Originally Posted by
Jughed
Not equivalence... just not as big of a gap as the cycling marketing may lead one to believe. Especially at non race speeds.
Old bikes superior? in terms of pure performance - no. In terms of overall comfort, durability, ease of repair for the normal guy - maybe.
Personally - I understand that the modern full on aero race bike is a bit faster for the normal guy. A decent bit faster at race speed with a very fit/limber rider that can put themselves into an aero race position. Bit is an aero bike comfortable? Does the average Joe* have the ability to actually ride in the position an aero bike puts you in? Can they maintain said position?
Average Joe*
-This is the crowd that gets lost in videos like the OP posted. The average Joe, especially ones around where I live, are not 350+w ex pro's that can get aero and extract that 6% from the pure race bike. And often, they are riding the pure race bike because they think they will get the speed savings.
I'll offer myself up as an average Joe - I'm a bit faster than the typical A/B/C/D group at our local rides, a bit slower than the unlimited (for lack of better words) group that goes out and bombs 24-25+. The latter group is a few people, the former groups are a whole lot more people.
-My Lemond, with 50mm deep CF wheels and 28mm GP5000's. Low front end, gets me as low as I can muster. - Ride is smooth as butter
vs
-A full on aero bike from any big brand - aero bikes are known to be fairly stiff and unforgiving.
At my avg Joe 200w long ride ability - what will be the real savings? Not 6%. 2%? 1%? In a group ride - maybe almost no %.
Does the added complexity of the bike (hidden cables/harder to work on, software updates for shifting, batteries, proprietary parts), stiffer ride/more aggressive position... do the marginal gains really make it superior for the average Joe?
In terms of cars - on the road/touring event, driven by non race car drivers. A McClaren P1 is going to be superior to say a M3 BMW. Superior in every sense of the word - but on the road, normal conditions - the M3 is going to be way more comfortable, road friendly, probably more reliable, easier to deal with - just not as "cool" to own. And that is what it really boils down to - is it "cool".
Well-reasoned response. Building on the car analogy, if one were to drive across the country in a 1970s station wagon or a current equivalent, although in theory they would arrive at similar times (you could argue that you would put in longer days in the modern car), every aspect of the modern car would be superior. Comfort, safety, reliability, efficiency, there is not one area where the old car would excel.
The same thing with a modern bike vs its C&V equivalent. Take a very popular category, such as endurance bikes, ride quality, gearing, braking, durability, and overall comfort are better. Modern bikes are superior, making long days on the saddle more comfortable and enjoyable. Just as race bikes, gravel bikes, adventure bikes and all categories of mountain bikes are drastically improved over there predecessors. I do acknowledge that servicing requires new skills and equipment, both of which are much easier to acquire now than in the past.