure they look alike but I talk to guys who rode for a while and they mostly agree the new bikes are better. Thank everything we've moved past 40lb bikes. Ive owned/ridden some and they sucked to ride.

"Unique" looking frames are also gimmicky. "Oh cool a standing platform, more weight." "More unnecessary bracing yay." The DK SOB had a SQUARE wishbone? Why? So that one of my friends who owned one could snap the hell out of it? Plenty of shit design going on back then.

Midschool bikes cant hold a flame to the amount of suck that was bikes in the 80s though. Lol

Beamex wrote:

I gotta say I like the old headtube badges. Way nicer than the stickers you get these days. They are dead weight in a way but so classy.

My new Kink Legend frame has a nice headtube badge FWIW.

Super-Pawl wrote:

I mean sure they look alike but I talk to guys who rode for a while and they mostly agree the new bikes are better. Thank everything we've moved past 40lb bikes. Ive owned/ridden some and they sucked to ride.

"Unique" looking frames are also gimmicky. "Oh cool a standing platform, more weight." "More unnecessary bracing yay." The DK SOB had a SQUARE wishbone? Why? So that one of my friends who owned one could snap the hell out of it? Plenty of shit design going on back then.

Midschool bikes cant hold a flame to the amount of suck that was bikes in the 80s though. Lol

Yeah I gotta disagree

Having a lighter bike and shorter rear end is something I really enjoy...but the stiffness on big drops from the old to new are worlds different...the new bikes dont feel nearly as solid on bigger gaps or drops

readybmxer wrote:

I mean, yeah?

Bike frames tend to resemble bike frames.

Just because a bike is unique looking doesn’t make it better. The reason why BMX frames look the way they do now is because it’s a tried & true design.

younggotti wrote:

But that's not true...the wishbone and pierced top tubes are stronger than the designs we see today...its just that the tubing is superior today

Part of the reason why some companies are going back to them

Super-Pawl wrote:

I call bullshit. Where does it say that wishbones are stronger?

Figured this was common knowledge

younggotti wrote:

Yeah we weren't worried about weight, we had teenagers riding around on 35lb bikes

But if you take the old designs with the new technology, you would have much stronger bikes

Companies are getting back to those designs a bit, like the trey jones signature, the new wtp kruk frame, the everlast volume frame etc

I was riding back then too. Frames don’t really need to be stronger than they are now. There’s riders doing massive 3 hops down huge stairs and not snapping frames. If someone breaks parts/frames often, they need to learn how to ride properly.
Not to mention the added weight.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad we’re past the stupid lightweight phase of the mid 00’s.
But bikes are about as good as they can get now. There’s no need for lighter or stronger. And there’s a pay off between the two.

Super-Pawl wrote:

I mean sure they look alike but I talk to guys who rode for a while and they mostly agree the new bikes are better. Thank everything we've moved past 40lb bikes. Ive owned/ridden some and they sucked to ride.

"Unique" looking frames are also gimmicky. "Oh cool a standing platform, more weight." "More unnecessary bracing yay." The DK SOB had a SQUARE wishbone? Why? So that one of my friends who owned one could snap the hell out of it? Plenty of shit design going on back then.

Midschool bikes cant hold a flame to the amount of suck that was bikes in the 80s though. Lol

younggotti wrote:

Yeah I gotta disagree

Having a lighter bike and shorter rear end is something I really enjoy...but the stiffness on big drops from the old to new are worlds different...the new bikes dont feel nearly as solid on bigger gaps or drops

That’s to do with geometry. I’d trust my current frame a lot more than any of the frames I had bitd

younggotti wrote:

But that's not true...the wishbone and pierced top tubes are stronger than the designs we see today...its just that the tubing is superior today

Part of the reason why some companies are going back to them

Super-Pawl wrote:

I call bullshit. Where does it say that wishbones are stronger?

younggotti wrote:

Figured this was common knowledge

Shorter tubes are stronger. But there’s more welds in a concentrated area. By design a wishbone should be stronger. But the welds have to be pretty spot on. Let’s not forget there’s a very small portion of frames that are post weld heat treated.....

.pegless. wrote:

I was riding back then too. Frames don’t really need to be stronger than they are now. There’s riders doing massive 3 hops down huge stairs and not snapping frames. If someone breaks parts/frames often, they need to learn how to ride properly.
Not to mention the added weight.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad we’re past the stupid lightweight phase of the mid 00’s.
But bikes are about as good as they can get now. There’s no need for lighter or stronger. And there’s a pay off between the two.

Yeah I'm not saying they need to get stronger

Just if u take a dk sob and use modern tech...it would be strong as hell

All I'm saying is the old designs would be stronger if they used what we have today

And imo they looked much more unique...so if you had a group of 20 riders, all the bikes were so much different

This has been brought up before. I do miss the days where you could see a bike from a distance & know what it was. GHS, Quadangles, PK Rippers, Torkers, Redlines..... the list goes on. Personally, I'd like to see some of that trickle back into the industry. In general, the only thing that differentiates frames these days are stamped gussets or dropouts, or perhaps a "brake bridge" (dating myself) or wishbone.

Only things I can think of is Haro’s frames. Whatever one Jason Watts used to ride and the one with that beefy head tube.

younggotti wrote:

Yeah we weren't worried about weight, we had teenagers riding around on 35lb bikes

But if you take the old designs with the new technology, you would have much stronger bikes

Companies are getting back to those designs a bit, like the trey jones signature, the new wtp kruk frame, the everlast volume frame etc

.pegless. wrote:

I was riding back then too. Frames don’t really need to be stronger than they are now. There’s riders doing massive 3 hops down huge stairs and not snapping frames. If someone breaks parts/frames often, they need to learn how to ride properly.
Not to mention the added weight.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad we’re past the stupid lightweight phase of the mid 00’s.
But bikes are about as good as they can get now. There’s no need for lighter or stronger. And there’s a pay off between the two.

younggotti wrote:

Yeah I'm not saying they need to get stronger

Just if u take a dk sob and use modern tech...it would be strong as hell

All I'm saying is the old designs would be stronger if they used what we have today

And imo they looked much more unique...so if you had a group of 20 riders, all the bikes were so much different

But they’d also be heavier. And a lot of those gussets and braces didn’t really do their job. Standards headtube gusset is a good example. Loads of heat concentrated in one place, and not even the right place. Yes I saw someone rip the headtube off an STA.
I was a trails rider through most of those days though. I’ve always preferred the simple classic look. Everything else just seems gimmicky to me.
Chainstays are so much shorter now that a wishbone won’t help much at all with strength. However, a few brands have used them recently to help with sprocket clearance.

Welding techniques haven’t changed. Same old Tig today as it was 20 years ago.

.pegless. wrote:

I was riding back then too. Frames don’t really need to be stronger than they are now. There’s riders doing massive 3 hops down huge stairs and not snapping frames. If someone breaks parts/frames often, they need to learn how to ride properly.
Not to mention the added weight.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad we’re past the stupid lightweight phase of the mid 00’s.
But bikes are about as good as they can get now. There’s no need for lighter or stronger. And there’s a pay off between the two.

younggotti wrote:

Yeah I'm not saying they need to get stronger

Just if u take a dk sob and use modern tech...it would be strong as hell

All I'm saying is the old designs would be stronger if they used what we have today

And imo they looked much more unique...so if you had a group of 20 riders, all the bikes were so much different

.pegless. wrote:

But they’d also be heavier. And a lot of those gussets and braces didn’t really do their job. Standards headtube gusset is a good example. Loads of heat concentrated in one place, and not even the right place. Yes I saw someone rip the headtube off an STA.
I was a trails rider through most of those days though. I’ve always preferred the simple classic look. Everything else just seems gimmicky to me.
Chainstays are so much shorter now that a wishbone won’t help much at all with strength. However, a few brands have used them recently to help with sprocket clearance.

I know they'd be heavier

That's interesting, I never saw an sta fail...most failures came from the rear ends that we see today bending