Classic & Vintage - Are current road bikes much better than good vintage bikes?

I'm not too knowledgeable on the new road bike stuff. I've tried a handful of new bikes with brifters, carbon and aluminum, compact geometry, etc.

I think vintage road bikes win for style, but performance and comfort wise, how much better is "modern"? For example, my road bike is 80's vintage, 19#, aluminum, with a variety of good Campy parts & wheels. Is a mid-level, say 105 group bike with aluminum frame & carbon fork, that much of better? Or do you have to move up to say, Ultegra & a carbon frame to really see much difference?

I know, I should just try more bikes and make up my own mind....

Is that a rhetorical question given that you're asking that in the C&V forum?

Neal

Performance-wise, modern road bikes are better than vintage rides. They are lighter, stiffer, and index so much better than vintage rides. Another plus for me is that current road bikes tend to fit me better. TIG welding or carbon construction has made sloping geometry possible. With lugs you are limited with only certain angles and sizes. Anyone with a longer torso vs. legs will benefit greatly with the fit of modern compact geometry.

Vintage bikes do have more soul though.

What kind of bear is best?

Is a mid-level, say 105 group bike with aluminum frame & carbon fork, that much of better? Or do you have to move up to say, Ultegra & a carbon frame to really see much difference?

Depends on your riding style. The new Aluminum bike with 105 will be better if your riding style requires tight gearing and wide range gearing. New 105 bike will be better if you require shifting with your hands on the bars. It will likely feel better when you hammer on it, comfy, flexy frames are terrible to stomp on the pedals on.

I've run 80s steel bikes @ 25 lbs and 21 lbs. Weight didn't matter much to me. I don't think the cost of a sub 17 lb bike would be worth it just for the weight benefits.

What kind of bear is best?

Polar

What kind of bear is best?
Polar bears look the coolest and taste the best ;)

What kind of bear is best?

BEAR? Chinese moon bear

BEER ? ...not touching that one

"COW" thread

can-o-worms

"COW" thread

can-o-worms

A self fulfilling prophecy. If people that thought this didn't respond, it wouldn't happen.

Better for what? Taking your money?

Yes, they're probably lighter, faster and easier to shift and brake. Might be more fragile. Certainly requires a different set of knowledge to maintain. You fix things by replacing them.

My son keeps telling me I need a "better" bike. I say you put your butt on the seat and spin your legs. My '84 Cinelli works just fine for me. I'm not riding at a pace or distance where I need a "better" bike.

For example, my road bike is 80's vintage, 19#, aluminum, with a variety of good Campy parts & wheels. Is a mid-level, say 105 group bike with aluminum frame & carbon fork, that much of better?
Oh, I might add that I HATED some early aluminum I tried. Late 80s Cannondale models and Trek 1000 seemed awful to me. Some newer ones feel better, so chances are good I'd go with new bike over your old aluminum, I'd have to test ride both to find out, though.

I'd also prefer not to race on bikes with DT shifters.

Go with both carbon and aluminum combo frame, with carbon stays and fork. Equipment wise, Campagnolo Centaur, Veloce group or Shimano 105's. Can't say about SRAM, don't use it, yet. I think Fuji makes a fine carbon/aluminum frame with carbon stays and fork at an affordable price. The carbon stays help absorb most of the road shock and the aluminum adds stiffness. No mater what, you will miss the great ride of steel. If you can find a used titanium frame bike for the price of a good carbon/aluminum bike and it fits, buy it.

I love my older bikes, but I love riding my newer 9 speed Brifter equipped Marinoni "Squadra" (http://www.mytenspeeds.com/My_TenSpeeds_1/Feature_Bicycles/Feature_Bicycles_Canada/Marinoni_Squadra_57/Marinoni_Squadra_57_1_Introduction.htm) road bike a lot more. That statement assumes that ride quality and "user friendliness" are the issues to be considered.

However, were I to choose between keeping my "Squadra" as opposed to my 1976 Marinoni (http://www.mytenspeeds.com/My_TenSpeeds_1/Feature_Bicycles/Feature_Bicycles_Canada/Marinoni_Quebec_Mine/Marinoni_Quebec_1_Introduction.htm), there would be no contest. The 1976 is the keeper. So is my Peugeot PX10.

My old Marinoni does not ride that much better than my new one. Of course, they are both lugged steel. But the older bike is, well older, and that is what I like. It still looks like a bicycle. And rides like a bicycle but it looks better than a bicycle - to me.

As for carbon fiber bikes? Well, every time I get the urge to buy one, I think Dupont Delrin plastic, and the fiasco surrounding that product and Simplex derailleurs. To me, carbon fiber is plastic and I, personally, prefer to not have anything more to do with plastic(literally and figuratively), than I have to.

All that said, I would be willing to bet that, were I to take a new carbon fiber wonder bike out, and ride it for a while, my thoughts, on this issue, might be changed, and changed considerably.

Over the years, I have come to believe that, as often as not, improved technology does add to user comfort and friendliness. Why should bicycles be any different?

Yup! That's about how I see it;-)

Current bikes perform better; vintage bikes have character, but its still the guy (or gal) on the bike that makes the biggest difference. Skill and ability will always win out when it comes to riding.

Weight wise your nicer Campy equipped bike is going to be similar in weight to maybe even lighter than a new carbon/aluminum 105 bike. I weighed some low to mid level bikes from Giant at the shop which I use to work at. The lighest was only 19.5 lbs and that bike was $1700. To get a lighter bike is going to require a lot more money for something full carbon and better/lighter parts.

Current bikes perform better; vintage bikes have character, but its still the guy (or gal) on the bike that makes the biggest difference. Skill and ability will always win out when it comes to riding.

I beg to differ. Certain modern bikes perform better at certain tasks than certain vintage bikes for certain riders. Vintage bikes often peform better in other ways, depending on the task and rider.

This question has no answer - or at least no simple answer. Bikes are tools and some tools are better for certain things than other tools. It doesn't make a hammer better than a screwdriver...it makes it better at hammering a nail.

Personally I think my vintage steel ( read all my bikes) soak up road noise and are more forgiving
than modern super stiff Carbon fiber or Aluminium.
That said, were I looking to ride competitively I'd have a modern CF frame.
One of my bikes has Ergo shifting, I like it, it's easier on my back (really, it is! )
and in traffic or an uphill is a big plus.

A current CF or Alu bike is better if your competing. for everything else
it's personal preference.

Marty

I like both Vintage Steel and Modern Steel bikes, but I also like Shorties so that kinda negates my opinion.

( Yes Mutt, it's everywhere!)

Many good answers. Not a rhetorical question, if I asked this on the road forum I'd guess many wouldn't know about the classic stuff. Or I'd get made fun of and told to buy a Cannondale Supersomething!

In the last few seasons I've tried a Lemond Buenos Airies, Jamis Eclipse, Specialized Roubaix, Bianchi Axis- not a wide sample! The only one that impressed me as being much "better" was the Roubaix, purely because it has a comfortable geometry.

It sounds like what I already kind of guessed, that I'd have to get a higher end modern bike to see much improvement. Since I don't race, do club rides, etc. I don't need a competitive advantage.

Better for going fast, yes. Better for getting from point A to point B? Debatable.

I beg to differ. Certain modern bikes perform better at certain tasks than certain vintage bikes for certain riders. Vintage bikes often peform better in other ways, depending on the task and rider.

This question has no answer - or at least no simple answer. Bikes are tools and some tools are better for certain things than other tools. It doesn't make a hammer better than a screwdriver...it makes it better at hammering a nail.

Although you differ, we probably agree. All I'm saying is if you take a vintage bike with a conditioned rider, he will out ride the recreational rider with his carbon fiber bike. The recreational rider would have been better served buy a vintage bike for $200 and saved himself $1800. I go on group rides with my cyclocross bike ($1000) and routinely out ride cyclists on their $4000+ carbon fiber bike. At times, I ride my vintage bikes so as to not out ride my companions. The bike is important, but the cyclist is the biggest difference maker.

For example, I routinely out rode my buddy until he spent $500 to upgrade the wheels on his cabon fiber bike. After that, he had the advantage. I'm not willing to spend $500 to match his performance. In fact, I became a better rider by not spending the money. I tried harder and gained ground by being better conditioned. I now out ride him again.

What kind of bear is best?

That's a ridiculous question.

That's a ridiculous question.

:roflmao2:

Bingo.

Although you differ, we probably agree. All I'm saying is if you take a vintage bike with a conditioned rider, he will out ride the recreational rider with his carbon fiber bike. The recreational rider would have been better served buy a vintage bike for $200 and saved himself $1800. I go on group rides with my cyclocross bike ($1000) and routinely out ride cyclists on their $4000+ carbon fiber bike. At times, I ride my vintage bikes so as to not out ride my companions. The bike is important, but the cyclist is the biggest difference maker.

For example, I routinely out rode my buddy until he spent $500 to upgrade the wheels on his cabon fiber bike. After that, he had the advantage. I'm not willing to spend $500 to match his performance. In fact, I became a better rider by not spending the money. I tried harder and gained ground by being better conditioned. I now out ride him again.

I agree with you for the application of club rides...but that's not the only application. What kind of vintage bike vs what kind of modern bike? What rider? What conditions? Etc. There are just too many variables for this question to have an answer.

Asking will a modern road bike outperform a "standard" vintage bike in a club ride for an average rider might be a valid question...but even that would have a lot of variables. Which modern bike is being considered? Which vintage bike? What kind of riding? For climbing...sure an uber light CF is better...maybe not so much for an all day ride on level terrain. Are there off road portions? My Raleigh International is a much better bike if there's gravel involved than the Merlin.

:roflmao2:

Bingo.

False. Black bear.

I'm actually amazed at the lack of retro-grouchiness on this thread so far. I'd echo the sentiment that new bikes are good for going fast and being generally reliable, but vintage bikes can be more fun, have more soul, and give you quality workmanship and components at a lower price point. I ride a bike in the city every day and I certainly wouldn't want a pricey modern bike for that. That and especially if you do your own wrenching, there's a certain satisfaction in bring a 20+ year old bicycle back to ridable condition.

So yeah, I'd' say it's a wash. Unless you're talking about forums. I spend more time in C&V than the 41, that's for sure.

Are current road bikes much better than good vintage bikes?

Don't know.
Don't care.

I :love: my C&V bikes.

False. Black bear.

I'm actually amazed at the lack of retro-grouchiness on this thread so far. I'd echo the sentiment that new bikes are good for going fast and being generally reliable, but vintage bikes can be more fun, have more soul, and give you quality workmanship and components at a lower price point. I ride a bike in the city every day and I certainly wouldn't want a pricey modern bike for that. That and especially if you do your own wrenching, there's a certain satisfaction in bring a 20+ year old bicycle back to ridable condition.

So yeah, I'd' say it's a wash. Unless you're talking about forums. I spend more time in C&V than the 41, that's for sure.

There are two schools of thought on that.

There are two schools of thought on that.

Bears eat beets. Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica.

I've always wanted to ask, and this looks like the right place:

What's the difference between a duck?

Depends, floating or standing?

Bears eat beets. Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica.

Identity theft is not a joke!

I'm not too knowledgeable on the new road bike stuff. I've tried a handful of new bikes with brifters, carbon and aluminum, compact geometry, etc.

I think vintage road bikes win for style, but performance and comfort wise, how much better is "modern"? For example, my road bike is 80's vintage, 19#, aluminum, with a variety of good Campy parts & wheels. Is a mid-level, say 105 group bike with aluminum frame & carbon fork, that much of better? Or do you have to move up to say, Ultegra & a carbon frame to really see much difference?

I know, I should just try more bikes and make up my own mind....

To be honest, it depends, if you are a racer and you need to be .01 second faster then the next guy, you want modern, as modern as you can get. If you want to be the ultimate poseur, you want modern. Otherwise, it doesn't really make much difference.

Are younger cyclists better than older cyclists?

Neal

Are younger cyclists better than older cyclists?

Neal

Don't answer that!

To be honest, it depends, if you are a racer and you need to be .01 second faster then the next guy, you want modern, as modern as you can get. If you want to be the ultimate poseur, you want modern. Otherwise, it doesn't really make much difference.

In your opinion. It makes a great deal of difference, to me.

I'm not too knowledgeable on the new road bike stuff. I've tried a handful of new bikes with brifters, carbon and aluminum, compact geometry, etc.

I think vintage road bikes win for style, but performance and comfort wise, how much better is "modern"? For example, my road bike is 80's vintage, 19#, aluminum, with a variety of good Campy parts & wheels. Is a mid-level, say 105 group bike with aluminum frame & carbon fork, that much of better? Or do you have to move up to say, Ultegra & a carbon frame to really see much difference?

I know, I should just try more bikes and make up my own mind....

Easy answer. Get a vintage steel frame bike, upgrade with modern lightweight components and definitely brifters and you have the best of both worlds!!! I HATE the looks of compact geometry myself. So much so that I just bought a brand new cross bike for use on road. Its aluminum frame but it doesnt have that stupid looking geometry in the frame. Of course, its all about personal preference and I'm not downing anyone who likes the new style. To me the only bikes that really look like road bikes have the traditional geometry.

EDIT: I guess i didnt really answer the OPs Q. oh well, thats just my 2 cents on the topic...=)

andy

A self fulfilling prophecy. If people that thought this didn't respond, it wouldn't happen.

So true. Despite the seemingly negative connotation, no critique meant. Only that, it's yet another un-solvable opinion thread. But that's Ok. Most threads are.

Easy answer. Get a vintage steel frame bike, upgrade with modern lightweight components and definitely brifters and you have the best of both worlds!!! I HATE the looks of compact geometry myself. So much so that I just bought a brand new cross bike for use on road. Its aluminum frame but it doesnt have that stupid looking geometry in the frame. Of course, its all about personal preference and I'm not downing anyone who likes the new style. To me the only bikes that really look like road bikes have the traditional geometry.

EDIT: I guess i didnt really answer the OPs Q. oh well, thats just my 2 cents on the topic...=)

andy

You did OK. Besides the "compact geometry", many welds on new bikes are hideous in comparison to vintage lugged steel frames. I don't know about other riders, but I've liked brifters ever since my first gear change with them. The new cyclocross bikes are pretty decent. They're definitely worth a try for those who haven't ridden one yet.

I say you put your butt on the seat and spin your legs...As long as the britches are padded and it goes where I point it.

Otherwise, I can't say "better," but I can say "different."
I put modern components on old bikes and they run better than they did new.
Modern wheelsets and groups make a big difference.
A good frame is a good frame, though, regardless of the material.

Great minds think alike.

Then we drink.


Haha!!

CHEERS

andy

I wholeheartedly agree with robbie's statement.

In your opinion. It makes a great deal of difference, to me.

Well, it depends on the requirements, I ran out of time on that reply, and wanted to add some more, hit post rather then cancel, and didn't have time to delete it. Let me try again, Much of this is personal opinion.

If you are only performance oriented and don't care how the bike looks, then you want modern, if you want art on two wheels, you want vintage.

Modern bikes are like modern cars, there is an ugly sameness about them, I often feel that if I took a brand new Trek, Specialized and Giant, stripped the decals off, it would be impossible to tell the difference. Vintage bikes were designed to have a uniqueness about them, they would carve little patterns in the lugs or use different scroll work. 5 builders might use the same tubeset and lugs, and each builders frame would look very different, even though the geometry and materials are the same. Now we have the same ugly welded aluminum or the same ugly carbon fibre reinforced plastic, there is no art in bicycle building like there was in period 1950 - 1990.

While modern bikes all look the same and that same is fairly ugly, modern components work differently and in many cases a lot better, then vintage ones. The nice thing about bicycles is that the standards have not really changed much in 40 years, yeah we have threadless headsets now, but there are adapters, we have wider rear hubs, but vintage frames can be cold set to the modern standard. I can take a frame that last saw the brazing torch when Pierre Trudeau and Gerald Ford were in their respective offices, order a set of new Campy Record and build a new bike with a vintage look and modern function, which I think to a large degree is the best of both worlds.

Define better.

Ironically, I put more miles on my "worst" bike because it is my commuter. My "good" bikes get used only 2 days a week. So I ride my "better" bikes less than my "crappy" bike.

In terms of holding monitary value, vintage bikes are "better".

I love old bikes, I also love to get the debate heated up. I love old bikes because their made not using as thin of material in the frames and they hold up longer. All of this technology hasn't really bought us much, all the TD speed related records were set over 10 years ago on older technology: the fastest time trial was set in 1989, the fastest prologue in 1994, the fastest average speed over on stage in 1999, the fastest average speed for the entire tour 1999.

So no, modern mid level 105 group is not any better then your older Campy stuff, in fact I would say, again just to heat up the debate, the older Campy stuff is better. If your not racing then your not going to see a real benefit to cost ratio of moving to more modern equipment. If you want to up grade your bike you now have just buy some newer lighter aerodynamic wheels instead, you will notice that.

Now that I've poured the gasoline on the floor who's got the match?

I've always wanted to ask, and this looks like the right place:

What's the difference between a duck?

One leg is the same as the other isn't. Geez, I
thought everybody knew that one.:D

Many good answers. Not a rhetorical question, if I asked this on the road forum I'd guess many wouldn't know about the classic stuff. Or I'd get made fun of and told to buy a Cannondale Supersomething!

In the last few seasons I've tried a Lemond Buenos Airies, Jamis Eclipse, Specialized Roubaix, Bianchi Axis- not a wide sample! The only one that impressed me as being much "better" was the Roubaix, purely because it has a comfortable geometry.

It sounds like what I already kind of guessed, that I'd have to get a higher end modern bike to see much improvement. Since I don't race, do club rides, etc. I don't need a competitive advantage.

I'm not sure the Roubaix geometry is the thing. What it does have is vibration absorbing inserts in the frame, handlebars and I think other places, in addition to being carbon. Carbon in the first place dissipates vibration energy, say reducing the shock experienced by the rear wheel by the time the energy reaches the saddle. The inserts broaden the spectrum of the absorption.

If you actually check the Roubaix geometry and compare it to other bikes, it won't be much different. I really doubt the differences are very significant. The vibration absorption, very significant. Specialized's engineering has been amazing.

So I can't get that property in a steel bike. Many steel bikes are flexy and deflect shock energy from the rider, but don't absorb it. But do I care? No. I haven't noticed the problem in my touring bike with a leather saddle and cushy tires (Woodrup with Selle Anatomica and 32 Paselas). There are other ways to skin the cat, and I get the comfort (depending on fit) and the look of steel that I like. Is the roubaix lighter? Yes, but lightness is not my value, beyond a certain point. Maybe when i finish improving the power-to-weight ratio of the engine ...

But, think about putting fenders on the Roubaix, and being able to use one as an everyday bike - is it happening?

As long as the britches are padded and it goes where I point it.

Otherwise, I can't say "better," but I can say "different."
I put modern components on old bikes and they run better than they did new.
Modern wheelsets and groups make a big difference.
A good frame is a good frame, though, regardless of the material.

^^ This.

For most recreational riders, modern bikes are an improvement, but vintage bikes still have merit in performance and are a better investment.

Vintage bikes can perform very well, can be purchased without much of an investment, and can be resold easily without much (if any) loss in value.

A new bike will also perform well, but will cost 2x or 3x more than the vintage bike. A new bike will also lose 1/3 of its value, almost immediately.

Modern 9 and 10 speed indexed shifting is better than earlier 5, 6, 7 or 8 speed gearing if you ride often or in groups. Easily finding a modern frame that fits well is a consideration for many riders.

However, the improvement in performance depends on who the cyclist is and what kind of riding the cyclist will enjoy. High performance riders will see a substantial gain in performance with the race-ready bikes sold today. However, most riders do not get the kind of return on investment that they expect these bikes to provide.

Those are all great points! I agree 100%. If your goal is to excel in local crit. i would find the best modern bike around. If your goals are to do long fitness/ fun rides them a C&V bike may work just as well. Modern bikes do have the advantage of a wide range of gearing out of the box. I live in a particularly hilly part of North Ga. A wide range of gears is a total must, especially as i get older. I do ride a modern bike most of the time for that reason. I also like to keep my old bikes as period correct as possible so that limits gearing choices. One of my winter projects is to convert my Campy Victory equipped Panasonic to compact chainrings (If i can find a set of rings). That would allow me to have the range i "now sadly" need and stay c&v.

I beg to differ. Certain modern bikes perform better at certain tasks than certain vintage bikes for certain riders. Vintage bikes often peform better in other ways, depending on the task and rider.

This question has no answer - or at least no simple answer. Bikes are tools and some tools are better for certain things than other tools. It doesn't make a hammer better than a screwdriver...it makes it better at hammering a nail.

I went to a training once where the trainer was a very old, experienced hand. She said that the correct answer to most questions is: "It depends." I've kept it in mind ever since.