jimmuller 

I keep forgetting. Is this thread for the oldest bike you like to go fast on, or the fastest bike you like to grow old on?

_dylan

Whichever, man! Rules Shmules.

cehowardGS

My 1979 Raleigh Competition GS..Still a sweet fast ride..

kehomer

This is presently my oldest bike, 1987 Panasonic DX-5000. It is certainly capable of going fast but I'm afraid that the engine (me) is somewhat lacking. The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak.
[IMG][/IMG]

WNG

I feel faster when riding my 88 Benotto Triathlon. I think it's the geometry.



But I'm probably going the same pace on my other bike. The engine is losing compression.

-holiday76

My 68 carlton flyer if i dont need to stop or ride down a mountain. Otherwise my 86 bianci squadra. Or my 78 raliegh pro. Pics are overrated.

gaucho777 

Hit 50mph on my Look last night. To be honest, I didn't even realize I was going that fast and was never in a full tuck. I wasn't wearing a helmet either and didn't know the road too well, so I backed off at that point. The Look is a really smooth descender! (Gravity also has a greater effect on heavy riders like myself.)

photogravity

How did you know you were going so fast? Do you have a computer or something on the bike?

bradtx

I love those old Avocets and their twin, the Vettas.

Brad

gaucho777 

I'm not following. Maybe my photo isn't showing on your computer. Yes, in my post I included a picture of my Avocet 30 computer with the max velocity of 50mph displayed. It's a period-correct computer!

rhm

It is often difficult to tell how fast you're going, even if you have a computer on your bike. I just took this photo a minute ago; apparently this is the speed I reached coming down off the Queensborough bridge when I gave chase to the guy on the electric bike.



EDIT: the computer is period correct but for the bike, my folding bike, which is now three years old. These modern computers are not nearly as accurate as Randy's old Avocet. I do not wish to cast any doubt on Randy's actual speed. I don't think I've gone much above 35 on my folding bike.

jimmuller 

That's nuthin'. My Raleigh with the wireless computer has gone over 200 many times. But I don't have a picture. So don't believe me if you don't want to. But I swear it's true.

due ruote 

I've never really mastered the art of the leisurely ride. I always seem to work at a certain (vigorous) level regardless of which one I'm on, the oldest being a 1973 Gran Sport. What that translates to in terms of speed is probably better left unsaid.

SJX426 

My wireless relayed some pretty astounding jumps in speed. Enough acceleration and deceleration to break bones and I was sitting in front of my computer at my desk while it happened, not on my bike! Yes, I survived.

Bellet

If it's on the internet it's gotta be true!

papik

For fast rides, I take this 1994 MBK......

T-Mar

I like to go fast on all my bicycles. Currently, the oldest is a circa 1960 Legnano Gran Premio. The highest speeds I've achieved are on my 1991 Marinoni built frame. It's so well aligned and balanced that there isn't even the slightest hint of speed wobble on the steepest descents, whereas others tend to get the shakes around 80kph. My fastest bicycle on the flats is undoubtedly the (not quite C&V) 1995 GT Vengeance.

Sixty Fiver

1951 CCM - She likes to chase hipsters.

jimmuller 

What bike? I don't see a bike.

vvup

I am trying to guess which road that it, looks like it could be clsoe to aix.

My 1972 px10 is the oldest bike I have been riding hard this year.

ColonelJLloyd 

622mm > 349mm.

rhm

Well, I can't argue with that, so I'll just tell you this bike was running 50-406 Schwalbes. I'm not sure how that's relevant.

On second thought, I do know how it's relevant: not at all.

gaucho777 

I tried to show both the computer and enough of the bike to give an idea...but if you insist:

T-Mar

Sixty-Five, I really like your CCM Balloon Motorbike. I think it would look even better with the OEM fork truss. One of these days I'm going to get myself one.

ColonelJLloyd 

Sure seems relevant to me. I'm suggesting your computer was set to count the revolutions on a wheel with a much larger diameter than those you were using. Those computers rarely give accurate measurements because it's a matter of "junk in = junk out" and are seldom set properly. Still, that doesn't fully explain the absurdly high 103mph reading.