RE: [CR]re: We are truly... mainstream-how much faster you'd be

(Example: Framebuilders)

From: "John Barron" <>
To: <>, "'Mitch Harris'" <>
References: <2EE0D947EB994CD09AE26EA77EF8F2D3@JB> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Subject: RE: [CR]re: We are truly... mainstream-how much faster you'd be
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 08:06:13 -0500
Thread-Index: AcfVc8/xjxBzkv2aSZ+ij1qGkx2DnwAV6fPQ


You are making my points perfectly! Incremental performance is the *definition* of bike racing. It doesn't matter whether you finish .01 seconds ahead of the other guy, or .01 hour- So, boo-hoo for that poor chap who was *incrementally* slower than the race winner. I don't have to tell anyone here that 2.0 seconds over 20K is significant to many and incremental to many others. So, I'm saying that modern race bikes are indeed incrementally faster than the vintage steel- end of that discussion. But I'm also saying that incremental performance gains don't mean squat on our list because that's not why we like old bikes. What drives me crazy is when folks try to have their cake and eat it to by claiming that not only are our bikes cooler than modern bikes, but they're just as fast. Sheesh! Outsiders will surely think we're nuttier than we really are if we embrace that BS!

Would I prefer to own/drive a Ferrari, Cinelli and a Heuer? You betcha I would! Why? Because I dig the things that make them cool. which doesn't include most measures of performance. Strange but true.

John Barron



From: Kurt Sperry [] Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2007 9:13 PM To: Mitch Harris Cc: John Barron; Subject: Re: [CR]re: We are truly... mainstream-how much faster you'd be

On 8/2/07, Mitch Harris <> wrote:

On 8/2/07, John Barron <> wrote:
> It would be romantic if old bikes were as fast as new bikes, wouldn't it?
> Well, without getting too worked-up about this, I'll tell you all that my
> experience shows that a $3,000 Heuer watch from the 60's doesn't keep as
> good a time as a $9.99 quartz watch bought today; a $100,000 Ferarri from
> the 60's doesn't perform, overall, as well as a $22,000 Camry bought today,

Faulty analogies, each.

Agreed. The actual performance disparity between a '71 Cinelli (or almost whatever) and a modern comparable new bike is incremental at best. A faster rider will still be faster irrespective of which bike two guys are riding.

Besides would you rather drive that "inferior", skinny tired old V-12 Ferrari or the appliance-like but stogily competent Camry? The Ferrari is still faster, at least straight line. And the '60s mechanical watch will be accurate to within a few seconds a day, how much functional value is added by a little more accuracy? Really?

And '60s $10 Timexes weren't too bad, mine worked fine, lost a minute or two a day. No problem.

Kurt Sperry

Bellingham WA