iab

6.9kg, changing the cassette would take it to 6.8

_MG_8967 by iabisdb, on Flickr

iab

You know they did 30 pages in the 41 on this. Bottom line, stiffer frame does not create a measurable increase in power transmission. It does give you better handling on a high speed descent. But if you are not racing to put food on your table, it just ****ing doesn't matter.

old's'cool

Yeah, in my walk of life at least, I don't feel I'm losing any appreciable energy due to the flexing of my steel bike frames. YMMV.

Bandera

Glancing at your "My Bikes" entries would it be unreasonable to assume that you have sipped deeply of the old Cannondale "stiffness is the be-all-end-all & steel is obsolete" Kool-Aid?
It's not 1984 anymore, and the big tube AL paradigm has been consigned to nice try status. Klein & Cannondale of that ilk are out of production while new steel frames are not.
Guess why? "Because they make a very good bike" for the real world.



Which AL frameset back when was winning in the pro peloton?
That would be the Vitus 979 with impressively "flexy frames" that seemed to sprint well enough to win many classics.
Go figure.

There is more than one way to build a good bike frame, dogmatic adherence to/disavowal of a material or design flavor type is silly and simplistic IMHO.
As always suit yourself.


-Bandera

Cougrrcj

I'd venture to say that on 99.99+% of bikes, there is probably more flexing going on in the wheelset that will ever happen to the bike frame. You don't think so? Put your bike on a 45° angle to the ground and stomp on the crank/bottom bracket. See for yourself which gives more!!! Any other engineers want to back me up on this???

KonAaron Snake 

The aluminati is back.

Responding to this doofus just encourages him to stick around. It's really not worth reading this silliness...as though materials have inherent ride qualities not related to builder choice and tubing diameters. There are plenty of OS steel tubesets - some quite stiff. It wouldn't be that difficult to make one that rode like one of his teeth rattling cheap tin cans, but why would you want to?!?

It's a fact - 66% of the time, mtnbike is a doofus every time. He's also 10% higher in cerebral stiffness . Cause - science.

gomango

And there you have it.

mtnbke

Compared to steel? Don't be silly. You can learn to braze steel bikes in an afternoon. You can, with zero experience, sign up for a frame building class and after a week walk away with one of the finest steel bikes you'll ever own, that you build yourself. Anyone can hang a shingle and start up shop as a frame builder with steel, for almost no investment. Waltworks started in his condo garage after he took some industrial tech classes at CU.

I'm not a fan of epoxy bikes. They are ecologically harmful, and they are too prone to failure. For all the rumormongering about aluminum failure, you'll find a hundred pics online showing carbon frame failure for every pic you'll find of a Cannondale or Klein that failed. I don't understand the carbon thing, beyond the marketing of "latest and greatest." Now that being said a carbon bike is so much lighter than a steel bike and they are incomparable in terms of performance. However, the real magic would have happened if instead of chasing epoxy bikes we'd all decided that we needed magnesium bikes. Nothing has the vibration dampening of magnesium. A magnesium frame would be significantly lighter than even titanium and carbon/epoxy and while being much stiffer, it would have better vibration dampening characteristics.

However, one thing carbon is NOT is cheap to produce. That would be steel. Any fool can braze a lugged bike with nothing but a torch and quality tube sets are still cheap. Why do you think everyone and their brother opens shop producing steel bikes? Steel is cheap and easy to build with.

Cycling has a long history with steel, the OP was asking when steel "peaked." The insanity is the belief that steel is still a relevant material with which to make modernly "good" frames. In car clubs you don't find some old cranky geezer trying to convince everyone his Ford Model A is a better sports car than anything modern. It is absurd that in cycling how much misinformation there is about steel frames. There are great old steel bikes with a lot of history in their nameplate. Olmo, Pinarello, Cinelli, Colnago, Masi etc. However, there is nothing really magical about any of these beyond their tube set. How one brazes the lug really doesn't make for a better bike if the tube sets are the same. The idea that some old Italian master frame builder was handcrafting "your" or "my" bike while drinking his cappuccino is a bit absurd. In reality most of them were built by young cheap labor, and the process was simple to teach. Is a Mark Nobillette a great bike. Of course. There is no sacred cow with italian vintage steel. In fact tube sets have advanced since, and a great frame builder can build a better steel bike today than any C&V steel bike rolling around. What we cherish is the nameplate, we project the history, the ethos onto the nameplate the decals and the paint. In reality any one of ten really good US frame builders can build a better steel bike than what many consider a great vintage steel bike.

So admittedly, steel is getting better, but that's in a narrow range. As a material for building performance bikes, and every bicycles essentially is about performance limited by a low wattage motor, the cyclist, steel stopped being relevant. That not an insult to anyone's mother, but any objective person that has spent time in the saddle of a good Klein, Cannondale, a titanium Merlin, Lynskey, or Moots, or a carbon Calfee would laugh out loud regarding the cult of steel that still persists. Its largely a bunch of cyclists that have never owned or ridden a good titanium bike, never owned or ridden a good aluminum bike, and have never owned or ridden a good carbon bike.

Steel has not yet peaked in terms of the engineering of the tube sets, but steel peaked long ago in terms of actually relevancy in terms of building bikes. Its something young hipsters do now, learn to braze bikes in about a week, open a shop and start selling boat anchor heavy flexy inefficient bicycles to what I call the instagram crowd. People that spend more time looking at builds and commenting about others bicycles, but having no frame of reference to actual compare them to.

If all you've ever owned and ridden are steel bikes, what basis is an opinion that steel makes for good bicycles formulated upon? Steel makes for cheap production. It makes a strong bike. Not a light bike, not an efficient bike, not a corners on rails bike. It makes a good bike. There is nothing wrong with that. However, the technology paradigm long ago past steel, and it is NEVER catching back up. It can't. The limitations of what you can build with a steel tube set compared to carbon, magnesium, titanium, or oversized aluminum are too glaring.

That was what changed the paradigm. People throwing a leg over a Klein or Cannondale in the early 80s were absolutely shocked at how the bikes were "rocket bikes" compared to steel. Same cyclist, same motor.

Vintage or even modern steel bikes are fine. However, enough with the cult that they are in anyway shape or form comparable to "better" bikes made from more modern materials. Other than the history and from a collectible perspective, or even just because one person always wanted one, but steel is never a "better" bike in terms of any performance criterion. There is always a better bike made from a different more advanced frame building material. Steel is cheap, simple and easy to build with. Leave it at that.

A Calfee, Klein, or Moots steel ain't.

mtnbke

Its this kind of crap that gives the internet a bad name.

Working with aluminum as a material to build bicycles is so much more difficult than working with steel. Steel is cheap and easy to work with. YOU can build your own steel bike as good as anything else you'll ever ride, that you can produce in a single week's frame building class. Klein and Cannondale had a heck of a time trying to produce bikes out of aluminum because of how much more difficult it is (and was) to weld up aluminum compared to say brazing or TIG welding steel.

Now this isn't entirely relevant today, as modern welding technology has come light years. Klein and Cannondale had a devil of time trying to find educated and experienced aluminum welders. Someone that can braze a steel lug has essentially zero market worth in industrial fabrication. Someone who is a master aluminum welder in the 80s/90s or even today is going to command a premium wage. Even today with the highly advanced feeding systems, "hot start" controllers, and programmable computerized current (eliminating end of weld cratering) it is still impossible for most industrial fabricators to find qualified and experienced aluminum welders.

There STILL aren't enough people to go around in terms of aluminum welding engineers, aluminum welders, master aluminum welders, and quality and inspectors with experience and a background in aluminum welding. That's for mickey mouse stuff like putting together trailers, RVs, and Fire trucks. Not thin wall oversized aluminum tubing. Klein and Cannondale had to pay a premium because the skill level required to manage how difficult it is to weld aluminum (before the advancements in welding technology largely mitigated these) was so much farther advanced than anything comparable. As soon as someone became competent for Klein or Cannondale they could walk off and start working for a defense contractor. People don't exactly beat down the door trying to hire away frame builders working with steel with substantial raises.

The Klein and Cannondale model didn't work for a variety of reasons. Joe Montgomery defrauded Cannondale out of millions with the "infamous" home loan. When he defaulted it created a mess that they never recovered from. When Cannondale was publicly listed as BIKE, management didn't want to lose control if he defaulted on the loan and his shares. It was malfeasance. Cannondale led the research and development curve for cycling for years. Don't forget about how Cannondale innovated and developed one of the most technologically advanced MOTORCYCLES and four-wheelers. They spent millions doing interesting and exciting things, that were just poor business decisions. Not as idiotic as teaching Giant how to make bicycles like Schwinn did, but nonetheless not savvy business. Heck, MAVIC made some ridiculous decisions. Getting involved in Airplanes and the like had nothing to do with their core business.

However, Klein selling out to Trek, and Cannondale having poor and allegedly fraudulent management has nothing to do with how great their bicycles are/were. Many people still consider their vintage oversized Cannondale or their Klein to still be their "best" bike. It will still out climb, outsprint, and just plain ride away from everything they've had since. For others they've never ridden a Klein/Cannondale or something titanium or carbon with equivalent wheel sets and components to what they prefer.

As far as pro sponsorship and the Vitus 979. Please. Pros don't ride the "best" equipment, they ride whatever sponsors the damn team. Representing the Vitus 979 as somehow being "faster" or a better race bike than old Klein or Cannondale bikes is absurd. The Vitus 979 was competing against mostly steel bikes, it wasn't exactly a stacked deck. Of course the Vitus, even being much less efficient than an oversized Cannondale or Klein was going to be much MORE efficient than its steel counterparts. The paradigm had changed. I love the Vitus 979 because of the tout Mavic build that can be found on them. However, I wouldn't trust those bonded aluminum tubes over cobbles, even if you paid me.

In reality, you make the point that there is more than one way to build a good bike frame. That's true if we are talking cruisers or kid's bikes. If we are talking road bikes or essentially road race bikes that is no longer true. There is absolutely not a relevant steel road race bike that can be built, all other things being equal, compared to oversized aluminum, epoxy/carbon, titanium or magnesium.

The steel is real cult makes no sense. It would be like if we were all triathletes and there was a cultish group trying to run in old Chuck Taylor's. Sure the Chuck Taylor is "just" as good of a shoe, if the parameters have no meaning. However, if actually winning races, climbing, cornering, sprinting actually RACING matters then they become irrelevant. Technology changes. An F1 race car is faster than anything I can own, and I couldn't drive an F1. I couldn't keep the brakes warm or the tires from getting cold because I don't have the skill level. However, I'm not about to pretend that some vintage Corvette or Porsche is a "better" race car if I happen to own one. In cycling some community foolishness happens where people try to convince each other that their vintage steel bikes are just as good as other bikes that have passed them technologically.

Lost in all of this is we have an aging group of cyclists that is losing flexibility, fitness, and they just aren't the same as they were twenty years ago. Most will never admit it, but they are riding steel "comfort" bikes at this point, and their appreciation for the steel has everything to do with how inefficient it is and how comfortable the frame material makes the bike, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. However, that vintage Cinelli, Merckx, Raleigh, Pinarello, or Colnago is a "race" bike in a different era. In the modern world those bikes are irrelevant even just compared to 80s aluminum even if we don't bring carbon into it.

Its like a sports car. You can love driving it. You can own all the classic examples you want. Just don't try to convince everyone that your 60s or 70s Ferrari is somehow a better car on the track than say something modern. In reality the average BMW and Mercedes business coupe will flat out embarrass almost any classic sports car ever made including vintage Ferrarri, Lamborghini, Masarrati, and Porsches.

Were those good cars? Sure. Iconic, interesting, I'd like to own all of them. However, I'm not about to be a fool and go on the internet and try to convince a bunch of Subaru STI owners that old, heavy, slow sports cars are better than modern, faster, and better handling cars. So why in cycling does the cult of steel bike owners desperately adhere to that community narrative that there is something somehow still relevant, from a performance standpoint, with steel frames?

There isn't an intelligent answer. Its a cult mindset.

mtnbke

You don't know what you are talking about.

I can visibly flex the bottom bracket of every bike I've ever thrown a leg over. The variance between steel and aluminum/carbon is significant. Even a steel tandem, like a Santana with a HUGE steel boom tube a single bike doesn't have, the amount of bottom bracket flex is amazing on steel frames. That bottom bracket flex is what led me to give up my addiction to steel frames. I wanted a Bontrager Race Lite mountain bike during my NORBA days. It just wasn't, in reality, what it was built up to be. Same with the Santana steel tandems. I've gone back to steel multiple times with different types of bikes, tandems, mountain bikes, road bikes. At the end of the day steel doesn't build up to be a "good" bike. Maybe in 1960 or early 70s. However, in the modern context of oversized aluminum, carbon, titanium, or magnesium bikes steel is a completely irrelevant frame material from a performance perspective.

Have you ever actually ridden on an aluminum, carbon, or titanium bike? That incredible bottom bracket flex that exists with every steel bike is significantly diminished when you get away from steel.

Kindaslow

Can't we all just get along???



as long as you all agree with me.....

Road Fan

Actually, steel bikes can be fragile if the tube walls are thin enough and the diameter is large enough. I think Cannondale had a similar problem back in it's early days.

The metals are different but the physics is not.

iab

I'm going to bet you don't see the irony.

You obviously have never welded in your life and you know nothing of modern production methods.

Ride what you like. If you honestly think material choice matters, again, you probably will never see the irony.

KonAaron Snake 

Bingo.

Italuminium

LOL.

And yes, Cannondale had the BY FAR skinniest bikes of the bunch in this years TDF. So yeah, mtnbike's prophet has moved on already.

Superia

I know this isn't a "car forum" but as a "petrolhead" I feel I need to respond to this... I know dozens of 1970's and 80's rallycars that'll beat a Subaru STI any time and By the way, old sportscars are lighter than new cars.

A normal 1970's saloon car only weighs +-800kg, a classic mini for example only weighs 650kg and handles better than any modern car... a modern day small hatchback weighs 1100kg at least and handles like a boat in comparison to old saloon cars.

The only reason why modern cars are better on track is because the suspension is a lot better, put some modern suspension on an old car and I asure you, it'll beat the modern equivalent.

Keep talking about bicycles, you seem to know a lot more about that...

Jarrett2

The troll runs deep with mtnbke. That's a significant amount of time to sit in front of a keyboard trying to bother someone

bikemig 

+ 1.

ppg677

I don't think mtnbke is trolling, but I think he's overstating things a bit.


* I started riding Aluminum in 2006. I bought Carbon Fiber in 2008. It got stolen in 2011. I bought Cannondale Carbon Fiber again in 2011 (well north of $2000). I sold it this spring because I realized I prefer riding my 1981 Trek 950. My fat ass is not any slower because of it. I've never ridden Titanium.


* The capital expenditures required to manufacture an epoxy/plastic/carbon frame are surely significantly higher than a steel frame. Yes, a friend of mine spend $300 on a basic torch and was able to braze a frame after farting around for a few dozen hours practicing, hand-filing, etc. It turned out rideable, but that's about it. You need alignment jigs to do a good job, but even this equipment won't set you back more than a few thousand. You don't find many "custom" builders of monocoque carbon frames. Why is that? My guess is that the capital expenditure is too high. I was in an e-mail exchange with the product manager of Felt who was lamenting to me how difficult it is (at least in 2010) to get a carbon fiber bike in the sub-$2000 price point.


* It is well within the realm of modern technology to measure the loss of frame flex and drivetrain. Easy. Use a crank-based or pedal-based power meter simultaneously with a rear-hub-based power meter. These things have error tolerances of less than a percent or two. Measure and compare the differences. I have not seen any of these measurements being done. Yet manufacturers are quick to market tiny measurements for other metrics, like the few watts you save with a Cervelo aerodynamic frame. So while yes, intuitively it would seem that BB flex (which basically acts like a spring with a spring constant) would cost something, if it were significant surely frame manufacturers would be measuring this and touting numbers??


* Differences in equipment matter, but they matter way less than you might expect. If the difference between 1st and 2nd place is ~10 seconds in a 26 mile time trial, then absolutely you need a modern bike that perhaps saves 0.1% in frame flex and weighs a pound less. Turns out aerodynamics matters a lot more than most anything else in a time trial. My wife is a triathlon dork so I've looked into a lot of this crap. A $200 aerodynamic helmet saves as much watts as a $2000 set of Zipp race wheels. What is the savings? We're talking like 10-20 seconds over an Olympic distance ride (40K).


* One of the fastest time trials in the history of the Tour de France was Greg LeMond's 54.54 km/hr performance in 1989 on a "heavy" Bottecchia steel frame . The average speed has gradually crept upwards, but in 1990 the overall average speed (across ~2200 miles) was 38.6 km/hr and in 1995 it was 39.2 km/hr. In 2010 the average speed was 39.6 km/hr and in 2014 it was 39.5 km/hr. Equipment improvements are clearly not mattering that much.

* Tour de France riders ride what they sponsor, but they're not going to ride utter crap and as I made clear in my prior bullet, equipment isn't mattering that much. When the Trek Madone first came out, Lance Armstrong wouldn't ride it the first year because he didn't like how it felt. Instead he stuck with a 5200 frame from the prior year.

So yeah, I think carbon fiber is overrated. At least it doesn't rust and it gives a lot of creative freedom in terms of differentiating shapes. One of the things I hated the most about riding carbon fiber-- I got T-boned by a car in 2009 on my carbon fiber frame. I kept riding that frame, but always wondered "is it damaged? will it catastrophically fail on me?". The other thing that pissed me off was the constant creaks made from the metal/carbon interfaces.

busdriver1959

I recently rode carbon for the first time. It was a Bianchi Infinito CV. Supposedly, it was designed with a more comfortable ride than other carbon offerings. The other riders on the tour agreed that it was a better ride than a lot of other carbon. My impression? Waaaay to harsh. I had always heard that carbon was dead feeling and I was expecting that. I can't believe how harsh this one was though. The good thing is, now I understand why the plastic riders swerve wildly in the middle of the pack to avoid a level manhole cover. I'm not excusing stupid moves, I just see why now.
I'm sticking with my double oversize steel and I'll say again, steel hasn't peaked yet.

noglider 

I liked the original question, which was, when were the best steel bikes made? Now we have devolved into, which material is best for a bike? The original question isn't all that useful, but it's interesting. The current "question" will yield different answers for different people because we have a big variety of criteria for "best."

ppg677

Agree. Isn't it obvious that the best steel bikes are made NOW? The mass market has largely moved onto other materials and we're left primarily with a lot of high-end boutique builders of beautiful, modern steel bikes. We have tube sets like Reynolds 953 that have higher strength-to-weight ratios not available 30 years ago. Or if you want, you can stick with the old standby's like Reynolds 531 or Columbus SL/SP. We have steel bikes designed to be outfitted with Shimano Di2 shifter technology (not for me, but I can see the appeal). We still have builders still using beautiful polished/chrome lug work.

Me? I'm simply too cheap to drop thousands on a new bike (again) when I can get a beautiful, well-made C&V steel bike for far less money that is nearly as good as a 2015 Waterford or Ellis.

rekmeyata

I rode about 6 or 7 different brands of CF bikes before I got my Titanium ride just to see if I was missing anything, I'm not. The CF does seem to dampen road vibrations from minor imperfections, but where I live the streets are mostly rutted, cracked, holed, etc and you can't escape from hitting most of that stuff and the CF frames I tried did indeed feel harsh once you got beyond minor imperfections. The great thing about TI is that the material doesn't bang on rough roads not nearly as bad as aluminum or CF, and it even feels better than steel. Of course this is all subjective and just my opinion.

mtnbke

Are you being funny? Dozens? I hope you're not going to start rattling off just eight different Lancias. Some are selling for more than a quarter million apiece these days. I'd LOVE to see your "dozens" list, even if you are going to try to limit it to just rally cars.

A BMW M5 today will flat out embarrass almost anything on the road from the 70s/80s on the track. Your point about the vintage Mini Cooper variants is going to be lost on this audience, but they need to know that most had LESS than 50 Horsepower. Sure they could turn circles around most cars, but on the track tight radius and rubber bumper suspension can't overcome being powered by rubber bands. The 2011 and newer (F10) BMW M5s have 560hp. A 2015 Mercedes C63 S manages north of 480hp. These are freakin' business coupes that will flat out embarrass most every "super car" ever made in the 70s/80s. A Lamborghini Countach is a cool car, but it never had less than 400hp and wasn't that impressive performance wise. Very cool to look at though.

Tell you what. You let me know what 70s/80s "non-full on race cars" that you think are faster than a modern BMW M5 or a Mercedes C63 S and we'll fly over to Nürburgring on track day. I'm thinking I could bring a BMW and a C63 and we'll race for pinks. What do you think? I'm not even that good of a driver.

Can't wait to see your list of "dozens" of 70s/80s cars that'll beat an STI anytime. Don't get me wrong I hate STIs, but I'm not so agenda driven as to deny the performance of those cars. For the record an STI ran aNürburgring lap with a 7:55 time. Heck a non-STI WRX did around 8:30 back in the day. Can't wait to see your "dozens" list.

2011 Subaru Impreza WRX STI Sets Nürburgring Lap Record - Feature - Car and Driver

The 2015 Nurburgring top-10:
https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/best-ca...lap-times-2015

That STI time of 7:55 isn't even relevant anymore. With racing and track cars technology changes and things progress. Steel bicycle racing frames are no longer relevant performance wise. They don't accelerate as well as carbon or even 80s aluminum and they don't' climb in the same league. Does that make them useless? Of course not. That 2011 factory prototype STI is still a fast freakin' car, its just no longer relevant in terms of holding track records.

Back to bicycles…there are so many cyclists in these forums and on the road that have absolutely no frame of reference regarding what constitutes a great bike. While many of us have very large stables and/or have ridden many different bikes from titanium to carbon, to aluminum to magnesium the reality is that the vast majority of cyclists have not. You'll find all sorts of people spouting off about how their vintage steel bikes climb as well as a vintage Klein Quantum. On its face those are just patently absurd notions and claims. Steel as a material to make performance bikes is completely irrelevant. That's NOT to say that vintage steel bikes aren't still really cool. Most of us aren't trying to land a contract to make it into the European peleton with a Div I team next season. Most cyclists that appreciate C&V bicycles are a bit older and don't have the same form, fitness, or flexibility of a sub-35 Cat-1 roadie. There are great reasons to actually want to ride and collect a vintage steel race bike. The actual history and tradition being the best I can think of. Where else can you own and ride on the same bike and kit that pros raced on? I won't be dropping $2.6 million for an F1 car anytime soon. Besides I couldn't actually drive it, I couldn't manage to keep the brakes and tires warm enough to actually go around corners. The speeds you have to drive an F1 car are beyond my competence level, and by far. However, I can actually ride a bicycle. You don't HAVE to descend like a breakaway Frenchmen on Bastille day to enjoy riding a vintage racing bike. The steel bikes were great race bikes in THIER day. They don't actually have to be better bikes than modern carbon bikes or even capable of hanging with the oversized aluminum era.

My points about steel bikes are a response to the "steel is real" cult. There are very good reasons to want to ride and own a vintage steel lightweight race bike. One of my all-time favorite bikes was a Lemond Maillot Jaune with Team Z details that I bought for an ex. I don't pretend that bike was a better climber than modern carbon or a Cannondale or Klein. It doesn't have to be "best" at everything to have made it special.

Its okay to LOVE steel bikes AND actually admit that they aren't setting the modern performance paradigm. The absurdity is when people start throwing out crap to the effect that steel bikes are just as good climbers, sprinting, and as fast descending as carbon or oversized aluminum. That makes me think that many of the people participating in the conversation haven't even ever ridden a Klein, Cannondale or modern carbon racing bike in their lives.

The conversation here is about when steel bikes peaked. Yes, the engineering and tube sets for steel are still being improved. However, only someone with their head buried in the sand for the past twenty years can't recognize WHEN steel bikes became irrelevant in terms of performance. Heck, when Cannondale introduced the Sport Touring bike with its relaxed geometry, fenders, and racks for loaded touring the paradigm changed. That touring bike was actually going to be the fastest bike in the local "A" ride from moment one fenders and all. That isn't' a "value" judgement against an old Cinelli, Colnago, Olmo, Pinarello or what have you. However, racing technology moves forward it isn't' stagnant in time.

Bicycling has changed and aluminum helped usher in that new paradigm: stiffness and pedaling efficiency, lightness with improved frame strength, and the "rocket bike" feeling of going forward when you pedal. For many aging cyclists their vintage steel racing bikes are actually perfect. Not only are they impeccable examples of vintage race bikes but the steel frames create a "comfort" bike for them as they age. Riding a pure race bike is not ex-pros typically continue to do after they retire. They typically prefer much more upright handlebars. Riding a bike isn't just about the professional peloton. Its about riding a bike that has history, personal or in the context of the pageantry of cycling. Its about having fun on the bike and enjoying how that bike performs.

However, we don't need to misrepresent the relative capabilities of the bike in order to enjoy riding it. A vintage mini cooper is a cool car indeed. However at less than 50 hp, regardless of their lightweight, they are irrelevant as "sports cars" now. Sure they can go around corners on a track, they weren't ever going that fast to begin with.

I'll never probably climb Alp d'Huez. However if I could find my large vintage Klein, I'd at least know that my bike could do it at a competitive pace, even if I couldn't. Anyone who believes their vintage steel race bikes are still relevant in terms of a modern performance standard is deluding themselves. Steel DID peak. It still builds good bikes, they don't have to be the BEST bikes performance wise. We can be honest about we ride.

In fact only the charicature in my mind of the 80s Klein owner would be such a tool as to have to belabor the point about having the "best" bike. I'm not interested in modern "best" bikes as the carbon frames and the super aggressive saddle to bars drop geometry make them so ungodly uncomfortable to ride. For me the golden era is the early 80s horizontal top tube oversized aluminum bikes.

You'll never see bicycles like early Klein and Cannondale again. You don't have to like them, but pretending the dinosaurs walked the earth 6,000 years ago makes as much sense as claiming "research shows" steel bikes are NOT at a performance disadvantage to aluminum or carbon. Any fool that's ever ridden a Klein or Cannondale or modern carbon bike instantly realizes the variance performance wise with old vintage steel race bikes. Which is not to say they still don't have their place. All that frame flexibility makes for a great "comfort" race bike and what is wrong with that?

Especially since many of these great bikes were capable of winning a gran Tour back in the day. Just not since.

ppg677

I take back what I said. You are trolling. I have no doubt that Klein/Cannondale made great bikes, but just go look at Tour de France historical results and equipment used. Yes, I understand that each tour is difference but not *that* different. Here is a start: