My two cents (as objective as I can be). I have raced new...and old, as recently as 2004 (came in fifth on my 1970 Gitane Super Corsa, with downtube shifters and rat trap pedals!):
On the flats: Old is just as fast (they still haven't made a better hub than Campagnolo Record).
Uphill: Please. There is no comparison...lighter is just plain better.
In the sprints: New bikes are faster. No doubt about it. They accellerate and handle better(because they are lighter and in most cases, stiffer).
Shifting: New bikes are faster/better.
Downhill: Depends on how big your "downhill muscle" (gut) is.
Stephan Andranian Costa Mesa, CA http://www.GitaneUSA.com
Tom Dalton <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: Quite frankly, I get hyped up riding an elite late 1970's bike - sub 20 lbs. It's almost like the endorphins shoot into my brain before my first pedal stroke.
A Giant OCR3 would not cause this reaction, and I really do believe that I'm faster on an elite bike - from the modern (post-1960) era - compared to a low-end LBS bike - ANY low-end LBS bike ...
- Don Gillies
I file this under "works for Don" and not under "reasons old bikes are really just as fast." For every guy like you who's psyched up about his elite classic, there would be a hundred who would be flummoxed and pshyched out by the lack of familar shifters, pedals, etc, and the sense that it was an obsolete bike. Assuming these arguments about 'psych factors' are really appropriate to the objective issue of speed, I'd say that among the guys I'm limiting this argument to, the preference would be strongly in favor or mediocre and modern not elite and obsolete
Tom Dalton Bethlehem, PA USA... really, last today....
Luggage? GPS? Comic books?
Check out fitting gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search.