iab

I'd take a 2015 Ferrari over a 1970 Honda any day of the week.

As for what is "better", don't recall what I wrote 4 years ago and I am too lazy to look, but I think the question could not be more subjective and really doesn't matter to anyone who is not putting food on the table by racing a bicycle.

LazyLegs

Better? Yes.

Much Better? No.

For racing at the highest level, where athletes are evenly matched fitness wise then having the most modern and high performing bike is essential, but even at that, I expect if someone rode the Tour de France on a vintage bike (within reason), I wouldn't expect them to finish last. They'd certainly have disadvantages over riders on the newer bikes but I imagine athletic variation would still make the biggest difference. The vintage bike would be enough of a disadvantage to change the position they finished in but not enough to distance them behind everyone else.

Brifters are more convenient and safer ion group rides and if you ride everyday they are a nice luxury to have, but if you are competent then friction shifters are fine too and it certainly isn't as much a step change difference as going from a car with power steering to one with none. It's the same with gearing, bike weight, aerodynamics etc, they all make a difference but unless you are exploring the limits of performance then you'll get by with or without.

A set of fatter tyres and comfortable saddle will make a bigger difference to any bikes comfort than all the hoopla about geometry and material compliance etc.

EBH

IMO the best bike is the fastest one. You'll always be faster on the modern. A straight top tube and quill stem looks better though...

KonAaron Snake 

The geometry of the bike COMBINED with other preferences, like bar size, stem and saddle size/style/position, will make a huge difference in how it handles and how comfortable it is for the rider. Differences in bike geometry aren't hoopla...but they also don't exist in a vacuum. Putting a Brooks B-77 on a pinarello isn't going to make it more comfortable over any distance.

Picchio's post a few pages back said all there is to say as far as this thread...the answer to most questions is:

It depends.

Bandera

I put more seat time on my oldest two bikes which have the most archaic drivetrains: 50's AW/Cyclo 3 cog and fixed gear.
I've ridden the same routes for >30 years and enjoy riding many of them on my old Vitus race bike but haul out the CF Merckx for the most challenging.
Better? I don't take the Merckx to the farmer's market or the FG to Vanderpool via Leakey.
Horses for courses, as they say.

One thing about "modern" CF road bikes is their astounding lack of Versatility.
In it's time my Internat'l has been road raced, converted to FG for winter, raced in cyclo cross, converted to loaded touring duty and is now a town bike.
Lacking four simple 5mm fittings the EMX-3 won't even accept mudguards w/o an ugly temporary kludge.
Better? Less generally useful certainly.

-Bandera

LazyLegs

I don't dispute the difference these things make, just claims that the differences are "huge", marginal gains combined can add up to measurable gain but if any of these things offered the life changing improvement claimed, then there would be no room for old bikes as they would be unbearably uncomfortable by caparison.

I don't have any experience of Brooks saddles, so can't argue your claim with reference to that particular model, but the B33 certainly looks like it could take the edge off.

Lazyass

The best bike is the best fitting one. Between all my road bikes I have zero difference in average mph.

D1andonlyDman

Yes - in the mid 1980s, Campy cleared out a lot of Nuovo Record and Super Record inventory as they phased over to index shifting. There was a period in 1985-86 where just about every Italian marque frame was being offered with the SR Gruppo at very reasonable prices.

redcolnago

I'm pissed-you should have told me this 30 years ago!

Kindaslow

I am guessing you subtle opinions are based upon extensive experience with modern CF bikes.

Is better equal to can do a lot of different things, even if it is not doing any of them well?

Or, is better being able to perform within the genre they are designed and sold to perform in?

i am going with number 2!!!

ppg677

I started out buying a $2000+ carbon fiber road bike. It got stolen and I bought a replacement in 2011 (cannondale carbon synapse). Since then I've discovered vintage steel rides. And for whatever reason, my favorite ride is an early 80s Trek with cheap Sora brifters. After discovering this ride, I've been trying to dial in my modern Cannondale with an identical setup. I must not be there yet because I still feel better after long rides on my vintage Trek.

If I could go back in time, I would not have bought a modern road bike. That said, I'm still holding onto my Cannondale because resale value sucks and yeah, I think the extra frame stiffness makes it slightly more efficient. So when i struggle to keep up with friends on a fast group ride, I grab the modern carbon Cannondale. Otherwise I ride my old steel trek frame.

BTW-- I ran into a structural engineer who now works for Trek (he used to work for Boeing). I told him how I enjoy my old trek. He's an avid rider and trek engineer, yet has never ridden a steel frame before.

3alarmer 

...sadly, I will never be faster, despite the bicycle's vintage, material, and design. #nttawwt

Bandera

Good guess!
As noted previously I ride my CF Merckx on the most challenging rides, although it is a one trick pony.
"Better" than the Vitus it replaced as a high performance road bike?
I believe so but that may only be a justification for the $,$$$ spent since I retired from competition.

Would it be more useful w/ four 5mm fender fittings?
It would, performance would be the same and riding a fast paceline on wet roads more efficient for me and the rider on my wheel.

-Bandera

RobbieTunes

Multitasking: Beating a Dead Horse, and Thumping Your Chest......at the same time.
Not criticizing, though, as I'm sure I have a post or two back there somewhere saying the same things.

This topic is old, well-trolled, well-traveled, and if you can find ways to ride your 42/24 up a steep hill, good for you.
Me, I used to zig-zag, then I got fit, then I zig-zagged, then I got fit, and now I think about getting fit.

Welcome to the forum, by the way. It's good to see what newer members say, because they're the future.

Manufacturers seem to be making a living out of new frames, compact cranksets and wide range gearing, so there's obviously a market.
I'm part of that market. Obviously, I'm getting lazier.

My last 3 rides, same route:
2014 Wraith steel, 16.34 lbs-10sp Shimano with 53/39 and 11-26
2004 Cinelli carbon, 15.81 lbs-10sp Campy with 53/39 and 11-26
1987 D'Arienzo steel, 21.07 lbs-10sp Campy with 50/34 and 12-29

All three rides varied by about .3mph overall.
That's within margins for bladder and weather issues.

Today:
1984 Lotus steel, 23.19 lbs-6sp friction Suntour with 52/42 and 13-24.
I plan to be slower and I don't plan to care about it. I'll still hurry.

No one, outside of me, gives a whit what I'm riding, i.e. "he's not home, he out riding his bike."

I do plan to ride modern compact gearing on old steel geometry up Thunder Ridge in May.
Last year, rccardr and I climbed right by a lot of folks on modern carbon, modern aluminum, etc.
Likewise, we also got passed by cute fit girls on modern tri-bikes.
What was the topic of conversation at the rest stops and post-race meal? Beer.

Kindaslow

this is the first time I have run into someone critical of CF bikes who has actually ridden them enough to have an opinion based upon experience. So, although I love my CF bikes and you love your older bikes, I respect your right to your opinion. My laziness in looking over your bikes was based upon reading so many posts based upon little or no personal experience. And, thanks for the reasonable response to my somewhat smartassedness post

rhm

I do believe new bikes are better, if not by much, for certain types of riders. But I also believe that there are many riders, perhaps even a majority, who would be better served by older bikes, or at least old fashioned ones.

LazyLegs

It might help to have an expert opinion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjYNIaI26EQ

For those who don't know, despite the mad English scientist look and less than sophisticated workshop, Mike Burrows is one of the preeminent bicycle designers, who ushered in the Modern age of bicycle design. He the Father of Compact Road frame design in association with Giant and is also famous for the revolutionary Lotus 108 monocoque bike. He isn't just a Carbon head either, he still uses Steel, Aluminium and Carbon in his designs, selecting material for use depending on appropriate requirements for the design. He has done far more material science research in relation to frame design that the entire Forum but together, so I'd have to say he's a lot more qualified than the rest of use to answer this question.

Kindaslow

Why is he more qualified?

That is, better is up to me, or you, or each of the others here.

i am going to buy what I find better, and I hope each person here does the same.

FarHorizon

IMHO (no expert here...) - What the OP means by "better" is the crux of the argument. New bikes are lighter, faster, and more precise - BUT - they are not built with the durability that vintage bikes had. Many (most?) of the bikes from the '70s & '80s are still on the road. How many new bikes can you buy now with the expectation of 40+ years of safe service life? Few, I suspect.

You pays your money, you takes your choice...

Kindaslow

I have no idea if CF bikes will or will not outlast Steel bikes. However, I would rather need to replace a bike I love every ten years, instead of riding a bike I like for 40 years. And, I like to occasionally get new stuff, so I am at about 7 years between bikes. It is what works better for me.

LazyLegs

Because, the OP asked 'Much Better', not just better, and I assume because the OP asked in a Forum; they meant in a general sense of comparison, not on personal terms. So in regards to what is measurable, someone who has done the research into these things is more qualified than most of us who are swayed by subjective biases.

crank_addict

Road bikes: I wouldn't necessarily say better for the utility, recreation rider but for racers, of course they're better.


>>>>>>>>throwing a wrench into the spokes

Todays ATB / mtn. bikes are superior over the early ones.

And since I now mentioned ATB, I just looked at a 24 lbs. FAT bike! That's twenty four pounds with those monster rubber! Full carbon Salsa with disc. Price.... $2k. Quite amazing technology if you gotta have it. A whole different animal that makes one take a different line, clobbers and gobbles up the turf. I think we're going to see some big changes in the off-road market. You can't mock this stuff just looking at it in a showroom, you'll be blown away after a ride.

LazyLegs

The OP asked about 'Road' bikes, there aren't any vinatge ATBs anyways, just old ones.

3alarmer 

...actually, most of my bikes came second hand from guys who were no longer satisfied with them. #winning

bikelovers

Depending on the purpose of the ride. For majority of my rides, 20miles-40miles , average 16mph not a lot of climbing, my modern Independent Fabrication Club Racer with full campy record set, definitely is not much better than my 1973 Schwinn Paramount P-13 w/ full campy set in term of ride quality , but the newer set shifts much better.

However, for the long century rides with a lot of climbing, my newer carbon bike is much much better. I can ride faster and climber much better with my modern carbon bike. My CF bike is lifetime warranty so i am so worry about it breaking anytime soon.

oh yeah, i am a fat cyclist