2. I merely pointed out that frame design has not changed, only materials and tubes have changed.
Ummm, ok so the dimensions have stayed the same, everything else has changed. Discounting construction methods and material in a frame is rather silly don't you think?
3. I also pointed out that a slightly lighter "modern" frame would not significantly improve the average riders performance in a measureable way.
Define average rider? We see threads all the time here where somebody bought a bike that was 3-4-5lbs lighter and noticed a fairly nice increase in average speeds, anywhere from 2-3-4mph, that's measurable in my book.
4. I also agree that good, new frames are available at reasonable prices. But I disagree that one needs to buy one in order to keep out on the club ride.
I agree, ride what you got and be happy, but don't dismiss something new as total junk and marketing hype either.
Back to the original posted question: does a 20 year old steel frameset hold back a rider? Assuming it's a quality butted frameset then the answer is obviously "No." If you don't believe me, then consider what difference a 3 lb weight difference would mean. A typical 175 lb rider on a 23 lb bike weighs a total of 198 lbs. Put the same rider on a "modern" 20 lb bike, the total is 195 lbs. That's a 1.5% difference. That is insignificant. If this same rider were getting dropped at 198, he'll still get dropped at 195. Now if he looses 20 lbs off the engine, he'll kick butt on either bike.
There are a lot of people that put to much emphasis on bike weight, but it is still important...to a point. Bike weight and rider weight don't run at a 1:1 ratio as well, if I remember correctly for every 1lb dropped off the bike it's the same as losing 3lbs from the rider. It works a bit the same as losing weight from wheels and rotational pieces, the dynamics involved are different.
For a simple test, go ride a 20lb bike with a full camelback, then go ride a 30lb bike without the camelback and tell us which felt different.
And please don't come back with that tired arguement about frame flex. A metallic frame is a near perfect spring and any energy put into flexing the frame comes back out with very little damping. As a mechical engineer you should know that. That's why cars have shock absorbers (dampers)--otherwise they would bounce continuously.
And simple physics tells us that when energy is "wasted" making the frame flex it means less energy is going to the wheels and ground, the back and forth motion of your frame flex is
wasted energy. This has absolutely
zero relation or corelation to shock absorbers on a car.
who is disgusted with all the hype that "you gotta have the latest or you aint sh_t"--it's the legs, not the bike or the mouth.
I have to agree to a point, but it's all a system that all has to work together. If you are in perfect physical shape then a 60lb cruiser bike really isn't going to do you any favors on your club ride. On the other hand if you are big and still overweight like me, then spending $7k for the latest 14lb super bike is rather wasted as well.
Andrew
Who rides a 10-12yr old steel bike that flexes quite a bit