A few things here.

1- he rode the modern bike 25 seconds faster per mile. To anyone not racing and instead riding recreationally, so all those dentists you keep making fun of, that lost time just shouldnt be important.
2- that last comment leads me to this point- the rider is the limiting factor on both bikes. And an amateur recreational rider will see an even smaller difference in time than someone with actual skill at gcn.
3- a quality modern steel bike with modern components can be faster than one thats 30+ years old and hasnt been tuned up(like the 85 Orbea). It will often be lighter and stiffer.


4- this is so vital that its separated from the others- advancements in cycling over the last 40 years have not led to leaps in results and improvements like you see in your examples such as 8track to ipod. The time difference on that 6k course shows the advancements in 30+ years arent close to what you cite.
8track to ipod an extremely more significant jump compared to the frame engineering that has gone on in the cycling world.
Looks like the winning average speed in the tdf back in 1980 was 39kph. Looks like it was 39.5kph this year. Thats info fron me looking at a graph.
Doesnt seem like 8track to ipod style advancement.


I completely understand and accept that a lighter bike will typically be faster. And a frame built with wind resistance in mind will typically be faster. Those who will recognize the greatest benefit are the upper level though. The limiting factor for many(most?) riders will be the rider's ability...or lack of. The differences will then be minimized too.

But really- neat topic.