Originally Posted by
rustystrings61
I disagree with the initial statement. Modern bikes are lighter, but the minute competition is removed from the equation, it seems to me they are engineered closer to the point of failure and require much more expensive parts with a shorter service life. I think you're only seeing the cheap 70s 10-speeds. There's a world of difference between a Peugeot A0-8 and a Peugeot PX-10, or between a Raleigh Grand Prix vs a Raleigh Gran Sport, or a Schwinn LeTour vs. a Paramount.
+1
Yeah, it's not the age so much as the quality. If you compare old cheap utility bikes to modern racing bikes, it's not fair. OTOH, the higher end racing bikes have always been pretty light. If you took a (for example) 1950s racing bike on a ride, the difference is going to be minor. Racing bikes had been about 21 or 22lbs for decades,
including pedals...
The main change has been the last 20 years or so, as carbon fiber allowed weights to come down a couple pounds - or more if you sacrifice durability. Realistically that's not enough difference to matter unless you are racing at a high level.