Originally posted by hayneda
Too technical for me huh? Too bad I'm a NASA rocket scientist.
The question was about frames not components. But do you really need 10 cogs? The world record 1 hour time trail was done on a fixed (1 cog). STI is nice, but certainly not necessary and also heavier than DT levers.
I also believe I mentioned better metals and tubesets.
GRP-graphite reinforced plastic (aka Carbon fiber)--not yet an established technology. Likes to delaminate unpredicably. I've personally owned two plastic bikes and both delaminated and failed.
Dave
For a rocket scientist you're remarkably blinded to a few discrepancies in your post.
The world hour record was conducted on a velodrome ie an indoor or outdoor track which mimicks a flat road. I'd like to see the record holder ride that bike up and down hills and mountains all day long. What is the relevance of your statement?
Also your comment on GRP (which is actually an acronym used for Glass Reinforced Polyester - but thats just me being pedantic) relaminating regularly is an interesting one. Now being a Mechanical Engineer myself and also being involved in the non air breathing aerospace field for a number of yrs before a career change, I know that composites arelimited in their application.
However delamination of modern CF frames is almost unheard of.
Yes they did happen to earlier frames Ie around the 80's early 90's but construction in this material has advanced quite remarkably through implementationo of Formula 1 know how.
Flaneur:
I confess that my point of view does not take rider preference into account. My answers are based on purely technical grounds. Delving into rider preference becomes a very personal issue and perhaps using old tech frames is working for you but that does not mean that you would not perform better on a modern frame designed with your requirements in mind. You claim it won't be different and I stick to my guns that it will. However if you believe that you won't perform on a modern bike then I'm afraid that modern construction has already lost with you on it. After all, the nitty gritty about any sport is about attitude and will to suceed.
I am unemotional about technology, it's somethng I have to deal with and evaluate almost daily. So perhaps I see the merits of the technology and believe that it is faster. You on the other are coming from a different perspective, the "If it ain't broke then don't fix it" train of thought. And theres nothing wrong with that. However dismissing advances in quality achieved through application of technology is a notion that I cannot subscribe to.
IMO, good quality frames are now available at lower price points than they were 15 yrs ago. and that is an advance.
I will concede that some may feel that their old frames will outperform a modern frame. I beg to differ.
With geometry being suimilar, I believe that you can now find a frame that will help you perform better than you did on your old bike, simply because it is lighter, stiffer (at the BB) and possibly more compliant than your old bike. Aren't those the criteria that all frame designers are stiving to improve??
also I can understand thatyou don;t appreciate my comments, but fact of the matter is, Old steel is not real, it's just old steel. Today the only thing thats real is how the end product feels and fits. It couldbe made from any material, DCRER for instance - Thats Dish cloth reinforced Epoxy Resin for our resident rocket scientist....
