We see roughly as many as we do Rigi bikes. Both were evolutionary dead ends, but there are people out there still riding and enjoying them.

The point is, there aren;t a whole lot of early carbon monocoque frames around. I suspect that trend isn't a dead-end.

"Enjoying" is maybe putting it a bit strongly for the Rigi bikes.

I'm not sure that's really indicative of their longevity. They were only ever a very small part of the market, and the C&V crowd tends to be heavily into steel bikes. For example, even though they were introduced in 1986, they're apparently excluded from l'Eroica. So, there may be plenty of completely usable Kestrel bikes out there, sitting in garages. I have seen one in the flesh, out on the road.

I've been watching GCN videos for years, probably dating back to their first retro vs. modern video with Stephen Roche's bike. I mostly enjoy them and don't take them too seriously. Their "tests" are pretty subjective especially when it comes to vintage bikes. It's understandable. They've got bikes to sell for their sponsors and you don't do that by touting old technology. There's one video of theirs though that I think they did a great job showing off a vintage bike and highlighting how a classic can be upgraded. It's an interview with Alex Stieda and he shows off his Team 7-11 Merckx. I go back and watch it every now and then.

Speaking of Kestrels.....

And the early carbon bikes (not including the Vitus and Alan carbon bikes) from Trek and the smaller companies seem to have been somewhat overbuilt, given that they didn't weigh all that much less than the aluminum equivalents. Engineers erring on the side of caution is almost always a good thing.

Just did an Advanced Search of Bike Forums for "Kestrel." None of the first 25 or 30 threads were about spontaneous failures---and you know how people like to report those. One mentioned a Kestrel that was locked to a parking meter that was run into by a car traveling at speed. The parking meter was flattened. The Kestrel had a "tiny crack."

The main point of concern among those posts was the difficulty of determining whether a frame was structurally damaged after a crash. That concern is, of course, valid for all carbon frames, not just vintage ones.

My two takeaways from this video are that it's cool that someone like Si, who is steeped in contemporary carbon/Di2/disc racing culture, would go to the trouble of having a custom steel Merckx clone built to fit him. He does seem to enjoy it.

The second is the fact that most pro teams have left tubular tires behind for tubeless. I hadn't realized tubulars were now mostly gone from the peloton.

Or the "European version" of our Kestrels.


30+ years old and still going strong.

That's sort of what I did two summers ago. Took out all the various bikes in their different configurations and showed there wasn't much of a difference in what they could all do under an average rider. Earlist was mid 80's latest mid 2000's. Has steel, aluminum and carbon fiber frames in the mix. 6 speed DT up to 11 speed STI/ERGO shifting. Weights ranging from the lastest at under 16 lbs to the heaviest that was over 23 lbs.


Fun little test that I enjoyed doing. Informal as all heck but hey, it's all about having fun. All ran over the same basic route.

What is the whole point of running that test, anyway?

Many/most/all the people who'd buy a low-end bike don't care whether it is this much faster or slower than that one. They are not performance cyclists or racers. It just doesn't matter.

It's the archer not the arrow.

There was a previous video where he was borrowing an old bike from a collection and something on it broke, and other "old bike" videos have suffered from aging tubular tires etc. That's why he had one built, so he wouldn't be borrowing an old wall hanger, and could thrash this bike to his heart's content, rather than taking the risk of breaking somebody's pride and joy.

You could say the same about the C&V community as well. A small contingent attempts to weave the performance debate into the appreciation of historical bicycles when it’s not about that. From collector cars, watches to vintage yachts it the attachment to a functional form which is relevant not its performance.

For me, "a small contingent" of one, it's about performance when I'm riding my vintage 531c or Columbus SL bikes. The fact that they're their own art form and absolutely beautiful isn't necessarily secondary, but it does feel like the cherry on top.

Snooze. C'mon now, new bike sales are in the toilet and they got to keep the influencer contract going. Just another shill for the sheeple to 'buy' a new bike.
The host makes a few timed short passes on two different bikes. Not even an hour total riding time. Whines about comfort and says that stiff ally with crap tires is a wonderful ride.

I went out on my 50 year old, steel, Nuovo Record-equipped, ten speed (2X5) bike today.

It was a relaxing, glorious ride. It was the 20 mph head wind that kept my speed down while north bound, - not the bike, not the gearing, not the groupo. It was gloriously windy, a fresh breeze. I was glad of it.

The breeze, the ride, the sunshine, it all made me happy to be alive and well and still riding my bike.

Maybe, but the first thing they show is him riding the old bike and supposedly breaking it. We don't know if his "big problem" is just a flat tire or broken spoke, or are we supposed to believe that he broke the frame? I'm not buying it. A bike is either in rideable condition or it's not, and the guys at GCN should know the difference. They should have known you can't just take a bike down from the wall, pump up the tires (and hope they still hold air) and then ride it. They could have spent much less time getting the original back to rideable condition, instead of building an entire new bike. And if the owner didn't want them to touch anything, why did they try riding it in the first place?

If I had a high-value collectible (which I do not), I would maintain it to ride it and it would always be ready to go. That's just me. And if someone said they want to borrow it and that they're going to go out and "thrash" it (or ride it in anger), I'd say "By thrash it, do you mean RIDE it, as hard as you can? Go ahead - it's made for that. Don't worry, it's steel so you're not going to break it. In fact, this very model was ridden by Eddy Merckx and he thrashed way harder than you can."

They should have left out the bogus part where he breaks an old bike with some unspecified problem. That was right in the beginning so I sort of lost interest in the rest of the video. The only thing of value was them building a replica frame. I wonder if they could build me a replica of a 1983 Trek 720.

To each their own, but to me it doesn't matter whether it's modern carbon or hydroformed aluminum, they all look like molded plastic to me. Lugged steel is the way a bike is supposed to look.

The problem with museum pieces that are mechanical devices is often going to be that they just sit and deteriorate. Maintaining them in usable condition can be an expensive proposition, if you have a large collection, and why spend that money if they're just static displays? I'm with you on maintaining collectibles in ready-to-use condition, BTW, but I'm not a museum. I have 4 vintage bikes, from 1982 through 1994, which only need their tires pumped up to be ready to ride. I have a collection of vintage mechanical watches that only need to be wound and set. I won't buy a bike I won't ride, and I won't buy a watch I won't wear. No wallhangers or vault queens for me. But that's me.

You and I have the same philosophy. All of my bikes are vintage steel but I don't have any that I don't ride, and that are in perfect condition to do so. Top off the tires and go - they're always ready.

That doesn't mean I can't appreciate a wall-hanger if it's something really special. Our local bike shop has quite a collection hanging on the wall and they're beautiful. They're not for sale but it would be quite obvious that if you wanted to ride one of them, they would need work. If I came into a truly rare or collectible bike, I might do the same thing - retire it from the road and put it on display. No problem with that concept at all.

I collect and restore antique radios and almost all of mine are fully restored so they can be plugged in and actually used as radios. A few of them though are rare enough and such nice museum pieces that I leave them alone and just let them be shelf queens. I totally get it.

The problem is that you're supposed to know which is which. I cut the cords off the radios that haven't been worked on so they don't accidently get plugged in and turned on. If you know that a radio is a display piece only, you can't complain that "old radios are unreliable" if you plug it in and smoke comes out. Same thing with bicycles. Did they take wall art and try to ride it, and then complain that old bikes are prone to breaking?

The most interesting thing in this sheet is that two aluminium framed bikes and one steel bike weight less far more than the others

Here's where they used Pedro Delgado's actual Orbea from 1985 to test against a modern Orbea. I happened to have one of these Cabestany's for years and will it was a bit rough it really was one fast riding old bike.

I put a lot of stupid money into the Cannondale to get it that light. Like buying a couple of $80 bottle cages to drop the final two ounces to get it under 16 lbs. Wound up with a light bike that isn't as fast as the 7 lb heavier Softride or as comfortable.

BUT… you can say you have a sub-16 pound bike. Those are bragging rights!