imabeliever1

I think it’s pretty remarkable that my posting about weighing a vintage and a modern bike generated 100 post. It was just surprising, to me, that the Trek was not considerably lighter compared to the Paramount.

Keep the rubber side down. Carbon, Aluminum , or Steel.

bikemig 

If you think it's remarkable that an argument over whether steel or carbon is "better," generated 5 pages and counting of posts, you haven't spent much time on Bike Forums, .

Personally, I'll be disappointed if this doesn't hit 10 pages,

Germany_chris

I like steel bikes better, small diameter tubes make me happy

Eric F 

"Soul" in an inanimate object is a subjective characteristic. CF is repairable in many cases.

Eric F 

Why? I have a couple of 20+yo CF bikes that still function just as well as they did when they were new. Nothing indicates to me that this will cease to be the case any more than my 45+yo steel bike. Same with my newest bikes.

Atlas Shrugged

For clarity, I have no issues with steel bikes, just purchased one for my next long trip late this summer. My colourful comments are regarding the perspective that, somehow, vintage bikes have performance advantages over modern bikes.

But as George Bernard Shaw wrote, "Never wrestle with a pig because you'll both get dirty, and the pig likes it." I am not saying who the pig is in this scenario but I will leave it up to others to decide.

Kilroy1988 

I've read most of this thread and contributed my own opinions as well, but I am having trouble finding where anyone suggested that vintage bicycles have "performance advantages" over modern bikes. Several contributors have very openly stated that they understand the opposite is true but enjoy riding vintage bicycles regardless. If "comfort" is being classified as a measure of performance, I think that is less about the frame material than about the fact that typical tire widths and pressures, the inherent flexibility of older frames and components, and more pleasant leather or cushioned saddles are associated with the comfort of vintage bicycles versus modern ones. I'm sure if I put a Brooks on my Look 675 and deflated the tires down to 75psi like I ride on most of my old 27" rims, that bike would feel pretty darn comfortable too... But I also didn't really see anyone in this thread suggesting that comfort was a performance indicator that makes old bikes any better than new ones.

Essentially, the only "clarity" your last post has provided is the fact that you are making up arguments to reply to because you want to express your irrelevant opinions for some reason.

-Gregory

smd4

Gregory is right--Just not seeing where anyone said vintage bikes have performance advantages over modern bikes. Can echo chambers be made out of carbon fiber?

Huh. Good on you. Luckily long trips aren't considered serious rides.

Piff 

This thread is a little silly...I mean, it's obvious that steel bikes are up to the challenge of herculean efforts. Were they not the frame material of choice for over 100 years? Clearly, if you aren't riding a cruddy frame/components it's not the bike-- it's the motor. Anything mid-range to upper-mid range from the 80s (frame and components) is more than up to the challenge of a hard ride as long as it's been well kept. Even the lowly 70s Raleigh super course with the right components is fine for all day efforts. There are benefits of a modern drivetrain, better tires, rims, lower weight, etc. I don't think anyone here disagrees that modern technology makes modern bikes more efficient. But you don't need all of that to ride hard, in hard places. Preference is a whole 'nother ball game.

I leave you all with this video from a channel some of you may already be familiar with. The couple engages in large, strenuous, unsupported rides as a rule. They use steel frame bikes built in the design of yesteryear for a lot of it (i.e. standard diameter tubing) and friction shifting, quill stems, square taper bottom brackets, rim brakes, the whole bit. They ride harder in harder conditions than I would guess a large majority of people riding modern bikes with modern components.

BFisher

Best not to even acknowledge this guy, iab. He is one of many sophist, pseudo-intellectual trolls who continue to tarnish what should be a fun, inviting place. They all seem to love to act on some inner compulsion to right perceived wrongs, stroking their own imaginary capacity for reason, but what is really happening is that they are on a continuous search to prove their capacity, not to others, but to themselves, which they never accomplish because they just aren't that good at it. Boils down to insecurity. There is really no other reason to enter a hobby/recreation web forum and act the way they do. It is completely anti-social. The saddest thing is that they continuously get away with insults to others.

52telecaster

Those two have a fun channel.

billytwosheds 

"I am going to leave now, and before I do I will level a vague claim of superiority against a group of people who didn't buy my shenanigans."

YOU GUYS, ANY OF US COULD BE THE PIG.
Can't make this stuff up

smd4

It's probably me, since he was referring to something I said. But that could just be my ego talking.

Piff 

Informative and motivational, what more could you ask for I've really found it helpful for thinking about geometry and tubing.

Wildwood 

No need to apologize.
Without contrarian opinions in this Forum, it can become (like other Forums) an echo chamber of group self-adulation and/or unwarranted praise, even beyond cycling. (Which is also OK but needs to be acknowledged)

which is better - new or old? - as always = it depends, for non-racers.

I ride 'em all - 60 year old w/ friction, brifter bikes, e-bike. Going fast and hard and lightweight is not the 'be-all-and-end-all' of cycling; nor are multi-day tours on vintage bikes.


Within the cycling Universe there is room for praising the better bikes from every genre and era. As long as we all agree Italian made bikes are the sexiest and fastest on the planet.

This thread needs pics of classic Paramounts and Trek Domanes -
but lacking those, I offer (in support of my bold statement):

smd4

Yeah, hard to beat that Zullo with full mint Dura Ace 25th Anniversary parts.

But honestly, like AS said...it's just a tool. Nothing more.

madpogue 

What is this "right mind" thing, of which I hear spoken?

Eric F 

...if that's your thing. IMO, it's similar to a vintage Ferrari that has been meticulously maintained or restored. I admire and appreciate the artistry and craftsmanship of a past era, and recognize that this was a pinnacle machine in its time. However, my personal preferences lean much more towards newer shapes and technology. I get that some people prefer to forgo performance and modern features in favor of an older aesthetic.

smd4

Oh, it is. It most definitely is.

georges1

How many carbon frame repairers are there in the US compared to steel frame repairers. You give me an idea, let's do a list and compare

georges1

That Zullo is outstanding even more with the 25th anniversary 1998 Dura Ace 7700 set which is much better looking than the Dura Ace 7900, 9000 and 9100

georges1

Hidden manufacturing flaws exist in any modern product, so don't think that a carbon bike frame can last a lifetime. Maybe exception made of the Trek OCLV which was the most bulletproof carbon frame in America ever built, I don't know which one could compete with it maybe the Colnago C35 and C40 riden by the Mapei and Rabobank teams back then.

smd4

It's my opinion that it is the best-looking component group ever produced from any manufacturer.

Wildwood 

Modern + performance = still Italian with a level top tube

georges1

I like the 7800 as well, it is what I am equipping my builds with.