This guy gets it.

I can attest except it is a 55, not 57. It does still turn heads.

6% faster is nothing to sneeze at. Let's say you go for a group ride with some friends, and your bike is 6% slower. Ride at the same power as they do, and after one mile, you're 100 yards behind them. It's the difference between keeping up and being left for dead.

Now, that might not be important to you, and that's completely valid! I don't always ride my modern CF bike with disc brakes, even though it is the fastest, lightest, and cushiest bike I have, despite the disc brakes and clinchers, because I have other bikes that have different characters, and that might be what I want on any given day more than speed.

Different bikes for different moods or circumstances. I too have my cruser and go-fast bikes. I just depends - and not talking about under-roos.

Only if you are in the front/pulling. At the speeds an ex pro can pull at. That 6% was a full gas TT. The rest of the time, in the draft - minimally different.

Ive seen other videos with that guy - he is legit strong - meaning legit speeds, where aero kicks in. Slow that down to mortal speeds and that 6% is less.

And, they used old tires. And he was wearing old wool kit… most of that 6% comes from wheels and tires, some from the kit, some from the frame.

You must ride with some nice folks, if they let you wheelsuck for the entire ride!

Also, drag is REDUCED in the draft, not eliminated, so you'd STILL have to either work harder than everyone else, or go slower, and going slower gets you gapped, and you lose the benefit of drafting. And every time you pull, you're having to put out that extra 6%.

The one issue with "New-New" is if the bike sits dormant for extended periods. Then batteries and sealant need to be addressed. Hydraulic fluid not so much.

I like my last "new" bike because I had it built right before the afore mentioned advancements became commonplace.

Thus, it can hang in the garage over winter...or for months...years...and be rideable in seconds. I like that. I don't want my maintenance job I have to stay on top of.

No mention of frame stiffness?

Who can remember the "joy" of mashing the gears on an old steel frame, with the bottom bracket visibly rocking back and forth, and the chainring rubbing the front derailleur on every pedal downstroke? Good times.

Of course, nowadays we get to hear our rear brake rotor rubbing as we put down the watts. But it just doesn't feel as satisfying.

I have a CF Bianchi from 2006, which is stiff but not compliant, whereas my 2020 Canyon is both. With steel it was always a compromise - how stiff (Columbus MAX) vs how compliant (Tange Champion 1). I challenge you to flex the BB on my Battaglin MAX.

Exactly why I ride vintage. :D

Classic bike forums thread, a select but vocal number of 60 to 80 year olds justifying to each other why they don’t want to ride new bikes but rather prefer their old rigs. I especially enjoy the comments like durability, future parts availability, ease of maintenance where individuals are not sufficiently self aware they will be long gone before they would ever have an issue with a new performance bicycle.

I am just finishing a month in Catalonia, Spain an area extremely popular with cyclists. I encountered people of all ages, abilities and riding types, roadies, triathletes, gravel, bike packers and long distance touring were about and none were riding the old rigs these forums obsess over. The major differentiator between these forums vocal majority and the actual cycling community, these forums are not about the activity of cycling but rather about reliving the past and acquisition.

Modern bikes provide amazing performance and the diversity of the equipment is astounding. Doing 100 miles or more on a current top tier endurance bike is orders of magnitude more enjoyable experience than an old equivalent. To deny that is ludicrous.

:lol: My Trek 660 would do that I really could see the rocking and rubbing. Reynolds 531 tubing. Campy Nuovo Record.

I had a Trek 330 that was like a noodle.

My Lemond is not.

I can push some watts thru that thing with no noticeable flex. And the bike remains smooth as butter in every other way. My CF Giant may be a bit stiffer overall - but the ride is brutal.

Or, I just don’t get gapped! And therefore can’t blame my steel bike for my lack of watts!!.

Huh, Don't get gapped. Why didn't I think of that? :rolleyes: :roflmao2:

Something to consider - GCN is the source. Amongst their revenue streams is ad buys from modern bike producers. Also, significant product placement from a single producer…of course modern is the way to go.

I still prefer friction shifting, with a qualification, I prefer it on my touring bike. I will never say it is better than indexed shifters, just that I prefer them on my touring bike. I also run rim brakes on that bike. They work very well. The only downside to them is that wear the rim, but that takes quite a while.

Nah. The ludicrousity and its associated ludicrousness lie entirely within the assertion.

You're saying Big Bike got to them?

I would argue that the age of the presenters is more salient than the "Big Bike Bought Them" argument. Si Richardson is 42 years old and only got into road cycling in about 2007 (says Wikipedia). By that time, nobody had won the TdF on s steel bike in 13 years. Carbon fiber was no longer exotic. Bikes had had brifters for 16 years. AND his experience of cycling has all been during an era of constant advances in cycling technology.

People are rarely nostalgic for an era they didn't live through.

Did someone say = "noodle"
 

Does Trek make good noodles bikes? 1984 '600 series'
There used to be a saying - SIZE DOWN for a STIFFER FRAME
https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...5cf9c9cba6.jpg
Size matters?!?
https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...be18efe1fa.jpg

Butt, ... one has to admit - that when it is not a race, not a group hammerfest, not a climbing route, no technical descents = the silky ride (on a decent road) of a nice steel frame and fork with 28mm tubulars is enjoyable.

It is not all about the bike (to a degree) - for the typical cyclist. Pick your performance needs for your given terrain.

edit = that noodly Trek got moved along, as t'was NOT a favorite.

Campagnolo is almost universally incompatible with anything SRAM or Shimano and has been since the 70's.

Shimano Dura Ace back in the day (7400 and prior) is only compatible with Dura Ace.

So yeah, just because it's electronic doesn't mean that it's the first time brands have made their drivetrain proprietary.

If anything, starting with Archer but copied now by lots of people, some of the electronic modules have opened up a huge range of cross compatibility that nobody else had. I ran a Campy Ekar cassette with an 11speed XT derailleur flawlessly for a little while using an Archer unit. Of course that would never come from the big manufacturers, why would it.

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...9fa5f3f0c.jpeg
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...6ccef1443.jpeg

I can dig it

Probably not so much the steel frame as the sport touring geometry, but otherwise, yes.

they’re just collectors. nothing wrong with collecting nostalgic stuff as a hobby. something enjoyable to do with all the otherwise useless knowledge acquired over decades.