[CR]Re: Why ride classics? (random musings) NOT a sales pitch!

(Example: Framebuilders:Alberto Masi)

To: KCTOMMY@msn.com
Cc: Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
From: "Richard M Sachs" <richardsachs@juno.com>
Subject: [CR]Re: Why ride classics? (random musings) NOT a sales pitch!
Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2002 22:40:34 -0400

^ a light bicycle in the 70s was 21-22 pounds. today it's 16-17 pounds. ^ my frames now weigh 3.5 to 4 pounds. 'then', they were 5.5 pounds. ^ the cost in the 70s was $190-$400. now it's 'from' $2450. ^ 'better', for <me> means keeping the playing field even when compared to guys in the peloton who have the 'modern' stuff that make the iBOBs curl up... (we did this thread 5-6 months ago...the one about using clasic era parts to race on when all around you are on ergo/sti, lighter frames and wheels, and more gear selections. i'm NOT going to divert into THAT thread again....) ^ for me, using lugs, even at a 3 ounce penalty, adds value to the bicycle in ways that are too arcane to get into in this thread... BUT... here are two stories i penned on the subject: http://www.richardsachs.com/articles/rsachslug1.html http://www.richardsachs.com/articles/rsachslugs.html and here's a long one for those with trouble sleeping: http://www.richardsachs.com/articles/rsachscrown.html e-RICHIE chester, ct

On Sun, 8 Sep 2002 21:12:43 -0500 "Thomas R. Adams, Jr." <KCTOMMY@msn.com> writes:
> Could we quantify this a bit? Where do the 4 pounds that eRichie
> mentioned come from? Is it the frame or the parts that save the
> weight? Could I take a modern frame, slap on a NR grouppo and have
> an 18-19 pound bike?
>
> Then there's the issue of cost that other's have been chewing on. If
> a respectable but not pristine lugged steel classic with high end
> classic parts runs 22lbs and costs about $800 dollars (I've done it
> several times),and a 18 pound modern ultimate quality Sachs costs
> $3200, how much would a modern road bike that cost $800 weigh?
> Assuming the frame has to be made from aluminum how would the frame
> ride? And what level of quality could you expect from the parts?
> Sora? Mirage? Do those parts save any significant weight over
> classic stuff?
>
> Then there is the issue of whether the new components work "better".
> That all depends on the criteria for "better". I want to be able
> to hop on my bike and ride with minimum time for tinkering and
> maintenance. So my experience with indexed shifting was unhappy, as
> every few rides I'd have to retension shifter cables or otherwise
> fiddle with adjusters to prevent chattering. (A 230lb rider flexes
> frames a lot and stretches cables.) And with triple front cranks I
> always seemed to run into shifters that couldn't shift accurately
> and then had no provisions for trimming the front cage. I've come to
> the conclusion that Barcons with modern no stretch shifter housings,
> modern chains and a 7 speed freewheel shift fast enough for me.
>
>
> If we're trying to make the lightest bike possible (or even if we
> limit it to reasonable lightness) then 3 ounces in the frame for
> lugs would be significant but not crucial. (Sidenote:Is there a
> benefit to the lugs beyond aesthetics? Stronger joints than TIG?
> Easier repairs? Can you replace tubes on modern wonder steels like
> Nivacrom and 853?) But what's the difference in weight of a current
> Sachs frame as composed to an early 80's Sachs? More than a pound?
> If I can buy 4 classic bikes for the cost of one 18 pound
> Ulti-Sachs, I'd probably take the 4 classics. It would be more
> "fun". All I need now is some little old lady with her son's
> abandoned classic Sachs that I can cheat her out of. Then I'll be
> happy.
>
> So for now, I'll stick to classics. They're not just "good enough",
> they're the "best" for my situation. Just as the Ulti-Sachs is
> perfect for bunches of other folks. Buy soon and buy often, so
> Richard will still be in business when I win the lottery.
>
> Tom Adams, Kansas City
> (Should I raise the issue now that K-Swiss sneaks with platform
> pedals and clips are superior to clipless pedals?)
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Chuck Schmidt
> Sent: Sunday, September 08, 2002 6:59 PM
> To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
> Subject: Re: [CR]To ride or not/very short...
>
> Richard M Sachs wrote:
> >
> (cut)
> > i'm just not all that keen on using something i had used for tens
> > of thousands of miles back in the day that the goods were new,
> > not classic.
>
> I just was reminded of my favorite Maynard "if I never see another
> Molteni orange bike it would be too soon" Hershon:
>
> "Cycling retro looks wacko to me...I don't get it. What's with guys
> in
> their 20s and 30s, in the prime of life, lost in nostalgia?"
> --Maynard Hershon
>

> Chuck Schmidt

> SoPas, SoCal

>

>

> .