Quote:

"any frame from the 80's is giving up a lot to even the cheaper modern frames."

Isn't that a sweeping statement? Based on what?

Quote:

"Most modern frames are carefully engineered to give you the right blend of strength weight and responsiveness."

I thought most modern frames were a compromise, designed to give value at a given price point, for a wide variety of consumers. That "blend" may or may not suit you as an individual.

Quote:

"It's also more flexy and there's no discernable difference in ride quality."

I call 'more flexy' a difference in ride quality. I also might prefer a more or less resilient ride to you.

Quote:

"Bike geometry and design has come a long way over the last 15yrs."

I ride bikes with 74 degree seat angles and 54 centimetre top tubes. These measurements and thus the geometry, have remained unchanged for 35 years because my thigh length, back length and arm length have remained unchanged. Please explain what I'm doing wrong- and tell the major manufacturers who still appear to use the formulae they used in the 80's...fork rake, castor angle, seat stay length, etc., etc.

Design. Hmmmm. You mean carbon fibre saddles? Carbon Fibre forks and stays to make a bike tolerable to ride all day? Or something groundbreaking, like aheadsets? How did we survive without those?

I don't think you generalising like this is helping the poster. I think he should ride a bunch of frames to see what he likes but not over-invest in a frame he isn't satisfied with.