Originally Posted by
Ghrumpy
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.
Well said.
I was surprised at how well my 1973 Raleigh Grand Sport rode over the 89 mile, 7000' of climbing on gravel roads at Eroica California rode. Wider, lightweight tires (700c x 33.333 Jack Browns) gave me an advantage on rutty downhills compared to the 23-25mm wide tires of most of the other riders. The 5 speed freewheel (that I forced myself to use to keep period correct) made me yearn for closer spaced gearing, and the compact double chainrings were desired as well - 11/12 toothed cogs reduce the need for a huge chainring. The 100 year old design of a Brooks B17 was as comfortable as any saddle I've ever owned. Wool shorts and jersey were quite comfortable in the 60-70's F day. Toe clips and straps were easy enough to get in and out of, I never felt that there was a disadvantage to not being clipped in, and they were not much more difficult to get in and out of - perhaps ancient muscle memory was remembered. The MAFAC Competitions I was running were as good as any brakes I've used, the famous modulation + braking power was more than up to the task. The long legged, lowish trail geometry and small diameter frame tubing made for a spirted ride. The extra 5-7 pounds that a modern super bike would have saved me were more than made up by the extra 35 lbs I'm carrying around compared to my youth.