trooper2899

Dead On analogy

Metieval

What are your goals with a bicycle?
Is it commuting, exercise, fun, distance,
How much time will you ride at one time
I see from another post you are 5' 10" 265#
I caught another post saying you didn't like to let go of bars to shift your current bikes down tube shifters. Reading between the lines maybe you want something more stable than road tires. Endurance geo is better than race, but if your not looking at 20-40 mile rides why the drop bar bike?
I am 5'8" at one time I was 220. (Current 160) I know the extra weight played on my flexability it also made for uncomfortable fits with drop bars.

I guess I'll pre jump the answers and try to steer you towards a Trek Verve. Very stable at slow speeds, and they roll nice on paved bike trails. Used ones can be had for not much $
Very comfortable fun bikes.

Metieval

No, not weird. Unless we are both weird. I totally understand where you are at. I love your bike builds too.

This thread is a double edged sword. One side is fitting for the OP. The other side is just as valid too yet not really fitting for the OP.

Reflector Guy

I think it depends on the bike. A cheap bike from the 70s or 80s wasn't all that great.

I rode an old Sears bike for too many years.... I think many of the parts on it were made from pot metal. Brake calipers, for example.

shelbyfv

Phil_gretz

Steel frame? It's likely Shimano 105-equipped, with either 6 speed indexed shifting on the rear. Most likely a freewheel cluster. You feel a distinct "click" when moving the right shifter. Your crankset is likely also a Shimano 105 double and 52-42 tooth chainrings, which may be slightly oblong rather than round.

pepperbelly

The frame is aluminum. It has a biopace chainring.

mstateglfr 

It just gets worse. Really- stop it. Stop spreading misinformation.

- Steel from the 70s or 80s isnt better than steel now. I dont even know in what way you would measure such a thing. The measurements and characteristics of various tubing from the 80s is readily available today. And we now also have steel tubing that is higher strength for impact prevention, tubing that is larger for stiffness, tubing that is shaped depending on where it will be used on the bike, and tubing that is as thin as the thinnest tubing from the 80s yet not as noodly due to diameter.
- I dont know what you are actually calling 'gas pipe tubing'. Are you saying modern tubing is gas pipe, older tubing is gas pipe, or the OPs' bike's tubing is gas pipe? Regardless, you are wrong.
- Materials today are not worse than materials from 30-40 years ago. There was cheap stamped entry level stuff back then and there is cheap entry level stuff now. There were high quality finished components then and there are high quality finished components now. Materials have expanded now and more are offered, actually. Some are lighter than before, stronger than before, etc etc. Tires are better, machine built wheels are better, cables and housing is better, etc etc.

You have an ignorant and blissful view of older bikes. My garage is full of bike frames and components that are 25-40 years old and they are used on a regular basis. I also have a lot of modern components due to comfort, quality, and design.

genejockey 

Get a new bike. I looked it up - it's a bonded aluminum/steel frame and wasn't the greatest even then.

icemilkcoffee 

Nothing wrong with any of those things. If the OP has a problem with the DT shifters, the easiest fix is to change the shifters to stem mounted shifters.

I get it that everyone wants to buy a new bike. But I think the OP should attempt to get himself comfortable on his existing bike. Try different seats, handlebars, stems, etc. After trying all these things, he'll have a better idea what works for him and what doesn'.t Now he is ready to buy a new bike.

livedarklions

Gotta say--spend a bunch of time and money to fix up a bike you don't like so you can see what you want from the bike you will buy to replace it is maybe the least practical advice I've heard all day. That turns one project into two for no good reason I can imagine.

DMC707

Looks like a more modern compact type bar with a flat transition from tops to hoods ! - i like it

I always use this old DeRosa as my example of an old bike made "current" also ---- i know most of us hate stem adapters, but that chunky billet Thomson stem, saddle position a little more forward and over the pedals, and the compact bars made for a very racy and modernish position for this old rig

gearing was Campy square taper compact double, which retained a traditional appearance, but with modern gear ratios too ---- a truly sweet ride

Maelochs

Actually, the answer lies in the middle ((IMO)and others have suggested it. )

Don't psend money on the old Raleigh, but Do try things like making it fit better.

First make sure the saddle is in the right place for the owner's leg length, hip flexibility, foot length and foot placement (assuming no cleats.) Unless the seat post as welded itself into the frame, the OP should be able to raise and lower the saddle, and also move the seat fore and aft, and tilt it a little. OP could get the required tools (likely only one allen wrench) and go for a slow safe, ride where reaching down to shift won't cause a crash. Then OP can make micro-adjustments until the leg feels properly engaged and the knees don't hurt, and where the buttocks feel Better if not actually good. That relationship (saddle to BB) never much changes, it is good to have.

The OP knows that his carefully developed aero-belly keeps him from leaning forward to the bars .... but possibly (particularly if he has a quill stem) he can raise the bars some. Maybe not to where he would want them, but maybe eno0ugh to see how much of da difference it makes.

The idea is to Not send him into a bike shop with no knowledge, where, likely as not, a salesman will send him out the door with whatever bike the shop wants to sell, whether or not it is the bike the OP really wants to buy.

However .... if the OP goes to a few shops and sits on a few different bikes, he might get enough info right there.

DMC707

And ---

I did the duel of death (new vs old) a couple of years ago with my new S-Works Tarmac Di2 disc machine vs my restored DeBErnardi race bike from the 90's

On an equivalent 10 mile loop with 5 miles being mostly flat and the other 5 being rollerish with some short, steep climbs --- the time difference between these 2 a day apart on the same course was .......... not much. Mere seconds

The chief difference in i had to hop off and walk the last 100 meters of one climb due to the Italian Stallion's corn-cobbey rear cassette, while the gears on the new bike allowed me to dig down and motor up ------ The old bike seemed to motor harder on the flats though and had the feeling more of a purebred race machine while the new very effective bike, felt like an all-rounder in comparison. If i didnt have to walk the climb, the old machine may have been faster or at least equal if speed is the only metric we look at

So will i go back to using an old bike exclusively? Its prettier for darn sure

No ---- the ride is harsher (53c steel plus deep section alloy wheels will do that) , the traditional position is deeper and harder to deal with for my now 50 yo Clydesdale self (check out the drop on those old Cinelli bars ) , plus the gearing is limited . And unlike the DeRosa i posted about in my prior response, i will not be "modernizing" the gearing and cockpit - but i could and it worked well on that bike

But the bike just does not have the frame compliance and liveliness of a nice carbon bike -- 5 pound weight difference too

icemilkcoffee 

The alternative is to plop down money on a brand new bike and then find out it's not the right size for you, not the type of bike you needed, or it doesn't fix whatever problem you were hoping it would fix.

rydabent

Bikes pretty much reached their zenith in the late 80s with their beautiful lugged frames. The new welded frames look common, and a dime a dozen. You can have your plastic bikes too.

Maelochs

@rydabent reached hs peak about the same time, I'd wager, but he does keeps coming back here to tell us to get off his lawn.

Lots of good stuff has been designed and manufactured since 1980. And lots of crap was produced back then.

If you Really know your stuff, are willing to move on a moment's notice, and have cash in hand, you can by older bikes which are amazing deals simply because people have ignored them for decades and don't know what they have. Thing is, you either need to spend a fortune on hard-to-find ancient parts, or buy modern parts (as @DMC707 did so successfully) and basically build a bike for the same price you would buy one. The rebuilt old bike might have a great frame but it won't be cheap .... and if you don't like the geometry of the old bike you will have .... another old bike you don't like.

genejockey 

Oh, I dunno. I bought two old bikes this year that only needed new tires, cables and bar tape. I did repack the hubs and BB on both, but I didn't need any 'hard to find ancient parts'.

DMC707

Exactly. I didnt put a pencil to it, but i would guess that old DeRosa probably cost me $17- $1800 to put together from scratch as i had nothing in the parts bin i wanted to carry over or re-use. But that includes the cost of a pretty desirable frameset by a lot of peoples standards.

Interestingly, sourcing the square taper crankset with a compact bolt circle and chainrings was the toughest part --- they only made these a year or two before moving on to the Ultra Torque Crank and BB system. But aesthetically i just didnt like the big hole in the center of the crank.

$1800 sounds like a bunch, but that number could be halved pretty easilly. For instance if i had built up an equally capable Ironman frameset with Dura Ace, - (i dont cross the continental streams by putting Campy on a Japanese frameset often -- LOL) i can envision a $1000 bicycle.

Yes, you can buy a nice bicycle brand new for $1000 - $1500 -- one that would be capable enough and reliable

For some of us its a simple dollars and cents proposition, for others, its a lifestyle choice. Kind of like the Viagra commercials from a few years ago

"These are the days of making things happen! " where it shows a guy in the clutches of middle age fixing his first gen Camaro by the side of the road with a buck knife, or pulling his truck out of the mud with his horse

Tally whacker pills and vintage bikes also go together like pancakes and syrup ! (ok - that may be a bit of a stretch -- no pun intended)

Chuckles1

Indexed shifting is the reason I finally gave up on my 1981 Raleigh. Other than that, it was fine, albeit heavy. When I dropped it off at the local transfer station free stuff depot, I saw a couple all over it before I could even drive away. To each their own.

Reflector Guy

We could probably set up a poll here on the forum asking every member who is 50+ when they think bikes reached their zenith and no two members will answer the same. Every member probably has fond memories of their first good bike back at Age 19 or 22 or 35 and nothing manufactured ever since can hold a candle to it in terms of gorgeous design, manufacturing precision and material quality. Apparently Rydabent got his sometime in the late 80s.

70sSanO

From a pure performance and efficiency standpoint, nothing beats the newest bikes. No professional team competes on old technology. It doesn’t matter the generation, the most advanced bikes were/are what is used.

It is not uncommon in every sport. Professionals use the latest developed equipment. You’ll always find some minor exceptions, like professional golfers and older putters, but no persimmons out there.

The zenith attributed to older bikes are a combination of nostalgia, simplicity, and serviceability. Older bikes are easy to work on. Just like old classic cars, void of any electronics, are easy to work on. And those of us who are older can “tinker” on our bikes. I think if someone looks through the C&V subforum you’ll find few that go to an LBS to restore/maintain an old bike. It is a pastime.

John

DMC707

Just turned 50

Per my post in this thread, -- i love the bikes from my younger days -- but even when i was 25, the folks at my LBS considered me a throwback for wanting a new lugged steel bike (The white DeBernardi i showed a few posts ago ) - when everyone else was on Cannondales, early OCLV Treks, or bonded Specialized Allez carbon bikes

Although i proved my modern Tarmac is not "faster" than my old steel bike, its much more comfortable and the electronic shifting and disc brakes are so much nicer than the old stuff . Even comparing carbon vs carbon. The newer Specialized frameset is miles ahead of a Cannondale Synapse i had in 2013
--- i dont know when the Zenith will occur , but im not sure if we have hit it yet.

Granted, i am talking race and racing oriented bikes - the argument may be completely different for touring or randoneurring machines as i dont think a Tarmac would be very delightful with a rack on it at all ---

DMC707

Yep -

some people , if given $30,000 will still pick the old big block powered C-10 over a new Tacoma . - They'll both perform the same job but one has timeless sstyle points while the other - ehh - not so much.


Of course the correct answer is always N+1