RFC

Thank you. You said it more diplomatically than I was going to.

Wino Ryder

I use to have STI's on one of my classics and it was really cool. Shifting was fast and I could change gears out of the saddle. For a racer its great. For club riders battling it out on the Saturday group ride its great. But I've always loved the aesthetics and simplicity of DT shifters, be it friction or indexed. I am not a racer boy but I do ride hard and fast on my solo rides and DT shifters are it for me. Call me a retro grouch, but the new bikes just dont interest me. If it is not steel, then its not real.

kaliayev

Huh? Ever hear of Hudz. Lot more choices than non aero.

Bikedued

The main thing STI's did for cycling is allow people who barely know how to ride a bike, to ride a top of the line racing machine. I've modernized a couple of vintage bikes with STI's, and they always seem to get boring after a while. With that said, components seemed to have hit their peak around 95-96 or so. Components now? Difficult to set up correctly, extremely finicky, delicate, and the chain/cogs don't last half as long as ten years ago even. Yeah they weigh nothing, but if you put serious miles on them, you better be ready to replace them often. Likewise with frames. The lifetime warranty is a thing of the past. If you're lucky it's five years, not something I want to drop an average $1500-$2500 on!

Case in point, the new Specialized Venge.... GORGEOUS, and light as hell! But...? Three out of the four we have sold have cracked on the right seat stay, somewhere between the dropout and the seatpost clamp. No thanks!,,,,BD

gomango

This place can get absurd.

Time to go for a ride.

RFC

Amen. Been in DC all week. Today, ride/lift/ride/nap and maybe ride some more.

I see the C&V hobby as primarily a collector hobby like old cars and that, for me, is the enjoyment. Sure I like riding them just as old car collectors like driving their old cars. But I gravitate towards my modern bikes for workouts and longer rides. Lately I have been reducing my C&V holdings by selling some and reducing the ones I like most but don't ride to frames (to me, the collectible part).

Bikedued

I don't blame you. I'm going riding tomorrow. Mountain biking, with a new friend. I only hope I can keep up, hehe. She rides a rigid Gary Fisher single speed 26 inch.,,,,BD

KonAaron Snake 

Big time +1

Total apples and oranges and this tread doesn't take into account the time finding a decent vintage bike and the time invested to make it rideable. My time has a monetary value to it.

I've never ridden a CF frame, so I won't bash them. I will say my older bikes generally ride like wet turds compared to my newer stuff, and if you think the older parts systems work nearly as well as the newer stuff, you've never ridden it.

The aesthetics issues are just opinions and we all have our preferences. A lot of older bikes are ugly to me too...I dare say most. to me there's nothing uglier than suicide levers and turkey wings. They look like strange protuberances and brifters look elegant in comparison.

I like older bikes too - but I much prefer campy ergos when riding. I love dual pivot and v brakes.

Giacomo 1 

I agree for the most part. It's like trying to compare a new Corvette with a 69 Corvette. Performance wise, the two just don't compare. But how many drivers are really good enough to drive either car to their max to be able to really tell the difference? Most riders couldn't max out an old Schwinn 10 speed Varsity, let alone a 15lb. 27 speed carbon fiber Cervello, so why spend $3-5000 on a bike that looks like a NASCAR clone and is just as ugly?

I know guys that weigh about 200lbs that would rather spend their retirement money on a super-duper, ultra-lightweight, space-age plastic bike, that weighs about 2lbs. less than their current ride, instead of trying to lose 10 or 15lbs. themselves and improving their motor.

There comes a point where the improvements can't even be realized by the average rider...

Shp4man

I've never ridden a modern CF bike. I'm sure they are nice and light. I will say the cassettes are noisey as h#ll, and a good light CF bike is pricey. Plus they're made in China. I suppose that applies to all kinds of consumer products these days But other than that...
The bike's engine is a bigger factor than the bike itself, right?

gomango

My "former" 2007 Colnago Extreme Power was made in Italy.

Stiffest bike I have ever ridden.

Also, the best handling bicycle I have ever ridden.

I made a mistake and sold it before I lost so much weight.

I felt guilty about owning it before because I couldn't push it hard enough.

I'd take another crack at that beast any day of the week.

Bandera

All,

When I purchased a "good road bike" in 1973 it listing for $400, a big wad of bucks to me back then.

This online inflation calculator says:

"$1.00 in 1973 had the same buying power as $5.40 in 2013"

https://www.dollartimes.com/calculators/inflation.htm

A simple spreadsheet calc gives an equivalent 2013 outlay of $2,160 today for that 1973 expenditure.

Something to chew on.

-Bandera

cobrabyte

A fair comparison. I think of it like a VW Beetle vs. a modern Honda Accord. Some folks want a car that's reliable and they can fix up with a basic tool set and some knowledge. There's not much to go wrong with a VW, but if it does, you can fix it in your driveway and be back on the road in no time. You can also shift it yourself which is kind of like firction shifting in a way. With the Honda, you get better modern performance, air conditioning, a navigation system, automatic transmission... but if things go wrong, most folks would need to take it to a shop where they can hook it up to a computer and usually the repair requires advanced knowledge and specific equipment.

As far as performance goes, that's all relative. I for one could care less about stiff bikes or "fast & light" bikes, as I am not a road bike type of guy. The performance I look for is a sturdy frame, sturdy componants that are reliable, and easy to repair. Comfort is a big factor for me too. I like to commute and tour, as well as "putter around" town. I'm also not a vintage only guy, I am aware there are some advances in the types of bikes I like too, and as I collect the parts to build up my Kogswell P/R it becomes clear that even in the practical bikes, the modern stuff is quite pricey compared to the the older stuff.

Generally speaking, the modern vs. vintage debate seems to be related more to the road biking scene, or MTB scene. Tourers and commuters tend to stick with what works, and what works was figured out a while back. I see a lot of love for the vintage stuff in the commuting and touring forums, not so much in the road or MTB forums, those guys tend to view the vintage stuff as a novelty.

gomango

Correct.

An old mtb is an old mtb.

I have a 1983 Stumpjumper that is fun to tool around on, but it simply can't perform like my El Mariachi.

....and an El Mar is hardly state of the art.

We rode down at the river today in the mud and sand. The Stumpie would have been a waste of time.

T-Mar

Hey, watch what you're saying about my Spanish cousin!

dgodave

I like 80s bikes compared to typical modern ones because:
.
They perform well enough for non-race riding.
They are more durable and reliable in many ways.
They can be a lot cheaper.
They are often rare.
They have emotional associations attached to the time when I took up cycling.

fender1

Vintage bikes are a preference item. There are plenty of relatively, inexpensive options for steel road bikes from bikes direct & the like. While many here will tout the "value" of the older bike, it is no value unless you have tools, parts, knowledge & time. Everyone likes to show off their "amazing deal" but most are less apt to show off the money pits (we all have them).

If you you like working on old bikes, then the cost is less of an option, as all hobbies take money from you. They give you enjoyment & happiness in return. When these conversations start and people talk about having 20 bikes running and 10 more and parts I just wonder "Why?"

Is "more" inherently better than less? If someone has a modern bike, paid full retail but rides and enjoys it, does that make it a bad purchase? Conversely, if a person has 20 bikes and barely rides but has not spent as much, is their situation better?

gomango

dddd

Personally (and since I only ride with my hands on the hoods when sprinting or while climbing hills out of the saddle), I've found no better brake lever setup than Weinmann (or similar Dia-Compe) using both hoods and safety levers.

The aesthetic appeal comes with time, as form follows function. One doesn't need four fingers wrapped around these short hoods, the smallest fingers conform around the bar as needed for larger hands.

The price is so right, especially as regards the $10 hoods, and the safety levers allow unlimited use of the three main hand positions, the aero "pull" position (drops), the sprint/climb position (hoods) and the cruise/recovery position (tops).

Additionally, the generous cable bend radius negates the need for fresh or even modern cabling, and the ease of cable maintenance can't be beat.
Weinmann even offered clamps sized for the smaller diameter steel handlebars.

All this, and the total lack of pretensciousness of an old Weinmann-style brake/lever setup.
And the looks? Notice how the lever follows the bar's curvature along the drops.

Judge the aesthetics for yourself (just remember that in this regard they maintain these bike's original spec 100%), and don't pick on the safety levers just because a bike has poorly set up brake calipers, beat-up cabling or poor brake pads.

jimmuller 

Since when has riding a vintage bike been all about the cost/benefit ratio? Or been any at all about the cost/benefit ratio?

We ride a vintage repainted-blue, decal-less tandem with French derailleurs and original Mafac canti brakes because it's the coolest tandem in the state! Or at least in our eyes it is. The rest of my bikes are where they are and in the rideable condition they are because I like them.

eschlwc

the corvette analogy doesn't work. who here would rather have a modern corvette over a '67 stingray? that's absurd. in a few years, the modern corvette will he worth $10k, and the stingray will still be worth 5 times that. put modern disks and suspension on the stingray, and you've got a dream machine.

the trouble with the car analogy is comfort, materials and fit/finish have changed dramatically, but horsepower hasn't. or, more importantly, you can only go so fast on the streets.

that said, i prefer a '69 911. much less torque than the muscle car, but a lot more fun, at least from my view.

KonAaron Snake 

Pandas are better than giraffes.

I like my cat.

DiegoFrogs

I like vintage bikes because they make women swoon.

It's a fairly affordable hobby, too.

I don't have any modern road bikes, but I did buy a new Trek 29er last year. It's a fun bike, too.

Bruce Enns

Hmmmm, I am rather amazed at the responses in this thread. While "No Flame War" is intended, reading this thread makes me wonder why so many people that post here invest so much time and money into C&V bikes. It would seem to me that many here could/should sell off their collection and go out and buy their Carbon/China dream machine.

I guess I'm just an odd ball guy that truly loves the great C&V bicycles, enjoys riding them very much, and while doing so ...... having nothing to justify or prove to the weight weenie's and bike snobs out there. Grown men playing with bicycles ..........................

gomango

Now we are getting somewhere.

Rivendell
Grant
Peterson
Fixies/drew
Dogs are better than cats.
Cats are better than dogs.

Etc.