I'm not sure that is all that true.

I'm not sure when the pinnacle of bicycle design is, was or will be... but there's a WHOLE lot of stuff that's better now than it was then. Stem shifters aren't more efficient than other manners of shifting; quill stems are not more versatile than threadless; cartridge bearings are easier to deal with; I've never ridden clipless- but many people I respect the opinion of do find them "better" for riding; people have always obsessed over weight- that's why lighter and stronger steels and alloys and components have been sought- and have currently ended up at CF; the best bikes of today are around 10 pounds- the middling stuff is around 25- back in the day, the best you could hope for was 20 and middling was north of 25 and the affordable stuff was north of 30, or even 40; I worry about every click and rattle on my 25-35 year old bikes; it seems the standard for "good" tires, even in America was 700C- 27" was mostly "boom" stuff.

I don't have any "new" bikes, but my wife has a Trek aluminum hybrid thing. "New" bikes don't interest me- carbon fiber... 'meh'. I think level top tubed bikes are aesthetically better looking. I wasn't into bikes in the 70s 80s or 90s. I didn't lust after this stuff when I was a kid. My "one of these days" bikes is going to be fancy pants custom build, built a lot like a top of the line touring bike would have been built- and build it up with the new stuff that makes sense, and maybe some of the old stuff that's just as functional, but more aesthetically pleasing to my own particular... idiom.

I don't ride to compete, I don't ride for transportation- I ride for the fun of it. I think bikes are beautiful- to me, the old stuff is more beautiful than the new stuff. I haven't ridden extensively with brifters, but right now I think Command Shifters are just as efficient as brifters. But I'm aware that I'm only using them in 6 speed mode and I think I would like smaller jumps between gears.

There's not an "us vs. them" type thing unless you make it that. There's stuff that was better looking and ostensibly made more sense back then, but there's a lot of stuff that's leagues better and makes a lot more sense than what was available back then.

I am not a classic Luddite as evidenced by my more modernized '88 Criterium Series with Vuelta wheels and cassette, BB cartridge for lightweight and ease of maintenance. These were built for speed and crazy people, of which I am chief. However, the Trek 760 will be as is with me worrying only about a slight chip in the lovely paint. Well, I did put a set of Krylions on it.

Awww, C'mon.... 10 lbs.? Who has a 10 lb. bike to actually ride? I'd say the average CF bike today is around 19 lbs.-same as my '97 aluminum Klein. The top-O-the-line ones for actual riding, might be 15 lbs. Pretty much all decent steel bikes from the 70's were under 22 lbs. You'd be surprised how manyu mid-level bikes today are still in the 21-22 lb. range.

And with quill stems, you always had the option of it's full range of height adjustment, for the entire life of the bike- as opposed to today's bikes, where you have to use a stack of spacers or cut the steerer- and once you cut that steerer, the only way to raise that stem again is to get a new fork. Such a detriment, and for what? To save 2 ounces?

I'm like you; I ride purely for pleasure and enjoyment. These modern "wonder bikes" do nothing for people like us. I had to try one, just to see for myself; but I was right....there's little difference for people like us; they're only relevant for racers, where every second counts, and where you have to have the same equipment as your competitors.

Brifters seem ******** to me. With the old downtube shifters, you want to go from one end of the cassette to the other extreme? One flick of the lever, and done! With brifters....you'll be sitting there going "click!click!click!click!click!"- and with the DTs, you can feel the shift, and when shifting the FD, you can shift and trim in one motion.

I mean, don't get me wrong- I enjoy riding my Venge....and it can be fun getting a modern bike, just because it's different than what we were used to- but rteally, considering what they cost, and the fact that they still don't do anything that a 70's or 80's bike of similar quality can't do....yet are a lot more expensive to maintain...understand that they are just a frill.

And while I do ride clipless now (another thing I just had to try- especially since SPD pedals came with my Klein when I bought it), and it's O-K; I could have spent the rest of my life riding with toe clips and have been just as happy.

I wish that my Venge had bosses for DT shifters! I'd use them! (Ditto for the Klein!)

I concur. The Kiss strategy still applies to a lot of items you can buy today. I picked up a 1940 Road King (Canadian CCM) and only had to replace the tires since the tubes were still good. I spent around six hours cleaning the bike up and overhauling the hubs. I was surprised at how well it rode and the relaxed upright riding position was nice. Only downside is mediocre braking and climbing hills. With reasonable care this bike could give reliable service for many decades...
http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=432958

ah the good old days. WHen flip flop was all you needed to change gears. and you carried your spare tub around your shoulders like a broken collar bone harness, and used it for your broken collar bone if it snapped halfway through your ride

Now we have these insolent whippersnappers bragging on about their ten speed gearing and fifty-moving-pieces Mafac Centre pull brakes. My god where does it end? Now it is all so very confusing knowing your gear inches that overlap because of the .. i don't know how many 'derailleurs' they have. That's what they call them, BTW 'derailleurs'. God Almighty. cables running all directions, snagging your nuts when you stop at a light. And now I hear my stash of cotterpins for cranksets is soon to be worthless too! I mean aluminium is for camping pots. We can't have flimsy weak failing aluminium being formed into actual drivetrain parts! bah! You know I was in the shops last week and this Lejeune had a saddle made of hard solid plastic. Now who wants that? was all leather and springs in my day donchaknow. We are so going backwards.

this is 1974 signing off

I studied classics in college. Speaking of classics, I want you to know: Spike Jones is murdering the classics.

http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=433043http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=433044

This is 1974 in continual service for >40 years, worked a treat this AM and not due to sign off anytime soon.

-Bandera

I can't stand the way he sings...but I love to hear him talk.

very nice machine that,. what is not to love And you know, a 1974 bike is no worse than a 1934 bike, just as 2015 bike is no worse than those than came before.

Can we not have love for both classics and contemporaries too?

Though one thing I will get grumpy and complain: why in the wide world of sports do my brifters not have front derailleur trim like everything that came before (and after, like Di2)?

In 1964 my Schwinn Varsity had down tube shifters. All ten speeds (in that era) had down tube shifters to the best of my knowledge. I don't think we even knew stem mounted shifters were coming.

I ride modern bicycles. But I also keep a classic-vintage bike or two around as well. There is a simplistic beauty to down tube shifters. I had never contemplated that a member that visits the classic and vintage forums may not have ever ridden a bike with down tube shifters.

I have that record in my collection. :thumb:

What the heck kind of brifters do you have? Even the Sora brifters on my first road bike had FD trim.....

http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=433068 look at the chrome on that thing ..

The bling on this thing:
[IMG]https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3758/...43db1862_b.jpg2008-06-15 00.30.48 by superissimo_83, on Flickr[/IMG]

You know, I actually prefer the 1934 bike over the 1974 bike. The 1934 bike will have details lacking in the 1974. Small things like having the bike brand stamped into nearly every component instead of that over-the-top pantographing.

Generally, when we meet to ride, we look at bikes and make few comments, as everyone's mind is on the next bunch of miles. Yesterday's ride brought a newbie named Zach on his aluminum aero Cervelo, and a regular named Mike on his new Look full carbon. I've somehow convinced him (probably by not buying it) to use the 10-sp carbon Record that came on it, and now, of course, he's hooked. Boy, that was easy. Another new guy started riding about a year ago, 58 years old, and is hooked. Other than noting my friend's redone Kestrel and my modern steel, we didn't say much, and we were off. Nothing much would have been said if I'd been on my steel '80's bikes; we've all ridden before, for the most part, and I've never had a new guy comment on something like that; it would seem fairly forward of a thing to do.

During the ride, you do what you do, whether it's on friction, DT indexed, bar end or brifter/Ergo. I've ridden all during group rides and never gave it a second thought. Yesterday, the new old guy never shifted and his saddle was too low. He mashed into, across, and with the wind. He loved it. The new young guy out-rode us all until the breakaway with 10 to go. My friend's Kestrel stopped going to the big ring, so I swapped with him just before the breakaway, taking the 39/12 to places it may have never been before. My friend thinks the modern steel is sliced bread. The Look had to turn around at 1/3 of the way, since he has 5 kids and about an hour is all he ever gets. One of our riders is healed from a lacerated kidney that he got when he went down on his tri-bike (while in the tuck). I've ridden with these guys for years, and all we ever do is ride. I've ridden DT shifters, friction and indexed, and bar end and brifter/ergos. It's never seemed to matter, and I can tell you that, in my experience, DT shifting is pretty nice in rolling hill country.

After the ride, we talk of speed, the dogs, and the breakaway. Then we start talking bikes, and the appreciation for the older stuff tends to come forth at that time. The newer bikes are just newer bikes, and they get a once-over, but the older stuff gets the curiousity, the longer looks. That craft and art form doesn't sway them from what they roll on, but they do appreciate it. When the ride is over, and we actually have some time, the bicycle as a modern art form takes over, and we look everything over, and share unsupported beliefs.

As for old and new, I still prefer a classic bike. I grew up looking down at slender steel tubes, and the imprint is still with me. Like iab, I appreciate the time and thought process behind the way bikes and components were made, not to advertise, but to say "I did this and I'm proud of it." I like how lugs dress up a tube, and still serve a function. I like how older bikes have places that shine and need maintenance, and how you may not want to ride them in the rain, and how you actually have to use grease in chunks, and how they're mechanical.

Doesn't mean I won't ride the most modern and advanced I can afford, given my priorities.

Not just the bling. The dropouts, the detail on the skewer, the function and form of the hub cutouts, the cleanliness (and need to maintain) the spokes. The imprint of "passion" on the hub, the rim that needs care and cleaning, but holds the business end of a mechanical device designed for a purpose but is still a tribute to the hands of man. The hidden bearings of steel that have to be cleaned, packed right, and adjusted, with wrenches, and can be re-done again and again, because a future of not doing so was not a factor in the production of the item. The subject of this photo requires wrenches, and tools, and know-how and experience to correct and maintain. This is before Plug 'n' Play. All this speaks to us in the blink of an eye and we form an opinion that encompasses the entire range, from birth to death, of this piece of machine. And we like it.

That's back there.
How about Crusader Rabbit and Rags? Colonel Bleep?

Top

When it comes down to it, most bikes, old or new, will get the job done.

But I often feel that the new bikes are a bit silly, as they loudly proclaim to have "all the latest", and yet can't do anything more than the old bikes. So my "aero" wheel might slice through the wind a hair easier IF the wind is coming from the right direction. If it's coming from the wrong direction, I feel like I'm riding on ice! Of course they "hide" the nipples on that aero wheel- after all, you wouldn't want all that needless "drag" would you? ;) -Hiding those nipples has no real-world benefit; in fact, it is a detriment, because now when you want to true the wheel, you have to take the tire and tube off, and do so from the inside!

So what's the advantage? Oh...you can wordlessly proclaim "I'm riding something that was engineered in a wind tunnel, and not some ancient contraption from 1999 whioch was so crude that you could actually see the spoke nipples! Ha! Now envy me, because we are both too stupid to realize that the drag created by an extra 2mm of metal is meaningless on a vehicle which goes 25MPH, and whose rider is the primary source of aero resistance...".

And as Robbie Tunes said, DT's are the ticket in the hills! (Where you need to often make large gear changes abruptly). You can shift faster with DT's than with brifters.

But to me, the real thing about classics, are the aesthetics- as many are showing in this thread. Chrome, and bikes that came in every color of the rainbow- as opposed to today, where everything is freakin' BLACK, red or white! Now here's the thing with that: I think the builders/manufacturers of classic bikes realized that the bicycle had pretty much evolved to the point where no appreciable improvements were going to be made; so rather than trying to use "science" to foist imperceptible "advancements" on the buying-public, they instead concentrated on craftsmanship and artistry- making their bikes as aesthetically pleasing and distinctive as possible. Whereas today, that aestheti seems to be out the window; and instead they seem to be selling "science"- i.e. the most advanced-looking bike made of the most exotic materials [to the point where those materials are no longer exotic] wins.

We actually LOSE a lot because of that ethic, because we are essentially "told" to forgo the taste and class of an already mature technology, in favor of an aesthetic which proclaims to an improvement on the already mature technology- but which really isn't, so instead it has to loudly advertise what it is supposed to be doing, while in reality doing nothing- and for this we are supposed to be willing to give up the beauty of craftsmanship and artistry.

So now we see huge logos, on the bikes themselves, and on components- especially wheels- which I guess are supposed to take the place of craftmanship and artistry- so instead of a chrome hub and outlined lugs, and such things which advertise beauty and quality to the discerning eye, we are supposed to just look at these logos now, and **think** "oh, that's a good brand"- even if there is no beauty or craftsmanship or uniqueness- much like someone who has no taste in dress, but whose idea of style is to wear clothes of certain brands, with the brand logo festooned loudly on every garment, because it is only the logo and the advertising of the brand which sets it apart; as it can not otherwise be distinguished from anything else- unlike garments of true class and taste whose quality and style are self-evident; and whoe makers realize that festooning them with obvious outward logos would be detrimental.

Incorrect.

I can move my finger 1 inch before you can move your hand.

Not that it matters.

With my 11 spd bikes it's a lot more clicks.

I built up an 80's Apollo 7 spd this winter with downtube shifters and have been riding it on the trainer. It's been almost 30 years since I'd ridden a bike with DT shifters and I'm amazed how smooth the shifting is.

But how many times do you have to move your finger to from 27t to 11t? click!click!click!click!click!click! :) It's ridiculous. So it may take me half a second longer to move my hand- but I'm not losing anything during that time- and when my hand gets to the DT shifter, I can do the big gear change in one fast movement, while you're still clicking away.

Exactly. I had never used brifters until I got my first road bike as an adult 3 years ago. Before that (30 years ago), it was always DTs. I thought the brifters were kind of cool at first- but then it dawned on me how inefficient they are; and how they lack the tactile feel of the Dts.

My next bike is going to be a C&V with DT's- and I have a feeling that after getting back to the simplicity of that, I just may sell my more modern bikes. I feel so stupid clicking away at those fat protuberances, here in the hills, where drastic gear changes are needed frequently click!click!click!click!click!click!click! every 2 seconds! vs. DT's: flick. Done! (And shift the FD and trim it, all in one motion if you're competent).

The only question remaining for me, is: Friction or indexed? It doesn't really matter to me all that much- I;ll think I'll just take whatever happens to be on the bike that I buy.

For just plootering about at one's own pace how and why one shifts matters little if at all.
However when riding in a paceline precision and shift time do matter, as well as the ability to shift while standing and under considerable load.

" So it may take me half a second longer to move my hand" in that time one can be gapped by being in the wrong gear. Thing happen fast in a paceline and not having to chase to close gaps adds up. It's an environment of inches and 1/2 seconds at pace all ride long and I'm determined to not get dropped. Having the brakes covered at all times for a deft touch as required is safer in the tight confines of paceline work than having to reach down for a DT control however briefly. I ride my 'brifter bike exclusively in pacelines for those reasons.

"But how many times do you have to move your finger to from 27t to 11t?" I've never made a shift across my entire cog range in >40 years, if I had to the modern indexed system would get it done with no drama and my finger is up to the task.

I spend more time on my oldest technology bikes but the CF 'brifter machine gets pulled out for the most demanding terrain and fastest paces because it works better there. It's really lousy for bringing home a free range chicken and fresh veg from the farmer's market on the other hand.

-Bandera

Stucky pretty well describes the aesthetic disaster that so many of today's bikes are, not that some of them aren't more tastefully rendered.

I checked out a women's-specific model from Specialized that the local used-bike shop let go cheap yesterday, and here was a bike which was not much over-done, no loud wheels and a good balance of colors and contrasts, since it's designers weren't trying to sell a racing bike.

Also, I have bought a couple of 9-speed-era Cannondales over the last week, both with level top tubes and at about 20-21 pounds, and these of course have become normal-looking by now but still ride like Cannondales, tending to be harsh in the front end I've noticed. At least they don't creak.

It seems like at every point in time, we have and had certain problems with bicycles/parts, so in this sense today's bikes are little better than in the past, yet can be very expensive to maintain, what with all the "clever" componentry and with their longer cabling which produces so much index-error-inducing elasticity along the cable's length in response to inevitable small increases in friction.
So many riders suffer along, continually adapting to and getting used to deteriorating shifting function in their attempt to keep expenses in check, not to mention the inconvenience of having to drop off and leave their bike in the shop, of having to have the bars re-wrapped to service cabling and of having to deal with occasional service errors on the part of those doing all of this extra work. And of course the bike needs to be picked up when the bike is said to be "ready".

Back in the day, we perhaps struggled more with our personal gearing strategy compromises, since we had so fewer gears, and bikes destined for hilly terrain were likely to be compromised on flatter terrain. But the advances in chain width and such are to a degree easily adaptable to the old bikes, so it's no problem adding a few gears, and with shifting quality improving at the same time.

I think that the biggest evolution in quality is seen in today's low-cost bikes, no doubt since shops don't want to have to fight with getting low-quality bikes ready for sale, and so have avoided finicky brands/models so as not to see their profits lost to wasted time.

With Campagnolo, 3 times. From 27 to 11, twice. It is capable of moving more than 1 gear at a time.

And I could never, never, imagine a situation where I would need to dump all the gears. So your imaginary scenario was no real world application.