Originally Posted by
gugie
It's nice to have a full throwback bike. It tells you many things - what worked then, still works fine now. And then, what works now that is quite superior. My eroica bike reminds me that the ride of an old steel frame can be as good as any. Modern tires and cassette gearing is something, however, that I really prefer.
I mostly agree (I'm not yet a fan of super-low gearing, as long as my knees are holding up. I reserve the right to change my mind in ten years.) And I'm very glad you used the word "prefer" instead of rendering an absolute judgment.
In many cases, the ride of an old steel frame is not only "as good as any" modern bike, but often superior. Is it because it's "old?" Maybe. Or maybe it's because someone then knew something about geometry and ride quality that has been lost, or has merely gone out of fashion. Conversely there are lots of old bikes that ride like crap, or at least in ways that feel unfamiliar to modern cyclists and perhaps ill-suited to the kind of riding they do.
I suppose the lesson there is that there is nothing about being older or newer that is "better" or "worse." There was just as much crap then as now. The thing for me about an EVC bike is that it invites me to examine my preferences and prejudices about what's better or worse, set judgments aside, and experience the ride as it was back then. Time travel, in a way. You may then learn that it is a bit of a fib that all changes in bikes are "improvements" or "progress." Mostly, they're adaptations to the market, the technology available, and the preferences of cyclists of the time. They only seem "better" because they work better with what we have and desire now. But the world is different now from then.
Take brakes, for example. Bikes from 100 or more years ago didn't really need as much in the way of stopping power because there were relatively few stop lights and signs and such compared to today. Not only was there less motorized traffic, period, speed differentials between bicyclists and other road users were also much lower. Roads were often not as nice as modern ones, so everyone's speeds were often much lower. So there was probably less need for stop-on-a-dime capability for a cyclist to remain relatively safe.
Take modern bike stiffness too. It is enabled by the smooth roads and lightweight composites of today. But is it "better?" Makers of stiff bikes tell us that it is, and some of that gets backed up by "science." But as stiff a bike could have just as easily been built 100 years ago, to race on a track smoother than today's roads, and nobody did it. Maybe it's not better. Maybe it's just a fashion.
I will grant, however, that modern plastic bikes are better than vintage plastic derailleurs. So far.