Long Distance Competition/Ultracycling, Randonneuring and Endurance Cycling - Do you really need modern gear?

Citizen78 posted this in general and I thought it might fit here. 84 year old lady riding 150 mile charity ride.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/10/28/eiko.irpt/index.html

Sometimes we forget that it's just bike riding.

Still waiting for the Tour to done on Dutch city bikes. Maybe a special stage?

Still waiting for the Tour to done on Dutch city bikes. Maybe a special stage?

There is a slight difference between competitive racing and most other styles of bicycling. Saying a recreational cyclist should have the latest and greatest up to date equipment is akin to saying you need a formula 1 car for commuting.

pbp, much different than a charity ride...

http://www.frogonabike.com/blog/wp-content/gallery/pbp2007/IMG_0154.JPG

There is a slight difference between competitive racing and most other styles of bicycling. Saying a recreational cyclist should have the latest and greatest up to date equipment is akin to saying you need a formula 1 car for commuting.

true that. but riding a brevet series is a bit different than commuting. and different than racing. and different than mountain biking.

Do you really need modern gear?Depends. If you are planning to keep pace with other people who use efficient equipment - you probably do. If you just want to make a point at some charity ride with no particular goal - other than to eventually finish - probably not.

Greg LeMond won the 1990 Tour de France using downtube friction and lugged steel, against opponents on STI and carbon fiber.

I'm putting my 1972 Schwinn Paramount back into regular use. It will have modern 700c rims and tires. However, most of the bike will be original. The half step 52 & 49t crankset should be fun to use. My intention is to complete a century with it next year.

http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/ll210/wildcat-bucket/IMG_1414.jpg

Greg LeMond won the 1990 Tour de France using downtube friction and lugged steel, against opponents on STI and carbon fiber.

The fastest finisher at the last PBP was riding 30 year old steel.

There is a slight difference between competitive racing and most other styles of bicycling. Saying a recreational cyclist should have the latest and greatest up to date equipment is akin to saying you need a formula 1 car for commuting.

I don't agree with this sentiment. We are lucky in cycling to be able to use the same sorts of bikes made of modern materials and using the same technology as the top racers. In fact, it probably shows just how irrelevant Formula 1 has become to the ordinary person.

... In fact, it probably shows just how irrelevant Formula 1 has (always been) to the ordinary person.

Modified with a big smile on my face, Rowan. ;)

Comparing prices on used equipment to new isn't exactly fair, however... one could find a very capable used (read "vintage", or "old" in as you see fit) bicycle for about $500.00 (with a bit of persistence and looking). Compare to an all-new bike that admittedly conveys some actual advantages for what? $4,000? That eight-fold differential in cost won't give you something that's eight times more capable. Either could work out just fine. It's more about individual preferences and what we feel we can afford to spend on it.

I'm thankful that having 30 speeds and a carbon frame isn't a requirement for participating. :thumb:

I don't agree with this sentiment. We are lucky in cycling to be able to use the same sorts of bikes made of modern materials and using the same technology as the top racers. In fact, it probably shows just how irrelevant Formula 1 has become to the ordinary person.

I don't agree with this sentiment. The same sorts of equipment used for top-end racing are in no way suitable for regular commuting .....no comparison. High end carbon frames with low spoke count wheels, no provision for racks, no fender clearance, and narrow tires suck for rough commutes.

Actually they suck for any kind of commuting IMO and IME -- which is what steve0257 said. Some of the technology is great, sure. Integrated shift/brake systems are certainly user-friendly and....well, that's all I can think of that high-end racing has done to advance commuting.

To OP: Yeah, you can use older bikes which are well-maintained to do anything newer bikes will do. In some instances the older stuff will actually last longer and be more reliable (friction shifting vs. index).

Cottered cranks and older road brakes suck though.

High end carbon frames with low spoke count wheels, no provision for racks, no fender clearance, and narrow tires suck for rough commutes.

I dunno about that.... I've commuted countless times on this exact set-up so that I can ride directly from work to one of those elitist, testosterone-fed hammer fests that the LD grouch contingent sniffs at. ;)

I think the variety of bikes -- old, modern and everything in between -- that one sees on long-distance rides demonstrates how little relevance equipment is to completing, even competitively, those events.

I don't agree with this sentiment. The same sorts of equipment used for top-end racing are in no way suitable for regular commuting .....no comparison. High end carbon frames with low spoke count wheels, no provision for racks, no fender clearance, and narrow tires suck for rough commutes.

Actually they suck for any kind of commuting IMO and IME -- which is what steve0257 said. Some of the technology is great, sure. Integrated shift/brake systems are certainly user-friendly and....well, that's all I can think of that high-end racing has done to advance commuting.

To OP: Yeah, you can use older bikes which are well-maintained to do anything newer bikes will do. In some instances the older stuff will actually last longer and be more reliable (friction shifting vs. index).

Cottered cranks and older road brakes suck though.

Oddly enough, Steve didn't say a single word about bicycling commuting.

Oddly enough, Steve didn't say a single word about bicycling commuting.

You're right! He said recreational at second look.

Damn...I thought I had a good rant.

Damn...I thought I had a good rant.

Go ahead and rant. Commuting didn't even occur to me, but if I was commuting I would not want to be using bleeding edge technology. I don't commute, but if I did I would be looking for reliability before performance which means I would probably be several years behind in adopting anything new.

Depends. If you are planning to keep pace with other people who use efficient equipment - you probably do. If you just want to make a point at some charity ride with no particular goal - other than to eventually finish - probably not.

Eh. I'm always at the front on fast paced rides with the club. Riding a 25 year old steel racing bike. The only real difference between my bike and the others is the amount of plastic. The Suntour derailleurs aren't much different than brand new DA, just less cogs on the back and lighter, more reliable shifters.

I was just looking at the 12 hour race results from Sebring (www.bikesebring.org). In the 80-84 category, the only entry was a Mr. Richard Lawrence, 83, who pedaled 124.8 miles in that time. The only entry in the 75-79 age category was a Mr. Lew Meyer, 75, who did 204.3 miles in 12 hours.

Gene, I don't necessarily disagree with you. I started PBP2007 on an old lugged steel Shogun frame retrieved from the local dump and rebuilt into a fixed gear. And all my other randonnees (and a huge slice of commuting and touring) have been done on a circa-2000 Fuji Touring.

However, I do own a Merlin carbon fibre bike that I built up from bare frame, and I love the thing. It is much more efficient that either the Shogun or Fuji and it's likely to be my next full-time randonnee bike. I previously owned a Merida 900 Extreme aluminium framed bike that I also used a lot for commuting (as a nice sporty change from the Fuji).

I suppose if we were all realistic about it, bike racing has indeed passed on down to us the benefits it has developed. Just like Formula 1 has even if we don't really want to admit it. Traction control is probably the most recent, disc brakes were certainly in the mix.

For bikes, we probably have to look at derailleurs, and alloy wheels (no-one rides "full-time" on steel wheels anymore, do they?), and tough alloy chainrings. Even the various grades of steel tubing for frames have likely been developed from a racing perspective because of the need for stiffness, strength and lightness. Add into the mix the various developments from MTB racing -- disc brakes, tough wheels and tyres, MTB gearing -- and we have more to talk about.

These are all things that have benefited those who ride bikes, whether they are commuters, long-distance riders, or recreational cyclists.

Machka and I did a driving trip into the middle of Melbourne (Australia) last night for an Audax Australian social event (at the finished to the Sydney-to-Melbourne 1200 randonee). We passed a fair number of commuting cyclists (made obvious by the backpacks). The majority were on newer-style road bikes with a few CF ones thrown in there. Tram tracks are probably the worst thing they would encounter in road conditions, however.

By the way, it might seem a bit difficult to grasp, but carbon fibre is not plastic. Only the resin used to keep the fibres together is a plastic. The rest is.. well... carbon.

Do you really need modern gear? Of course not.

But on the flip-side, it seems to me that many randos think you need retro gear to do brevets.... period-pieces are fun and all, but at some point these are all just bicycles.

Also, is it really fair to compare a "high-end" race bike to a commuter bike, when commuting? That's like saying a chain-saw isn't a good hammer.... well duh. Those race bikes aren't made for comfort & racks the last time I checked.

I don't have a problem with carbon or titanium or whatever. In fact, I think they're wonderful materials. If someone would make a titanium or carbon frame with geometry, clearances, and braze-ons suitable for long rides with front bags and moderate width tires, I'd think it would be ideal for brevets. I have not yet seen one, which is why I think steel still has a following among randonneurs.

There may also be a tendency for some folks to equate anything but the latest race bike as "retro" -- including any bike with a handlebar bag or fenders. As those are both extremely useful items for the distance rider, I would disagree with that appraisal -- not that I'm accusing anyone here of making it.

I don't have a problem with carbon or titanium or whatever. In fact, I think they're wonderful materials. If someone would make a titanium or carbon frame with geometry, clearances, and braze-ons suitable for long rides with front bags and moderate width tires, I'd think it would be ideal for brevets. I have not yet seen one, which is why I think steel still has a following among randonneurs.

There may also be a tendency for some folks to equate anything but the latest race bike as "retro" -- including any bike with a handlebar bag or fenders. As those are both extremely useful items for the distance rider, I would disagree with that appraisal -- not that I'm accusing anyone here of making it.

agreed. had i been a bit more savvy about tires and loading when i had my IF built (ti!) i would have made slightly different choices - ti frame, steel fork, designed for an integrated front rack. and i would have opted for paul canti's or racers... currently i can get some 28s and fenders in there - or 32s without. perfectly fine the way it is. and it handled just fine with an acorn boxy rando bag on a mark's rack. with a leather saddle, fenders, dyno light - it might have looked a bit naked retro - but the sloping TT and carbon ergo levers give it away as a modern bike. ;)

now, to get the body in as fine a shape as the bike, as the body and mind are where the real payouts happen out there on two wheels...

There would have to be a few frame builders who could do a job for you in carbon, just like there are some who will do a custom job in Ti.

I haven't investigated fully, but St Kilda Cycles here in Australia offers the service through, I think, the Saints offshoot of its business. Essentially, the carbon frames in this instance are tubes put together with lugs and they're all epoxied together, and painted. My Merlin appears to be the same construction (which adds to its appeal to me because it looks like a traditional, horizontal top-tube frame).

The issues with CF for long-distance cycling, I suppose, will always revolve around bonding -- especially of the dropouts. But using the above technique, and giving the frame builder the required dimensions (longer chainstays, slacker geometry), there is no reason why a CF frame cannot be tailor made with all the bits that you would add on a steel bike such as braze-ons.

The cost? The $6500 question, perhaps. But surely a frame made up of CF tubing would not be that much more expensive that a Ti or high-end steel bike.

Well, just read a bit of cycling history and look at the bikes records were achieved on. Obviously no, you don't necessarily need the latest cycling gear unless you're racing against other people who use it (and I politely include most club riding in that category). That being said, I think that any pro racer would still be competitive today even riding on an appropriately-equipped modern steel bike.

It depends on what you intend to do.

Cyclists whose interest is distance and endurance rather than quick acceleration and sheer speed can use any bike they are comfortable on, without being at any disadvantage. I'm a pretty experienced recreational cyclist myself, and while I do have a custom-made modern steel bike, some of my best rides are on my old, 1980's full load lugged steel touring bike with ordinary downtube, non-indexed shifters, half-step gearing, ordinary pedals, etc. It's a little slower going uphill, but certainly no harder because it does have lower gears to choose from.

There would have to be a few frame builders who could do a job for you in carbon, just like there are some who will do a custom job in Ti.

I haven't investigated fully, but St Kilda Cycles here in Australia offers the service through, I think, the Saints offshoot of its business. Essentially, the carbon frames in this instance are tubes put together with lugs and they're all epoxied together, and painted. My Merlin appears to be the same construction (which adds to its appeal to me because it looks like a traditional, horizontal top-tube frame).

The issues with CF for long-distance cycling, I suppose, will always revolve around bonding -- especially of the dropouts. But using the above technique, and giving the frame builder the required dimensions (longer chainstays, slacker geometry), there is no reason why a CF frame cannot be tailor made with all the bits that you would add on a steel bike such as braze-ons.

The cost? The $6500 question, perhaps. But surely a frame made up of CF tubing would not be that much more expensive that a Ti or high-end steel bike.

I've never seen lugs appropriate for making a carbon bike to traditional rando geometry, although that doesn't mean they don't exist. The monocoque frames, of course, require expensive molds, and apparently no one thinks they can recoup the cost of having one made to rando geometries.

Titanium is much easier, of course, and I've seen several that would make very good rando frames. The trouble seems to be the fork: everyone wants a carbon fork and there don't seem to be any with appropriate rake, clearance, and braze-ons for randonneuring. I have seen stainless steel forks with a brushed finish almost exactly matching the brushed titanium finishes, and these can of course be made into any design the builder wishes -- but then we're right back to complaints about "retro"...