RE: [CR]using classic bicycles, well?

(Example: Books:Ron Kitching)

From: "John Quigley" <>
Subject: RE: [CR]using classic bicycles, well?
Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 10:39:30 -0500

Here is an interesting thought.... 1975 Bike weight: 24lbs Body weight: 180lbs 2002 Bike weight: 17lbs Body weight: 225lbs :)

John Quigley Oklahoma City, OK
>From: "Don Ferris" <>
>To: <>
>Subject: RE: [CR]using classic bicycles, well?
>Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 09:22:33 -0600
> writes:
> > ...and the masi bicycles that were
> > race-ready in the 70s are useless in today's
> > racing environment.
>Gilbert Anderson writes:
> >I think with proper training ( what you see before you son is a friction
> >downtube shifter that operates like this; back and forth) and education
> >early Masi would be extremely competitive in actual competition against
> >modern equipment.
>I think you're both right. I think Richie's point is that there is a
>where a classic becomes a liability and at the higher levels of racing, it
>would be. A couple of years ago I'd occassionally dust off my old
>for the hell of it and show up for fast group rides. I never had a problem
>keeping up even when using a 52/49 and a 13-26 for the hilly routes in my
>area. I could ride at the front, even on the climbs. On road sign sprints,
>the downtube shifters were a definite liability, sometimes I wished for
>gear choices, but they were wants, not needs. But in a race environment,
>rather have the modern gear especially if you contested sprints. Today,
>off the back on my thoroughly modern 16 pound (steel) wonderbike. Twice as
>many gears and 7 pounds less bike weight don't make up for my lack of
>training or the 20 or 30-odd pounds of cottage cheese I've spread over my
>body. Like that guy who rides that Trek says, "it's not about the bike"
>I had that proved to me again last night on the MTB by some guys on



>Don Ferris

>Littleton, CO