Today's weight weenies have it easy, what with their (sneer here) titanium this and their carbon-fiber that and their boron-now-with-extra-whitening and their CPSC ... why, how many of them have ever been near a drill press? ;-)
Seriously, though, most of the things that are wrong with current (market-driven) trends were also true of racers/racing bikes in the past, and let's face it, there's no human more convinced of his indestructability than a 19-year-old racer. I never raced so I never had any need for radically lightened parts, but I remember some pretty drilled chainrings, and some pretty stupid drilled stems, cranks, and so on. Many of today's weight weenies may be unaware of the origins of the term "stupid light." (scratch those carbon bars; you'll learn.)
But today, you sell the sizzle, not the steak. And it suits the big players to encourage a racer-based marketing image, so that even "touring" bikes have ultra-low stems, skinny tires, etc. If you buy a racer-wanabee bike today, even a cheapie, and you stick with cycling, you're likely to buy progressively more expensive versions of the same essential design, until you're riding the bike they use on the Tour, at which point you've arrived as a bicycle owner, if not a cyclist. And if you don't stick with cycling, what does it matter if the parts or frame won't last? It won't be ridden often or far enough to matter, and if it looks cool pedaling around the subdivision after dinner on a nice summer evening, but never anything more, then that cyclist probably feels he got his money's worth, no matter what he envisioned for himself when he bought it. Either way, the big bike company made a sale, and potentially another, and another ...
The point is well taken that the equivalent market image for the on-topic era, ie the classic "racer ideal," was a better choice for more cyclists at the time than today's version is. That is, you were better off, speaking in terms of comfort, durability, safety, etc, with a top-of-the-line, Tour-ready racing frame Back in the Day than you are with today's racing-inspired equivalent--even if both are as light as they could be (make that _especially_ if both are as light as could be!).
And it's still true, because I don't think anyone doubts that a top contender could win the Tour primarily riding a top lugged frame today, ie a Sachs or whatever -- wouldn't necessarily have to be Lance. But the point is also well taken that today's racer doesn't see steel as a option, let alone lugged steel. If he sees himself as informed and enlightened, a bike guy, he may well know that "steel is real" and that it's a good choice: For you, for his Dad, for his work buddy who asked him about bikes, which he obviously knows a lot about 'cause he races -- just not for him. "No, I race, so I need something better than steel, alas!" Or maybe he doesn't race, but he's a "serious" cyclist who needs a serious machine, and he's willing to pay for it. More power to him, I suppose. At least he's near the path of enlightenment, eh? There's hope! ;-)
Dennis Ryan Louisville, KY 'bout had enough of winter himself - obviously cracking under the strain!
PS My Team Miyata is one of the most comfortable bikes I've ever ridden, of any type -- as solid as a rock and as smooth as butter over rough roads, and it's light, too. And on-topic!
-----Original Message----- From: classicrendezvous-bounces@bikelist.org [mailto:classicrendezvous-bounces@bikelist.org]On Behalf Of wayofftheback Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 4:52 PM To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org Subject: Re: [CR]The canard of lightweight
Actually, I think weight weenies are missing the
point. If you can drop weight at no other cost, fine.
But in the real world in which we live, there are
costs to extreme light-weight.