You are absolutely right. For racing, particularly at a high level, incremental advantages can make all the difference. However, for touring, camping, and city bikes, I submit that the older machines have never been eclipsed. Newer materials dont offer the advantages of steel, such as malleability, ease of repair, and in the case of custom bikes, ease of construction. On a camping trip any competent garage mechanic can weld minor cracks and other repairs on frames, steel carriers, etc. (it has happened to me!). Fully custom bikes can be made in steel at half of what it would cost in titanium or carbon, if you could even find someone who could do custom brake bosses, remote generator levers, custom carriers including removable low riders, etc., in titanium or carbon! And in any case, the weight savings on a full camping bike with a titanium or carbon frameset, compared to a steel frameset, would be insignificant when factoring in the weight of the rider plus 40 pounds of camping equipment, and is really quite laughable if you are talking about saving seconds, or even minutes, on an all-day touring ride. (Well.. maybe faster getting to the pub!) My only concession to modern bikes is that index shifting may offer slightly more convenience (at the expense of simplicity and cost), but this is more important to non-enthusiasts.
Gary DellaRossa, Toronto, Canada.
>From: "John Barron" <jb@velostuf.com>
>To: <haxixe@gmail.com>, "'Mitch Harris'" <mitch.harris@gmail.com>
>CC: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
>Subject: RE: [CR]re: We are truly... mainstream-how much faster you'd be
>Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 08:06:13 -0500
>
>Kurt-
>
>
>
>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
>
>Minneapolis
>
>
>
> _____
>
>From: Kurt Sperry [mailto:haxixe@gmail.com]
>Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2007 9:13 PM
>To: Mitch Harris
>Cc: John Barron; classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
>Subject: Re: [CR]re: We are truly... mainstream-how much faster you'd be
>
>
>
>
>
>On 8/2/07, Mitch Harris <mitch.harris@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>On 8/2/07, John Barron <jb@velostuf.com> 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
>
>USA