Bike Forums

Bike Forums (http://www.bikeforums.net/forum.php)
-   Fifty Plus (50+) (http://www.bikeforums.net/fifty-plus-50/)
-   -   Old stuff, you want it to be better... (http://www.bikeforums.net/fifty-plus-50/715218-old-stuff-you-want-better.html)

wobblyoldgeezer 02-22-11 12:25 PM

Old stuff, you want it to be better...
 
This is just a light hearted thread, and if it dies after no time at all its probably for the best

But I cleaned and lubed my 1990 lugged steel Specialized Sirrus Triple, when I bought it, the best bike I'd had - and took it for 120 kms last weekend

And, you know what

Early in the ride - goodness, feels like I'm riding the tandem. Not bad, but - springy, good, stable, good, shock absorbing, good, let's just roll along steady
Later in the ride - accelerate you pig, climb you pig

I used to ride a 1988 900 Ducati. Affair of the heart. Then I got a 2005 954 Honda. Well, nostalgia ain't all it used to be

I'm sorry to say, because I feel that faithfulness is a good thing, that my older bike might soon find a new home

OK. I'm only posting this to be ripped to shreds

Bionicycle 02-22-11 12:41 PM

There are many "things" I have owned and used in my life that I can look back on with great fondness, some would even say borderline love... But, that was then, and this is now, and if I could have all those things back to use on a daily basis now... I would most likely feel different about them. :)

Quick PS... I still really like my 1985 Fuji Mixte.

crazyb 02-22-11 12:44 PM

Just cuz it's older doesn't mean it's better. I have a 1978 paramount that according to others I should be raving about it's ride characteristics; rides like an old steel bike. Not bad, but nothing special. I'll take my all carbon Lemond any day over the old stuff.

B. Carfree 02-22-11 01:38 PM

The OP's experience is why I don't even try "modern" bikes. I still really like my 1982 Trek 720, but I know it would be a dust collector if I rode even a medium-quality new bike. I did finally upgrade to indexed nine-speed a little over a year ago, so I'm not completely living in the past. Looking in the bright side, since I have nowhere near the leg strength I had back in the '80s, I hardly notice the flexing of those loooong chain stays on climbs anymore.

kabersch 02-22-11 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by B. Carfree (Post 12263379)
The OP's experience is why I don't even try "modern" bikes. I still really like my 1982 Trek 720, but I know it would be a dust collector if I rode even a medium-quality new bike. I did finally upgrade to indexed nine-speed a little over a year ago, so I'm not completely living in the past. Looking in the bright side, since I have nowhere near the leg strength I had back in the '80s, I hardly notice the flexing of those loooong chain stays on climbs anymore.

I used to ride a 1985 Trek 720, until it was stolen. I loved that bike. I couldn't imagine why my brother thought his Trek Madone was so much better. After the 720 was stolen he lent me a 1990's Trek 1100, aluminum with 7 speed cassette and a 52 tooth chainring. It was about 10 lbs lighter than the 720 and much more responsive. Now I just bought a 2010 Scattante CFR Elite, all carbon with an 11-25 cassette and a 53-tooth chainring. 19 lbs lighter than the 1100. I'd love to have my 720 back, but I wouldn't ride it every day. I am spoiled by the new stuff, and intend to stay that way. I don't think I would have ever consider a double century on the 720, but my brothers and I are planning on doing Seattle to Portland in one day in July. Now I wonder why I waited so long to upgrade!

BluesDawg 02-22-11 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kabersch (Post 12263739)
Now I just bought a 2010 Scattante CFR Elite, all carbon with an 11-25 cassette and a 53-tooth chainring. 19 lbs lighter than the 1100.

Wow! 19 lbs lighter than a Trek 1100? Your new bike must weigh what, about 9 or 10 lbs? ;)

Phil85207 02-22-11 07:12 PM

I rode the old c-dale the other day and felt the same thing. I can't believe I rode that thing for so long.

ciocc_cat 02-22-11 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crazyb (Post 12263111)
Just cuz it's older doesn't mean it's better. I have a 1978 paramount that according to others I should be raving about it's ride characteristics; rides like an old steel bike. Not bad, but nothing special. I'll take my all carbon Lemond any day over the old stuff.

Some people like fast food, some people prefer a home-cooked meal. There's really no right-or-wrong when it comes to personal preference - to each his own. Personally, I prefer the ride qualities of vintage light-weight steel over modern aluminum or CF.

Oh yeah - I've ridden a LOT of different bikes in my day.

cccorlew 02-22-11 08:27 PM

When I re-entered cycling 5 years ago I hopped on my trusty Cannondale Black Lightning. What a bike! 7 speeds baby! Light and it looked cool.
One day coming down a chip sealed road I thought I would rattle apart, yet the folks next to me with carbon forks were just fine.

I now ride a Roubaix Expert, and I feel fine with those around me complain about teh road surface.

Velo Dog 02-22-11 09:10 PM

It's certainly true of cars. I've driven my wife's Mazda station wagon around a local road course faster than I went in the Fiat 124 Spider I raced on the same track in the '70s, and there was no drama. I used to scare the crap out of myself in the Fiat.
Bikes, I dunno. I have almost every one I've ever owned, and the best from the mid-'80s doesn't feel that much different from my Atlantis or Rambouillet (which I love, by the way).

CrankyFranky 02-22-11 09:35 PM

I guess I stuck with my 1982-handbuilt bike for the same reasons why I own a Carolla - it gets me where I want to go, no drama, no surprises. A new all-Ti bike is as much a pipedream to me as a 275GTO Ferarri - a puff of smoke in the air. Call me boring. I can take it.

Allegheny Jet 02-23-11 07:38 AM

I restored my 73 Raleigh Super Course with many upgraded vintage parts over the originals. I love riding the bike on nice easy rides and even rode it on a 100km event ride two years ago. However the first time I hammer up a roller or sprint a bit out of the saddle I'm wishing for one of my CF's. Each of the bikes has its special purpose and I donít force any do be everything.;)

bykemike 02-23-11 07:51 AM

New stuff is great! I used to think I loved steel the best until I rode my first carbon bike..no going back now.

Oh, and Wobbly..I had a 929RR as well. If any thinks they know what fast is they are mistaken until they ride one of that caliber of sport bike. My first afternoon with the RR I was on Rt 95 thinking "why is everyone going so slow?" A quick look at the speedo and I dropped down 60 mph to be at the posted limit and didn't have a clue I was going that fast.

Mike

tcs 02-23-11 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wobblyoldgeezer (Post 12263034)
Later in the ride - accelerate you pig, climb you pig.

The 2010 Tour de France winner's average was 39.585 kph.

Subtract from that what you feel is a reasonable estimate for the increase in speed brought about by 50 years of better nutrition. Subtract from that what you feel is a reasonable estimate for the increase in speed brought about by 50 years of better training techniques and physical conditioning. Subtract from that what you feel is a reasonable estimate for the increase in speed brought about by 50 years of improved French roads (fun fact: it was not until 1964 that the Tour was held entirely on pavement!) Subtract from that what you feel is a reasonable estimate for the increase in speed brought about by 50 years of improved team tactics, race radios and computers. Subtract from that what you feel is a reasonable estimate for the increase in speed brought about by 50 years of improved performance enhancing pharmaceuticals (hey, I'm just sayin'.)

Do you have a new, lower average winning speed in mind?

Now subtract the actual winner's average speed in the 1960 Tour de France from your number. BTW, that 1960 average winning speed was 37.210.

The difference left is your estimate of the difference that 50 years of improved bicycle technology has provided.

wobblyoldgeezer 02-23-11 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tcs (Post 12267180)
The 2010 Tour de France winner's average was 39.585 kph.

Do you have a new, lower average winning speed in mind?

Now subtract the actual winner's average speed in the 1960 Tour de France from your number. BTW, that 1960 average winning speed was 37.210.

The difference left is your estimate of the difference that 50 years of improved bicycle technology has provided.

Yes. Thanks. Hugely well said. I wasn't trying to be serious, just saying that at my tiddly little level I find my newer bike easier (if not faster. My most frequent 40 kms, not much difference between steel/carbon "Best", lugged steel "ol'reliable" from 1990, and the Xootr folder. I just work the same, which is well short of the parameters at which techy differences would show a difference)

I'd love to be whupped by Fausto Coppi on a postie's bike with a full load of parcels

BluesDawg 02-23-11 09:45 AM

I love my new carbon fast road bike with all the modern components! I also love my heavyish welded steel all around bike with old school components. I'm pretty fond of my full suspension aluminum MTB and want to get another rigid steel MTB soon. And I really loved my lugged steel road bike that was destroyed by a car last year.

I like good bikes. Different ones are good in different ways for different things. But yeah, the new ones are in many ways better at some of the things the old was were once really good at doing. That is how it should be.

gcottay 02-23-11 09:47 AM

It's not just bikes that get into our bones.

I used to drive a MGTB. It was a horrible car even by the low standards of the Morris Garage. 45 HP on a very good day. Zero effective rain protection but, then, little chance of running in the wet. Suspension a hybrid of kid's and meat wagons. Steering approximate. Unsynchronized transmission.

I'd drive one again in flash.

http://1.photos.ebizautos.com/used-1...5666-5-640.jpg

wobblyoldgeezer 02-23-11 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tcs (Post 12267180)
The 2010 Tour de France winner's average was 39.585 kph.

Do you have a new, lower average winning speed in mind?

Now subtract the actual winner's average speed in the 1960 Tour de France from your number. BTW, that 1960 average winning speed was 37.210.

The difference left is your estimate of the difference that 50 years of improved bicycle technology has provided.

Yes. Thanks. Hugely well said. I wasn't trying to be serious, just saying that at my tiddly little level I find my newer bike easier (if not faster. My most frequent 40 kms, not much difference between steel/carbon "Best", lugged steel "ol'reliable" from 1990, and the Xootr folder. I just work the same, which is well within the parameters at which techy differences would show a difference)

I'd love to be whupped by Fausto Coppi on a postie's bike with a full load of parcels

Barrettscv 02-23-11 10:06 AM

The new stuff is better, by far, but the old stuff has its merit and charm.

Most of my cycling is not too demanding and a wide range of road bikes will do what I need. A typical ride for me is a flat 55 mile solo ride in three hours and twenty minutes. I'm not climbing anything steep or long, I'm not hammering hard to keep up with a fast group.

My older bikes do well on these rides. The '74 Paramount lacks much of a gear range and shifting is slow, but it's about 90% as fast as my fastest modern road bike. My updated '87 Trek 400 has 20 speeds and well spaced gears, so it's a little faster.

But the modern bikes do everything well & are better than the older bikes. Modern brifters, crank-sets and all kinds of gearing options make the new bikes faster and support longer rides on hilly routes perfectly. I'll take my 2008 Soma Double Cross or my 2008 made-by-Lynskey Planet X ti bike anytime a challenging day of riding is planned.

crazyb 02-23-11 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ciocc_cat (Post 12265242)
Some people like fast food, some people prefer a home-cooked meal. There's really no right-or-wrong when it comes to personal preference - to each his own. Personally, I prefer the ride qualities of vintage light-weight steel over modern aluminum or CF.

Oh yeah - I've ridden a LOT of different bikes in my day.

Me too in my day.

bobbycorno 02-23-11 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tcs (Post 12267180)
The 2010 Tour de France winner's average was 39.585 kph.

Subtract from that what you feel is a reasonable estimate for the increase in speed brought about by 50 years of better nutrition. Subtract from that what you feel is a reasonable estimate for the increase in speed brought about by 50 years of better training techniques and physical conditioning. Subtract from that what you feel is a reasonable estimate for the increase in speed brought about by 50 years of improved French roads (fun fact: it was not until 1964 that the Tour was held entirely on pavement!) Subtract from that what you feel is a reasonable estimate for the increase in speed brought about by 50 years of improved team tactics, race radios and computers. Subtract from that what you feel is a reasonable estimate for the increase in speed brought about by 50 years of improved performance enhancing pharmaceuticals (hey, I'm just sayin'.)

Do you have a new, lower average winning speed in mind?

Now subtract the actual winner's average speed in the 1960 Tour de France from your number. BTW, that 1960 average winning speed was 37.210.

The difference left is your estimate of the difference that 50 years of improved bicycle technology has provided.

And don't forget to factor in fewer stages, shorter stages, etc, etc.

SP
Bend, OR

bobbycorno 02-23-11 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobbycorno (Post 12270056)
And don't forget to factor in fewer stages, shorter stages, etc, etc.

SP
Bend, OR

ps - I would've expected a lot more than a 6% improvement, given the advances bike mfrs claim, not to mention 50 years of "sports pharmacology"

pps - oh, I forgot to mention better roads, especially in the mountains. (If I'm not mistaken, a lot of the Alpine passes in the '60 tour were still unpaved.)

kabersch 02-23-11 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BluesDawg (Post 12264618)
Wow! 19 lbs lighter than a Trek 1100? Your new bike must weigh what, about 9 or 10 lbs? ;)

My fingers got tangled up in the keyboard. :o 10 lbs lighter than the 1100. It weighs about 18 lbs.

Artkansas 02-23-11 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tcs (Post 12267180)
The 2010 Tour de France winner's average was 39.585 kph. BTW, that 1960 average winning speed was 37.210.

The difference left is your estimate of the difference that 50 years of improved bicycle technology has provided.

But you didn't factor in 50 years of improved training methods as well.

cccorlew 02-23-11 09:23 PM

TDF: It's a bike race with tactics. It isn't a time trial. And the course changes yearly.
These comparisons are interesting, but meaningless.

Anyone who can't perceive a positive difference between a Schwin Varsity and and adjusted-for-inflation similarly priced carbon-esque bike made in 2011, well, I've got a a bike you might like to buy.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:17 AM.