On my commute home yesterday the train had an unscheduled delay of 20 minutes due to a brush fire up ahead. For that ride I was sitting in a car with no company except my '89 Bianchi and a very much newer Specialized mtb. Since I had time on my hands I studied the other bike. The comparison was interesting, to me anyway because I have little experience with such bikes, let alone newer ones.

Mine is steel painted black, the mtb carbon painted black and white. Mine is a standard road bike, 2x6 gearing with "compact" 48-34 chainrings, MA40 ~19mmx700c wheels, 32 spokes. The mtb had 3x9 gearing, the large ring seeming to be upper 40's, the small ring tiny, mid-20's perhaps. The mtb's wheels seemed huge in diameter but narrow, maybe only 1". The mtb tires were marked 29"x2" and swelled out well past the tiny rim thickness. They were knobby, of course. My tires are 25mm Gatorskins.

The mtb's BB was noticeably higher. The mtb had disk brakes on both wheels, a dual-piston fork, a hugely wide handlebar loaded with fidgets and levers and grumps and whatever. The derailleurs were ugly but apparently utilitarian. My Bianchi has DT friction shifters, simple and elegant, and old-style Suntour derailleurs. It also has modern elegant Tektro DP brakes, with drilled Weinmann levers on a drop bar. Finally, my Bianchi has a traditional stem with recessed Allen-head bolts for clamp and tightening into the ST. The mtb had a modern threadless stem which seemed required more bolts per square yard than a clothing factory.

If one ignores the functional difference due to the different intended uses, there was an obvious difference in appearance. The mtb looked like a modern industrial object with no aesthetic component whatsoever. By comparison the Bianchi was a sleek artistic shape in every nook or cranny. If it weren't for the carbon frame which I'm sure was pretty light one might have guessed the mtb to weight 30lbs. I dunno', maybe it really did.

I know which one I preferred.

That's what you get for looking at younger women.

1+

To be honest it had no relation to old verses new. They were two differnt breeds. A MTB ten or fifteen years older would still have a higher BB and most likely a tripple. 26x195s look like a monster next to a 700x25. If it had an old twist grip it might look cleaner on the bars. Some of the older MTBs had solid forks as well even if they were a bit beefier than a Road Bike. It was more like you were used to a Arabian Horse and you were Comparing it to a Mule. Sure one is great from riding in the flat but not as good running up and down the trails in the grand canyon.

Now I don't pay very close attention to new road bikes, but I've seen some at a distance at the LBS. I know they're new, because they have that carbon-weave finish, just like the slimy scales on a snake, and there, perched on the bars, are the brifter things - like two swollen pustules urgently demanding to be squeezed by the hapless rider, who sits high above a misshapen top tube, on something that looks more like a probe with some ineffable medical purpose than a saddle... I look around for the familiar freewheel, but instead my eyes are met with colander full of pre-masticated metal macaroni.

I purchase a pair of brake cables and inner tubes for a flip, throw a leg over my lovely C&V beauty, and ride away together, blissfully.


- Now you might get the idea that I don't fully appreciate new road bikes - but actually, the opposite is true: I give them way more credit than they deserve!

Eeeeewww. Thanks a lot for that train-wreck of an image, Auchencrow. Now I need some brain bleach.

auchen, your description needs a haz-mat decipher.....

+1

I don't really get the OPs post. Two bikes built in different eras for different purposes are different. Ok, that's true. As far as aesthetics, I think modern bikes can be attractive, just in a different way. Ultimately a bike is a tool, and modern bikes are often great tools.

I think I might post detailed photos of all of my brifters for Auchen...he seems to have a fetish

Try following an old hardtail down a mediumrough rocky singletrail and watch it just disappear where skinnytires have to really watch every inch of the trail to avoid flatting. Bikes made for very different purposes look and behave differently ! Great surprise !

I wasn't so much making a point as merely observing the world around me at that time - two objects which would both be called bikes yet very different. To someone unaware of their purposes the differences would be startling, but not all those differences were due to their purposes. Some were merely temporal in origin.

As for appearance, yes, I did pass judgment. Aesthetics do matter regardless of functionality. Otherwise why would we care about a bike's paint or bling or the chronological/cultural appropriateness of components? I bet the "That's a great-looking bike" comments outnumber the "I bet that bike functions really well" comments 100:1 in BF, at least in C&V. Elsewhere the ratio may be closer to 1:1. That's still half for aesthetics.

Automobiles are subject to such whimsy more than bikes. There was a trend a few years ago for certain SUVs to be styled as military-industrial armored transport modules. Function (including aerodynamics) aside, they looked ugly to me. But then, car makers will do anything to drive market share. They also have more freedom to make stylistic choices independent of function. The minimalist nature of a bike couples style and function more closely together. A new trend will start the day someone invents a threadless stem which doesn't need all those extra bolts.

And it's all just my opinion, of course.

One of my noneconomic motivations in keeping my aging cars running is that the B5 era Audi A4 and VW Passat have delightfully clean, simple lines, for a timeless look. (We have a 1996 A4 and a 2001 Passat wagon, and our sons drive a 2000 S4 and a 2002 A4.)

jimmuller, It all boils down to what each of us prefer to look at. Modern bicycles are still HPVs and have evolved as such. I think some of the modern CF and hydro formed aluminum frames are just as attractive as the classic race frames, just in a different way... despite whatever resistance arises they will be the subject on this forum years from now.

Brad

One of the main things I hate about new bikes is BLACK, Everything is BLACK... Well new DA parts are bluish grey and charcoal two tone, still boring as hell(and ridiculously pricey to boot). The laziness of making all components one color to save money is getting soooo old. Set a nice light blue metallic early eighties bike dripping in polished aluminum and a few chromed bits, next to a 2012 model in cleared carbon with stripes and the name brand tacked on 20 bazillion times, with full on black 105. Black bars, black headset, black cables, black hardware, black black black.. I will take the early 80's bike every time. It's simple elegance, where the new bike is just to look like some modern macho toughguy wannabe. Good looks are in the eye of the beholder, and I happen to think today many people behold something entirely different, based mostly on marketing hype. The beauty of bikes is long gone.,,,,BD

I spent the past hour and a half in a bike shop due to multiple spokes breaking on my triplet and I watched a sea of bikes, old and new, go by for sales and repair. Most of the older ones look boxy and clunky when compared to modern bikes. For every beautiful classic bike there are 5 sanford and sons, butt ugly, clunkers with hideous suicide levers and/or turkey levers. There is nothing as ugly or clumsy looking as suicide levers with non-aero cables flopping every which way. Dork discs are the only thing that approaches that level of silly looking. Vintage reflectors look like something best left to skeet shooting and bottle generators look like hamster toys. Old brakes are also chunky and cheap looking most of the time.

Modern bikes have far more variable tube shapes and designs...the curved TTs look elegant and there is a sleekness of lines that is eye catching. The reason people thing all c and v bikes are more attractive than modern bikes is simply because most old bikes aren't being counted and because we grew up with them. There can be plenty of aesthetic appeal to new bikes.

+1

We are leaving for a long ride in about fifteen minutes.

I will definitely be riding my plastic bicycle.

It's all in my mind, and it began the first time I rode a bike.

When I'm riding a modern bike, and I look down, my brain expects to see a steel top tube that will
hurt my jewels if I fall on it.

That defines my brain's approach to identifying, recognizing, and analyzing the "normalcy" of any bike I'm on, compared to the imprint. It's about the threat, not the bike.

If my brain does not "see" a steel top tube, it doesn't consider the bike a threat to my reproductive system or general amiable feeling. No threat, no bike.

As such, it removes the image from all the past possible choices of "bike," moving the image to the realm of "Fisher-Price."

At that point, it doesn't matter how fast, sleek, pretty, aero, or light it is, I can't get the implication out of my head.

So, I blame it on reptilian survival instincts.

I knew it wasn't my fault.

To add to the "you know you're a bike geek when.." thread: When you sit in your car, calmly pondering the subtleties of your bicycles- IN A BRUSH FIRE!

Aaron, I understand Jim's post as some musings rather than an essay. And I appreciate it.

I like to see the pluses and minuses of all kinds of bikes (and things other than bikes, too). The copious and gigantic logos are one thing I just do not like. But there's a lot about modern bikes I like. The main reason I don't have one is that I don't have the money. I'm thinking of selling some of my bikes to raise the money.

I ride for utility often, so any bike will do. Currently, I'm going between an old 3-speed and a cyclocross bike for errands and local travel.

I also like to ride for fun. The most fun bike (for me) to ride for the sake of riding is a road racing bike. The new road racing bikes are great in their agility, acceleration, braking, gearing, etc. But they're insanely expensive. I suppose I could get something mighty nice for $1,000 or $1,500. That's probably the point of diminishing returns for me.

But some more minuses:

- They are NOT built to be as durable and reliable as racing bikes used to be.
- Maintenance is also insanely expensive.
- The wheel tolerances are so tiny that I can only use very narrow tires, and I can't use fenders.
- They're basically not re-purpose-able into errand bikes, etc. It's too hard and too risky to attach luggage to them.
- A modern cyclocross bike has better tolerances for wide tires, etc, but is it as nimble? I don't know.

Well, it was in a train car, after all. There wasn't much else I could do...

I did have a great conversation with the bike's owner. The conductor usually keeps the rear car of that train empty but when the bike count get high enough asks me to put my bike there, and then says I can sit back there if I want. (It's nice to be on recognition terms with the conductor.) Anyway, the owner of the mtb wandered back from the people'd cars up front so I struck up a conversation to alleviate the boredom for both of us. He didn't know much about road bikes, and was curious how someone would go about learning maintenance for older bikes of different nationalities. I told him having almost 40 years experience riding helped, but there were some great books like Sutherlands, and great help online like BF. He told me about some of the trails he rode. He lived in Providence but was going up to Boston to meet some friends and ride some trails they knew about up near Andover. He said he was planning to do a half-Ironman this summer, hoped his conditioning would help him overcome any technique deficit from doing all his riding on a mtb. Then the train started up again and my stop was announced, so we bid each other farewell.

An accurate description. And thank you!

Oops, missed that part. You kind of lost me in the fire!!!

I didn't read it as an essay...just as some comments I didn't really understand or agree with. If we all agreed the site would get boring pretty quickly

I don't own, or need to own anything made past 1985 in road bikes, nor do I want to(Despite working at a bike shop!). The oldies do everything I need. Mtb's a different story, though. I don't want to try and work friction thumb shifters on a trail, or ride a rigid front fork. I have an 09 Specialized P-1 All mountain. Nope, not the popular dirt jumper model.,,,,BD

The carbon failure ratio in road bike frames I've seen since I began working there, will keep me from ever wanting one. In almost two years still only one steel frame has failed, and that was on a dropout. I have never had a steel frame fail, and I have had probably 200+ bikes pass through my hands in the last ten years or so. Sorry I can't appreciate new bikes really. The components are twice as finicky to work on, especially high end Sram, OMG!. Shimano has it's own issues too, but mostly only on 2300 series front derailleurs.,,,,BD

Having to send back a $6k frame because the wrong crank/bb was installed in it, though? Classic! The owner got to ride it about 2 miles, and it developed a horrible noise in the BB.

When I was maybe 10 y.o. I would ride my American-style cuiser on the various trails through the woods near home. For a few years, even up through college, I thought a bike would be a great way to do some of the trails I liked to hike. Eventually I realized I'd rather do them on foot so I could see more detail. Also I began to understand that the trail surfaces could take a beating from bike tires. (Admittedly boot soles can be pretty tough on trails too.)

When I bought my first derailleur bike in '72 I came to see it is ideal transportation. Efficient, fast movement from one place to another by human power alone! Back when roads were mostly dirt a good mtb would have been perfect. Like it not though, we live in an age of pavement. A road bike is the thing.

"It's the only thing!" - Toad

Anyone is free to disagree, of course.