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

(Example: Humor:John Pergolizzi)

Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 19:13:05 -0700
From: "Kurt Sperry" <>
To: "Mitch Harris" <>
Subject: Re: [CR]re: We are truly... mainstream-how much faster you'd be
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <2EE0D947EB994CD09AE26EA77EF8F2D3@JB>
cc: John Barron <>
cc: John Barron

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