rekmeyata

I had a Scandium bike once, it rode like a brick, I test rode regular aluminum bikes and never cared for the ride, but the scandium was the worst riding bike I ever rode. Not only that but the damn thing cracked at the top of the headtube and the manufacture wouldn't warranty it saying it was due to fatigue...fatigue after only 8,000 miles? I went around and around with them, as did the bike shop, for months with no satisfaction.

I tried SRAM group on some of the bikes I test rode, they seemed ok, better than Shimano or Campy? No, at least I didn't think so. I didn't like the double-tap of Sram but I did like being able to shift more gears at once vs Shimano. While Sram seemed a bit smoother in the shifting performance it didn't shift as fast as Shimano. Campy on the other hand has the best of Shimano and Sram and combined it into one, Campy also looks better than the other two, but a lot of bike shops don't carry Campy stuff so trying to get parts could be a bit of a headache, and I also didn't care much for the little ear shifter button, but from people that own Campy they all agree they last longer than Shimano or Sram, but Sram is the worst of the three for durability from what I've read and heard. Shimano I can find parts anywhere in the universe, the other two not so much.

I love the feel of steel as well over Aluminum, Scandium, or Carbon Fiber, but once I test rode a couple of titanium bikes I knew that titanium had the best ride of all of them. That's what sold me on buying a TI bike, the ride, and after having lower back fusion I wanted something a bit more comfortable on long rides when I'm wasn't bike camping. I do use a steel bike for commuting though and for bike camping.

retyred

Well, mainly because they're old like me and neither one of us expects very much from each other.

mackgoo

I din't know.

diphthong

the quality of the ride, the vibes, the appreciation, the recycling, the restoration, the history, the ease of repairs/maintenance.

Road Fan

iab and others, I wonder if this could be tested, aside from iab's insight that it doesn't strongly matter, i.e. is not likely to be significant. That sounds like it is correct, but is there any solid evidence of comparison? BQ has done various tests in it's efforts to prove or disprove an effect due to what it calls "planing." Most of them look at climb results of two riders, looking at who won and changing bikes and repeating. A few used power meters. All of those should be reviewed but I'm pretty sure they have not done a vintage race bike versus a modern race bike.

Are there any hub power meters that will fit a 120 mm (or less) rear OLD and take a vintage freewheel? Probably need pedal power sensors, plus ground speed and airspeed - a headwind or lack of one is one of the biggest random factors that can mess things up. Probably need to do some modeling on Analytic Cycling to identify some of the random external factors that should be eliminated. This actually doesn't sound too difficult. I guess my leap is what kind of small electronic device can do the data acquisition, over perhaps a 10-mile time trial.

Upsetting factors in order of estimated significance: wind, road vertical profile bike fit/geometry (differences may be huge, such as VERY vintage 69 degree seat tube angles versus +/- 74 degrees for modern), rider acclimation to the different gearings, rider climbing technique, tire selection match, and even descending technique.

Some of these seem like micro-factors, but if the frame performance differences really are zero (for example if "planing" does not exist), then very small differences are significant matters. However, it would also be interesting if it shows that the difference between the vintage sample and the modern one is smaller than some of these taken together. My best guess is that wind and road grade will be much bigger factors than all of the others. Hence my assumptions that wind speed versus road speed and road vertical profile need to be part of the data taken and possibly compensated for.

Test site can affect this stuff. Could use a large indoor flat oval track to eliminate road and wind variations, maybe mark out a big two-corner or four-corner track inside a huge convention center like Detroit's Cobo Hall or McCormick Place in Chicago. In any track with a wide raceway actual distance is a factor (just watch any track race or Olympic speed-skating), because many different lines can be taken through the curves. Outdoors, Indianapolis Speedway, the Bloomer outdoor oval track NW of Detroit or Michigan International Speedway might be good choices, if curve banking and line can be taken into account or restricted. Probably the track time is the biggest cost beyond instrumentation and software. Certainly lap timing is an alternative to bike instrumentation, except perhaps for power recording. I'm assuming that riders, techs, and data analysis will be done by bike dweebs like me, and the rider is a member who is a capable amateur racer and who already has great bikes he/she is willing to use. Basically it's mostly pro-bono, story of my life these days!

If there's any support for crazy ideas like this, maybe I'll start a new thread where interested people can discuss how or if this could really be done, and if it should be done.

Road Fan

iab and others, I wonder if this could be tested, aside from iab's insight that it doesn't strongly matter, i.e. is not likely to be significant. That sounds like it is correct, but is there any solid evidence of comparison? BQ has done various tests in it's efforts to prove or disprove an effect due to what it calls "planing." Most of them look at climb results of two riders, looking at who won and changing bikes and repeating. A few used power meters. All of those should be reviewed but I'm pretty sure they have not done a vintage race bike versus a modern race bike.

Are there any hub power meters that will fit a 120 mm (or less) rear OLD and take a vintage freewheel? Probably need pedal power sensors, plus ground speed and airspeed - a headwind or lack of one is one of the biggest random factors that can mess things up. Probably need to do some modeling on Analytic Cycling to identify some of the random external factors that should be eliminated. This actually doesn't sound too difficult. I guess my leap is what kind of small electronic device can do the data acquisition, over perhaps a 10-mile time trial.

Upsetting factors in order of estimated significance: wind, road vertical profile bike fit/geometry (differences may be huge, such as VERY vintage 69 degree seat tube angles versus +/- 74 degrees for modern), rider acclimation to the different gearings, rider climbing technique, tire selection match, and even descending technique.

Some of these seem like micro-factors, but if the frame performance differences really are zero (for example if "planing" does not exist), then very small differences are significant matters. However, it would also be interesting if it shows that the difference between the vintage sample and the modern one is smaller than some of these taken together. My best guess is that wind and road grade will be much bigger factors than all of the others. Hence my assumptions that wind speed versus road speed and road vertical profile need to be part of the data taken and possibly compensated for.

Test site can affect this stuff. Could use a large indoor flat oval track to eliminate road and wind variations, maybe mark out a big two-corner or four-corner track inside a huge convention center like Detroit's Cobo Hall or McCormick Place in Chicago. In any track with a wide raceway actual distance is a factor (just watch any track race or Olympic speed-skating), because many different lines can be taken through the curves. Outdoors, Indianapolis Speedway, the Bloomer outdoor oval track NW of Detroit or Michigan International Speedway might be good choices, if curve banking and line can be taken into account or restricted. Probably the track time is the biggest cost beyond instrumentation and software. Certainly lap timing is an alternative to bike instrumentation, except perhaps for power recording. I'm assuming that riders, techs, and data analysis will be done by bike dweebs like me, and the rider is a member who is a capable amateur racer and who already has great bikes he/she is willing to use. Basically it's mostly pro-bono, story of my life these days!

If there's any support for crazy ideas like this, maybe I'll start a new thread where interested people can discuss how or if this could really be done, and if it should be done.

C9H13N 

I don’t even own a power meter, but I think this would be interesting.

Use a rear wheel with a Powertap hub, and power meter pedals.

Modern bike.
Vintage steel bike with modern groupset.
Same vintage steel bike with 7 speed cassette and friction DT shifters.

iab

Plenty of crankset powermeters. Should be somewhat easy to put them on a variety of bikes. But as Road Fan points out, either you suck out variables, which takes the fun out of it, or you need a large data set, many many rides to smooth out the variables, again, sucking the fun out of it. At least for me.

dmarkun

+1
On a good day on the W&OD I can barely pass the new moms jogging behind their double-wide strollers. My favorite thing: being passed by a flying buzz bike and getting a wave and a "nice bike" call out.

gthomson

Can confirm what most others say here but there's just something about a vintage steel bike that looks so nice, whether it's the chrome or the variety of colours that make them stand out from new bikes. I still ride my Peugeot I bought in HS in 1986 and love riding around town showing it off. It makes me feel special, even when all these guys are whizzing by on thousand dollar bikes, they all look the same in my eyes. Something about the gun metal black colour that all the new bikes come in which is so dull if you ask me.

Road Fan

Yes, "sucking out the variables" makes it look a lot like "real" engineering testing. For us it would need a lot of disciplined pro-bono cooperation, at a distance. And again, a facility that we are authorized to use.

tkamd73 

I ride vintage bikes because I like the way higher end steel, with lugs looks, and rides, aluminum and carbon not so much. I like taking an old frame, and making it my canvas, then sorting it out when finished. I like the simplicity, they are easy to maintain, and with basic mechanical skills, one never has to take it to a shop. The components are reliable, and last like, forever.
I also like how I usually never see bikes similar to mine when I ride, in fact if everyone else rode them, I wouldn’t. I don’t ride vintage bikes because I care about power meters, or micro/macro efficiency, or so I can fit into a large group, the greatest number of other people I’ll ever ride with, is 2.
Oh yeah, I like that all my bikes come from the US, UK, Italy, or Japan too, created in an era when bean counters were just consultants, or outside contractors.
Tim

markk900

tkamd73 I *love* the colour of that bike! Do you have a thread on it somewhere?

robertj298 

This .Pluss Why do people drive a 1963 Corvette instead of a 2020?

Germany_chris

because they’re not very smart

Wileyone 

A Power Meter?

Isn't that what they read to figure out your electric bill?

rlorenz2

They Look good
Ride is great
Fun to work on

rekmeyata

Because the 1963 Corvette looks 10 times better than a 2020 Corvette, plus in 20 years check and see which one is worth more, hell the 63 Corvette Split Window Rochester Fuel Injection 327 V8 360 horsepower is worth more NOW than a 20 Vette!! In like-new condition, the 63 Vette is worth about $148,000. While the 2020 Vette does perform a lot better, but back in 63 that Vette was the best performance car you could buy from America, and in 55 years that new 2075 Vette will probably outperform the 20 Vette, while the old 63 Vette will be worth over a million dollars.

Which one would I rather have? If I didn't care about performance then I would far rather have the 63 Vette, it was a lot easier to work on with just a few basic hand tools. The only change I would make to it is to replace the points and condenser with the Pertronix system, it still retains the original look, and it's easy to convert back and forth, but once the Pertronix is in place I never have to worry about setting dwell or adjusting the point gap, or replacing points and the condenser ever again. Plus using unleaded fuel eliminates the constant 12,000 spark plug changes to maybe 50,000 miles instead; with modern oil that would eliminate the need for 3,000-mile oil changes and go to 5,000-mile range instead. So modern fuel and oil along with the more modern electronic point system would make that car darn near maintenance-free!

tkamd73 

Thanks! Couple of postings in the “show us your Supercourse thread”. Yellow Jersey did the paint and decals, Andy the owner handed me a couple of PPG/DuPont catalogs, and I picked out the color, decals were originals he brought back from England years ago.

Tim

victorm

Personally the journey of breathing new life into something that’s basically waiting to be discarded is the addiction for me. When I take some of those parts that look like they’ve died and cleaned and polished, greased painted whatever, it gives me a real sense of pride. I could buy a new bike or new parts but that’s not what I’m after. When I ride down the river trail and see the Costco and Walmart crowd I feel so original and different which is great as well. I see so many full suspension 29ers riding around the paved streets of my neighbourhood and it seems somewhat absurd.

thook

that's quite debatable....lol

anything prior to early 2000 was obd I and II. anyone could either pull trouble codes themselves or go to an auto store and have them scan it for you. early EFI and prior were/are just so easy to work on. didn't have to pull the motor to just replace one sensor...or gasket...or etc

my dad has a '65. upgraded to some hydraulic assisted parts and disc brakes and it's a pleasure to drive. no plastic to break, no switches to go out so you can't get your window down.....i could go on, but......smart is relative

ps. granted...in cab air systems SUUUUCCKED!!

Germany_chris

The cars now are hard to work on thing has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that a corvette is a performance car and cars from that era simply don’t perform like the new ones. If you want garage art that’s fine but let’s no lie to ourselves about what it is and it’s performance capabilities or it’s quality of construction

tkamd73 

Not crazy about the looks of the new corvette, every predecessor, but the C4 has nicer lines. However, on the street you do have to respect the performance of the new one, unless your driving a Tesla S or X. Drivers of those are probably even smarter.
Tim

SurferRosa

True, my bikes are art. They are incredibly beautiful. Classic, timeless, reliable, eternal. But I do love to ride them as well. Hard and fast.

Germany_chris

The car v bike comparison is troubled from the outset.

==
The value argument is also troubled the folks spending big money on old muscle cars are older folks who remember them from their youth and they're not going to be around all that much longer. Cars from the 30's and 40's haven't continued to go up in value and cars from the late 50 to early 70's will taper off as the generation that wants them dwindles. I wouldn't walk across the street for a 60's or 70's Corvette/Camaro/Mustang/Cuda/AMX but I'd move heaven and earth for a nice low mileage 993/gen 3 RX7/E30 M3/gen 4 Supra Turbo/Z31 300zx