On 8/2/07, Mitch Harris <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 8/2/07, John Barron <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > It would be romantic if old bikes were as fast as new bikes, wouldn't
> > Well, without getting too worked-up about this, I'll tell you all that
> > 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
> > the 60's doesn't perform, overall, as well as a $22,000 Camry bought
> 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.