Another fun GCN retro v. modern video
 

@leegf posted this one on his blog a while back. Sort of a fun watch.

Delgado's 1985 MG-Orbea team bicycles were equipped with Campagnolo Super Record, not bottom end Simplex, Weinmann 500 and clincher rims. I don't even think it is a frankenbiked version of the real frame. This frame needs a clamp on water bottle cage and front derailleur. Every picture I've seen of the real thing shows of full complement of brazed-on fittings including two sets for bottles. They also had a fully chromed rear triangle. Not the real deal, as claimed.

How did he get a 6-speed chain to work on an 11-speed freewheel? Or if he changed chains, how did he get an 11-speed chain to work with the front chainrings?

He says it's the 6 speed chain, but an 11 speed freewheel is a sight I'd like to see. :thumb:

Interesting, but not very scientific. For starters, it's clear his bias is the new bike is faster, so he may well have pedaled harder (consciously or not).
He admits the vintage one didn't fit as well (a new bike could have the same problem) and he'd never used friction shifters before (!!).
He generalizes about gears, weight, frame flex, aero, & brakes, but doesn't break down the times for climbing vs. downhill which would tell you.
Overall his time is 1:35, about 10 % better on the new bike, which while significant, is not decisive.

Always interesting, these kind of comparisons. :) Thanks for posting this one.

Here's one that's a little more serious. In the film 'King of the Mont Ventoux' the makers compared five real TdF race wins between 1970 and 2013 by putting the contestants in a virtual race.

I can't find the full movie, but IIRC Bernard was fastest and Merckx was third on his 1970 bike. My impression, at seeing the movie, was that the bike is just one of many factors that decide a race, and not the most important one either.

https://vimeo.com/69792534

I don't believe these videos are being presented as science. Entertainment most certainly; edutainment if one were feeling generous.

Here's another one along a similar vein that I came across recently. More of a controlled environment.

Best part for me was

"...I'm a little nervous about shifting onto the big ring...OHHH...that was easier than I thought..."

Too bad about the rear wheel and lack of toe clips.

I'd figure that between the bike not fitting properly, unfamiliarity with downtube shifting and lacking toe clips, at least 1 minute of that difference is due to "non-bike" factors.

Heck yeah! In fact I'm surprised that it was that close. Factoring in those major issues it looks to me as though the steel bike probably won. It's rather annoying that they did such a sloppy job. I'd be real interested in seeing a better, more controlled comparison. For example, based on personal experience, I descend much faster on my Cooper than my friends do on their carbon bikes.

Absolutely. The old Orbea shown in the film is a long distance from a Pro bike. Not even slightly fair on equipment.

Good entertainment though.

... and remember, companies are in the business to sell new equipment, and since the two videos I could see (can't see the non-fixie's video) are produced by companies, of course the new equipment is going to be faster or more aerodynamic. If it wasn't, would they put out videos showing how they're scamming the public; I don't think so. So, I'm going to don my engineering skeptics hat and note some things about the last video. 50 seconds over 40 kilometers, breaks down to 2 seconds a mile... is that worth the extra dough you have to throw down? Maybe, if you are riding competitively. But, the test conditions appear to be steady riding against a constant in your face wind... the exact conditions that aerodynamics will help you the most. Given the fact that most racing isn't constant effort against a constant wind means the difference is probably less. The most fair comparison would be to measure how slippery each bike is (with no rider), which they could have probably done, but, they didn't, which leads this conspiracy minded individual to speculate that the real difference, aero wise, is much less than they're stating. By the way, bad science isn't entertainment, it's just a long deceptive commercial, and the question shouldn't be whether the newer bike is more aero, it should be whether it's worth the extra investment for the minimal gains.

Design of Experiments, anyone?

I really like the GCN crew, even if their occasional visits to C&V land are irritating to those of us who reside here.

I found it interesting that he appeared to size the vintage bike very closely to the modern (in terms of top-tube position and saddle height), which of course resulted in the cramped cockpit he commented on. Granted, this isn't really intended as Science-with-a-capital-S, as others have mentioned. But I would like to see him do this on a properly sized, top-tier vintage bike. I'm sure the modern would still be victorious, but at least the old would get a fair shake.

...And I do enjoy their inevitable but always-grudging admiration of the old steeds. Nearly always translates to I really didn't want to like it because I'm not supposed to, but I sort of ... like it. :)

I think it was summed up well at the end. A lighter bike requires less work to go up hill. Superior brakes will allow you greater speed downhill. Aero could give a second or two.

Still don't know how they used a 6-speed chain on an 11-speed cassette (fixed it that time).

I'm with you except the superior brakes part. I think he said they pulled the bike from a museum, so the brake pads would have been hardened and the brake cable lubrication nonexistent. Therefore, the "superior brakes" claim was only based on having a well maintained new bike against a completely decayed older bike. Just take a look at the bends in those brake cables and you can see that they were damaged. I bet that if he had new cables and pads the vintage bike brakes would have performed just as well as the new bike on the downhill. Also, those brakes he had on there were dime store cheapies. What he said about it being "the bike" that Delgado rode was absolute BS IMHO. As far as I'm concerned, the idea that dual pivot brakes provide shorter stopping distances is a myth that keeps on surfacing at these forums based on nothing.

I'm the curmudgeon that left the comment correcting his description of the steel Orbea as welded, rather than brazed.

I like GCN generally, though. They don't take themselves too seriously.

the whole thing reinforces my love of c&v, and i found the music and lack of substance especially off-putting.

I'm waiting for the next video where he road tests a Peugeot UO8 and says it's the PY10 that Bernard Thevenet used to win the 1975 Tour de France. We know that one would fool a lot of people! Then there will be Joop Zoetemelk's 1980 TDF winning Raleigh, which actually turns out to be the Record with Ti-Raleigh livery. Finally, the crowning glory will be a review of one of those entry level, Falcon built Eddy Merckx on which Eddy won the Giro, TdF and World Championships.:rolleyes:

I can't say anything about the particular brake they used, old and crusty or refurbished and perfect. But when compared to a single-pivot long-reach side-pull caliper, dual pivot will stop shorter in all cases. I am happy to set up that experiment with my bikes.

I'm really surprised the difference was so small - certainly not worth the 5-figure difference in price between the two bikes!

(Well, it'd be 5-figures if it were a new Bianchi Specialissima vs my Bianchi Sprint 76!)

I am actually doing this kind of research analyzing Paris-Roubaix results for my IB math project. While it is true that from 1896 to 2015 there is an increase in average speed, the only large jump is in the invention of derailleur gearing in the 1930's. From that point on, all the results are over 30km/h on average.

I'm looking into interest at the local university, who have a wind tunnel. Not very likely though, as tunnel time = $$$.

I think Peter Post still holds the record for the fastest average speed in Paris Roubaix from 1964. The course was a bit different, but still, if the bikes today are so much better, and training and race radios have made racing speeds elevate, why would this record still stand?

I wonder if the old one even had gear ratios that were "climb-worthy" --- the last "old vs new" comparison, i think the gent stated it was Stephen Roche's old bike and it did have a straight block freewheel --- compared to a modern bike with a 53/39 and 12-25 out back , ---- A 52-42 with a 12-21 would take a lot more brute force on the climbs

Agreed that it doesnt look like its outfitted as a race bike --- the throwback picture of Delgado even shows a bike with aero brake levers

Requesting a re-do except with a 13-26 freewheel, a decent set of Conti Sprinters on Fir or MAvic Gel 280's or 330's , and a correct Campy or Dura Ace group with new kool stop pads !

It'll never happen so i'll have to do it myself someday --- I have Jan Ullrich's 1997 tour winning Pinarello in the garage i can compare head to head with my newer carbon bike ! (Oh wait --- its not actually Jan's bike -- but it resembles it at a sideways glance :thumb: )

http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/b...psm1oyxemw.jpg