One simply cannot generalize and compare ALL new CF machines to ALL C&V machines as most of the folks here have been doing. Although I haven't had too much experience with them, I dare say that there are vast ride quality differences in the new machines - likewise, I need not have to explain to anyone here that our beloved vintage steeds all have countless different ride qualities as well, even when relegated to the upper-mid level and top level machines. Mind you, this is not even taking componentry into account.

Case in point, my early 1990's Guerciotti with oversized, lugged Columbus EL tubing is amongst - if not the stiffest - frame I have, and will sprint on a dime. It still retains the wonderful ride qualities of steel, but its performance feels similar the stiffer CF machines out there. Geometry is still closer to its '80s counterparts though. It is presently built up with my only "modern" gruppo, tri-color Shimano 600 w/STI shifters and FSA RD-80 wheels; but it will perform similarly when outfitted with an older wheelset. I must say that the narrow-range 8-speed cassette makes me lazy though - a previous poster had mentioned similar complaints - I'll usually spin in a much easier pace then I would on my half-step '61 Paramount.

Now, at the opposite end of the spectrum is my 1982 Trek 728. The 728 is the predecessor of Trek's unforgettable 720 touring machine, and features the same endless chainstays as the 720. Although this frame doesn't seem too flexy at the BB, she'll eat up one's pedaling cadence in 5 minutes flat, no matter what gear you're in (she runs a reasonably close range Sachs 7-speed - 13-22). I believe the Trek ISO Tech 2 tires I have on it are not helping any, but the frame is primarily the culprit. Needless to say, I'm not entirely fond of it's ride. This one uses Suntour barcons, so shifting quickly isn't much of an issue. It also uses a Shimano Deore LX RD, who's light-action return spring isn't a particularly happy marriage with the barcons.

Then, there's my '61 Paramount P-12. She's overweight in the rear, and I can't seem to pin down why that is the case, but this frame, like the Guerciotti, is extremely stiff and amongst the most responsive in my fleet - but at the same time, the geometry and feel of the machine is akin to a touring machine, even though it has a pretty short wheelbase - at least, in comparison to the Trek. This one runs a half-step system with a 5-speed rear, and I've yet to find a gear train to suit me better on the flat Florida roads. I was taken completely by surprise when I first tested it - I was looking for a corncob freewheel, and had to settle for an older NOS freewheel at the LBS set up for half-step gearing. That was the end of my liking for narrow-range 6, 7 and 8 speed freewheels and cassettes.

And to round out this sampling of different rides from my stable is my '87 Basso - standard Columbus SL throughout. This machine, like the '90 Guerciotti, performs as a racing machine superbly, but you can feel that the frame is just a tad easier to flex then the EL-tubed '90 Guerciotti - when sprinting. Likewise, the Basso has rather twitchy, race-bred front handling. It takes a bit of getting used to, but it isn't particularly enjoyable for long distances.

Personally, I would take the '90 Guerciotti frameset over any modern machine today, as it shares the impressive stiffness performance of modern frames (mainly due to the EL tubing), and the ride qualities of the machines of the past. I do not know if I would retain the STI shifting if it were to be my only machine, maybe I would, but I'd probably do a bit of unconventional fiddling with the gearing.

In other words, the way I see it, a well-built, oversized lugged steel frame, such as the Guerciotti with Columbus EL, can serve equally as well - if not better overall - then most modern framesets. Performance is quite similar, but the classic machine wins out in comfort.

Thanks for listening to my ramblings...

Take care,

-Kurt