snipped: "I think this thread did raise a valid question, namely if "modern technology" is really a significant contributer to the outcome. Personally, I have my doubts."
it's always a contributor. lance races on modern stuff. i do too. so did eddy. and fausto. e-RICHIE chester, ct
On Mon, 10 May 2004 19:16:39 -0500 "jerrymoos" <email@example.com>
> I think this thread did raise a valid question, namely if "modern
> technology" is really a significant contributer to the outcome.
> I have my doubts. I think it has been argued persuasively many
> times that
> total bike weight has little effect on performance and that probably
> the weight of rims and tires, because thet act with a large momemt
> arm, are
> critical. And I'm not sure modern rims are lighter than the
> lightest ones
> of the 70's as they have to be stronger because of increased wheel
> And are 20 speeds, with a lot of duplicated ratios, really better
> than 12
> speeds, with less duplication? I doubt that any modern rider uses
> close to
> all 20 of the gears in a stage. And while indexed shifting is
> easier for a
> beginner to use, I think the pros could shift just fine without it.
> And the
> narrower chains needed for 10 speed cassettes seem to be thrown with
> greater frequency than the older, thicker, more rigid ones. Maybe
> dual pivot brakes are better, but you don't win races with frequent
> anyway, and the riders seldom use their brakes except to avoid a
> crash, and
> the crashes seem as frequent as ever. About the only modern
> which seems to significantly enhance performance is clipless pedals,
> do seem to increase pedaling efficiency. So I think it is entirely
> that Lance Armstrong on a top quality lugged steel bike from the
> early 80's
> might still have won the last few TdF, as long as you allowed him to
> clipless pedals. And I feel absolutely certain that Armstrong on
> such a
> bike, with the same team around him, would at least still trounce
> the guys
> that finished out of the top 10. The rider is still much more
> important in
> the outcome than the bike, and I think that if there is a huge edge
> "technology" it is more related to diet and training methods than
> bike construction. And even that is somewhat offset by the fact
> that in the
> old days the riders could do a lot more doping without getting
> Jerry Moos
> Houston, TX
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Chuck Schmidt" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> To: <email@example.com>
> Sent: Monday, May 10, 2004 3:31 PM
> Subject: Re: [CR]Winning Today's Races With Yesterday's Technology
> > "If Lance were on my 1948 Thrumsley Hornet Experto he would still
> > his sixth Tour!" or something along these lines.
> > Seems to be a reoccurring dream of mankind (or a certain sector of
> > bike riding public), along with the search for eternal youth and
> > enlarging one's "luv muscle."
> > Maybe Maynard was onto something when he wrote the following:
> > "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
> > I enjoy riding obsolete racing bikes and I enjoy riding current
> > bikes and have never had a problem telling one from the other.
> > the former clearly have a undeniable charm, let's not let this
> cloud our
> > vision of current bike racing conducted at the highest levels.
> > Chuck Schmidt
> > South Pasadena, Southern California
> > .