[CR]Riding bikes -- Old vs. New


Example: Framebuilders:Jack Taylor

From: <sir4die@bellsouth.net>
To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 13:38:35 -0400
Subject: [CR]Riding bikes -- Old vs. New

All right! This is my kind of debate, where you don't need any specialized knowledge, just an opinion about old versus new... On longer rides where there's an indication that the pace will be slow or moderate, I'll ride my vintage bikes. I have a kinesthetic connection with those 531 frames that dates back 30 years. Those frames are comfortable and familiar, and I love em to death. When I have a sense that the pace will be more competitive on the longer rides, I ride an aluminum frame with modern shifters. It's lighter by two pounds, it's a much better climber, it's geared better, and as several have noted the gears are easier to reach when you're standing. Not as comfortable to ride, but in my experience I my average speed is about 2 miles an hour quicker on rides of 80 or more miles. The biggest advantage to the modern bike, in my opinion, is the wider gear range with precise shifting, which allows for a more consistent cadence and less fatigue on the hills from pushing too high of a gear. For aesthetic and pratical reasons, I have not updated the gearing on my vintage riders. I love my old bikes, and ride all of them on a regular basis. At the same time, I'm a fan of the technological advances, particularly in components, that have been made in the three decades since I started riding. And I'm delighted folks like Mr. Sachs continue to improve on frame design by using the classic steel model as a reference point. Take care, Mike Dayton