While riding my commute to work yesterday I thought about why we make particular "old technology" choices. (Yeah, this is Yet Another Why C&V? thread.) The thought was prompted by the sight of a nice BRG MGB on our bike ride last weekend.

Technology-driven "things" like bicycles and cars are always evolving. Of course a modern car or bike is better than a classic. We cling to the old stuff, but not just any old old stuff. We gravitate to particular years, technology levels, etc. I don't think the "reached puberty" explanation is a complete one. I've become rather fond of my 80's bicycles, and they are several decades too late for that. Also the best technology isn't necessarily what makes vintage stuff attractive. The MGB, while a decent car in its day, was far from the best of its era.

Technology advances in fits and starts. Some attempts at refinement work immediately and some, like indexed shifting, don't work until enough evolution has occurred. The same is true with ergonomics. While manufacturers and artisans are dealing with these issues, the better ones are also trying to integrate aesthetics into their products. Every so often all three factors, aesthetics, technology, and ergonomics, come to fruition simultaneously. They just click into place and everything works. Consider the efficiency of a Campy sidepull brake, the artistic curve of the levers, the way the lever fits the hand. When these three factor come together they ride a wave of success. Other people or companies try slowly and painfully to invent a better wheel, but it doesn't light up the night sky until all the pieces are in place.

I think we gravitate to particular ranges partly because we sense that full integration, and the longevity of that technology set gives us time to notice.

Thoughts, anyone?