Quote:
Originally Posted by Atlas Shrugged
…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….

It's a big cycling universe. I ride Di2/discs/carbon/38mm tires - also, friction DT, rim brakes, steel, 25&28mm tires.

No one segment of the sport is superior over another, just different. 'Nostalgic', useless knowledge built the cycling industry into what it is today. Why denigrate the past and slander its' equipment?

For the majority of cyclists who may be happy to ride 100 miles/wk on their local roads - 1Xx13, 35mm road tires, disc brakes, carbon fiber frame and components may not be a necessity. Are they lesser cyclists?

When I put an old bike next to a new bike - I see a frame, two wheels, a chain, handlebars. What do you see?

I have a wooden handled hammer - must I upgrade to one with a rubber coated carbon fiber handle (less vibration), titanium head with larger contact area and shiny finish? Maybe - if I'm with a group of less experienced, but expert hammerers.

Hammer On!

Sometimes a post really hits the nail on the head.

I'll bite - I watch a lot of GCN videos (hot take around here, but GCN is Good, Actually) and they've done quite a few videos where the presenters ride older bikes, either for some kind of challenge, just out of interest or to compare the performance of an older bike to a modern one. The new bikes do outperform the old ones - and it would be weird if they didn't - but they don't spend the videos slagging on the old bikes. A number of times they've recommended older bikes as a fun and affordable way to get into the sport.

Anyway. While modern bikes have come with some headaches, overall I much prefer how they ride compared to older ones. That doesn't make the older ones trash and I do like the aesthetics. Unsurprisingly, I especially like the bikes that were current as I was getting into cycling in the mid 200s through about 2015. But just taking disc brakes as an example: yes, they have more stopping power and more reliable all-weather performance. But they also make bike setup a lot easier for me. I'm 5' 5" and the head tube area of my bikes doesn't offer a lot of space. Routing brake and shift cables was always a problem. It's very easy to make a mistake that causes one of your brakes to not operate smoothly, or for cable housing to bind on a stem faceplate bolt when turning the bars. Hydraulic disc brakes solved this problem for me. Any remaining issues with shift cables are solved with electronic shifting, but even I don't want that on all of my bikes. There are too many things to charge up nowadays.

I also like modern developments in geometry, I like the way modern bikes combine stiffness for precise handling with ride comfort, and I like the way modern bikes look. For the most part at least. Of the bikes I actually ride, my oldest is a little less than 6 years old and I'm as happy with my various bikes as I've ever been.

I understand the enjoyment of collecting, maintaining, and riding old bikes, and how that becomes a hobby all its own, much like people who do the same with vintage cars, motorcycles, etc. However, what is unique about these forums is the belief of a vocal few that there is some equivalence in overall performance, or that, from a delusional few, old bikes are superior. If there were any validity to this, you would see demand for these old bikes from individuals other than collectors of the same demographics as the bikes.

Not equivalence... just not as big of a gap as the cycling marketing may lead one to believe. Especially at non race speeds.

Old bikes superior? in terms of pure performance - no. In terms of overall comfort, durability, ease of repair for the normal guy - maybe.

Personally - I understand that the modern full on aero race bike is a bit faster for the normal guy. A decent bit faster at race speed with a very fit/limber rider that can put themselves into an aero race position. Bit is an aero bike comfortable? Does the average Joe* have the ability to actually ride in the position an aero bike puts you in? Can they maintain said position?

Average Joe*
-This is the crowd that gets lost in videos like the OP posted. The average Joe, especially ones around where I live, are not 350+w ex pro's that can get aero and extract that 6% from the pure race bike. And often, they are riding the pure race bike because they think they will get the speed savings.

I'll offer myself up as an average Joe - I'm a bit faster than the typical A/B/C/D group at our local rides, a bit slower than the unlimited (for lack of better words) group that goes out and bombs 24-25+. The latter group is a few people, the former groups are a whole lot more people.

-My Lemond, with 50mm deep CF wheels and 28mm GP5000's. Low front end, gets me as low as I can muster. - Ride is smooth as butter
vs
-A full on aero bike from any big brand - aero bikes are known to be fairly stiff and unforgiving.

At my avg Joe 200w long ride ability - what will be the real savings? Not 6%. 2%? 1%? In a group ride - maybe almost no %.

Does the added complexity of the bike (hidden cables/harder to work on, software updates for shifting, batteries, proprietary parts), stiffer ride/more aggressive position... do the marginal gains really make it superior for the average Joe?

In terms of cars - on the road/touring event, driven by non race car drivers. A McClaren P1 is going to be superior to say a M3 BMW. Superior in every sense of the word - but on the road, normal conditions - the M3 is going to be way more comfortable, road friendly, probably more reliable, easier to deal with - just not as "cool" to own. And that is what it really boils down to - is it "cool".

Well-reasoned response. Building on the car analogy, if one were to drive across the country in a 1970s station wagon or a current equivalent, although in theory they would arrive at similar times (you could argue that you would put in longer days in the modern car), every aspect of the modern car would be superior. Comfort, safety, reliability, efficiency, there is not one area where the old car would excel.



The same thing with a modern bike vs its C&V equivalent. Take a very popular category, such as endurance bikes, ride quality, gearing, braking, durability, and overall comfort are better. Modern bikes are superior, making long days on the saddle more comfortable and enjoyable. Just as race bikes, gravel bikes, adventure bikes and all categories of mountain bikes are drastically improved over there predecessors. I do acknowledge that servicing requires new skills and equipment, both of which are much easier to acquire now than in the past.

There are plenty of modern bikes, some that are even pretty aerodynamic, that are smooth-riding and easy to maintain. Plenty with cables that are not routed through headtubes and the like. btw, in seven years of riding Di2, I don't think I've ever updated the software, and it has proven more reliable (and with less maintenance) than my mechanical drivetrains. Sure, I've done a few things on it, which is to be expected given the mileage and that I ride it in challenging conditions...But it's never left me struggling to ride home in one gear after a cable snapped mid-ride.

Your comparison is inapt since it includes two modern cars. A better comparison would be the BMW M3 and a 2002; which would you rather drive daily or on a long road trip? Most people would choose the M3 every day of the week.

I just love these posts in which many of us are told that we're foolish rubes for buying nice new bikes. I often sense, right beneath the surface, a poster's desire (perhaps unconscious) to justify his own parsimony or lack of means.

Just like cars, the new bikes are a technological advancement that are better in most metrics. The crunch is the assumption that limited lifespan is a necessary evil, when in fact it is built in obsolescence designed to extract the maximum amount of money from the customer. If you are good with that premise then the world has never been better...

I watched that video when it came out a couple of years ago. Bikes are the same as any other sport that requires a "thing" or widget to participate. Science, technology, human bio-mechanical knowledge and mechanics evolve and improve the "thing" (and the human) over time. For amateur and professional racers it can mean the difference between winning (or placing) and not winning.

For us mere mortals does it make a difference? Yes, it does in most cases but many of us are not pushing the limit to the extent that amateurs and pros do. That would generally indicate that we won't see the added gain to the extent that they do from the thing, but we will usually see a gain.

A high tech bike isn't gonna help this 68 year old retired recreational cyclist so I don't spend the money on it, generally. I bought a new Surly Disk Trucker back in 2023 but I would not call it a high tech bike but it sure is comfortable to ride. However, my simple Wabi single-speed bikes by far and away are the most comfortable riding bikes I have.

If I could find a good used Colnago carbon wonder-bike in my size for a reasonable cost would I buy it? Yep!

FYI, I really lament that GCN stopped their paying videos on cycling history and special topics. I thought most of them were really good.


---

There is no basis on your limited lifespan theory. Modern equipment is more reliable than bikes of the past and access to replacement parts is vastly superior given our modern connected world. Lastly, the usual advocates stressing longevity are most likely at the tail end of their cycling hobby and any modern bike will easily outlast them.

This.

The only remotely young people I've seen on C&V bikes are riding them because they can't afford newer and better bikes. They aren't worried about long-term parts availability.

I was with you until your last paragraph. Going on impressions based on posts from people here over the years, it seems likely that a sizable proportion of those you have in mind are millionaires, more or less. If some poster happens to fit the "parsimony" description (and the mere assertion by that poster that modern bikes are overpriced is pretty feeble evidence), it's by inclination, not need.

And sensing desires, beneath the surface or otherwise, hews a little too close to the commonplace "I know a Lance wannabe when I see one" mind-reading act for comfort.

As usual when this tired topic resurfaces, I blame Grant Petersen for the us-versus-them turn the discussions inevitably take.

In fairness to him, when he told C&V guys that, by buying friction shifters (and other obsolete tat that he'd snatched up from distributors who were glad to get rid of dead inventory, albeit for pennies on the dollar), they'd automatically hold the moral high ground versus the godless Lycra-sporting elites, he couldn't have foreseen that it would drive quite so big a wedge between the two factions.

All that said, it seems clear that anyone who fell for a classic bike at a vulnerable age will never feel quite the same kind of blind adulation again, and certainly not for a modern bike.

Nothing to do with cost. The proof being that many or most of the people complaining about expensive modern bikes have garages and basements and attics stuffed with classic/vintage bikes that they spent, and in some highly visible cases continue to spend, thousands or tens of thousands of dollars to accumulate.

Don’t know if you’ve seen them, but the person to whom I was replying has offered many posts – and I think at least one entire thread – complaining about how much new bikes and cycling equipment costs these days. So I don’t think I was assuming quite as much as you believe I was.

Don't you know that only the poor, elderly and "collectors" use wooden handles? Geez!

Oh, yes. I got into it with him a little bit in a previous thread about the putative need to spend upteen thousand dollars for an sufficiently competitive and reliable racing bike (plus high-end wheels) for a teenage kid. No meeting of the minds was achieved, as I recall. My fault, no doubt.

That specific sideshow aside, it's the pointless, ubiquitous Sharks v. Jets bickering that gets me down.

And it need never have happened. If only Petersen hadn't hit on his marketing strategy ("You're not a penny-pinching miser, you're a Keeper of the Flame!") . . .

In its absence, the worst of it would probably have been some unfocused resentment of the road guys, i.e., the eternally cool kids from high school, still lording it over the also-rans.

That's the perception, of course, not the reality. Still, I can't help fantasizing that if Grant had decided against buying up pallets of Suntour Cyclone derailleurs (sorry: "derailers"), things would have been much more collegial around here.

Oh, well. If the Avengers had gone back in time and strangled baby Thanos; if Spartacus had had a Piper Cub (deep cut), etc., etc.

Road cyclists are the cool kids? Not around here.

Was Grant Peterson really that influential? I'd bet that 9 out of 10 (or even 10 out of 10) of my riding friends have never heard of him. 'Course, they're all also on modern bikes.

Petersen is the C&V Deep State.

Kidding aside, my account of the history of the C&V survivalists is pretty much accurate.

Though the cult started earlier, with Grant's hold-your-horses response, when he worked for Bridgestone USA, writing the catalogs and spec'ing the bikes, to what he saw as the industry's fixation on cutting-edge racing bikes, sidelining bikes that are "sensible" and "practical" (favorite Grant adjectives, along with "stout" and "lovely"), and suitable for the great majority of non-racers like him and his friends.

Fair enough, obviously. And appreciated by fans who eagerly signed up for the Bridgestone Owner's Bunch, aka BOB, whose Google Group continues to thrive to this day. Those were the Edenic days, before the love of C&V took its dark turn.

I haven't posted much in years because I got lazy for around 10 years and didn't ride. I'm 64 now and riding again. And still riding my 1975-ish Coppi Campionissimo and my 1983 Trek 520. At 212 lbs, I'm not racing anybody. I'm having the Coppi switched over at the LBS to a new-ish drivetrain with a triple crankset up front and maybe 8 freewheel in the back. These two bicycles will be all I'll need until I stop riding because I'm too old. I hope that is many years in the future.

A poor analogy to begin with but let’s work with what we have. If the person in question has a dozen or more of old wooden hammers and still covets more what would you call that?

Regarding the elderly comment but did you see the demographics of this forum after a recent poll or the obvious ages of the participants in the C&V sub thread or the collapse of old bikes values because of a lack of demand.

I agree that income plays no role in this as most of the C&V crowd would rather have 6 bikes than spend the same amount on 1.

Not really, assuming both riders of similar experience and skill, one has to be a lot stronger than the other in order to drop them, and if it's a group ride, even harder. We have a guy we used to ride with nicknamed "The Tick" He was not nearly a sstrong as most of the rest of us, but he was almost impossible to drop, I called him my human power meter. When I could ride awy frpm him near the end of a ride, I was ready for the yearly hilly century.

"Convents"? Are you talking about a nun who likes tools? What's her shop look like? Is it bîtchin'?

It shouldn't be news to anyone that older men love talking about and restoring old bikes that work as well today (or better) than they did 40+ years ago. Generally speaking, young people aren't into "forums" or restoration of something the industry can't profit from.

My question: what would Ayn Rand think? Wouldn't she say, your highest moral purpose is following your own individual passions? Or would she be constantly criticizing older folks for being so self reliant?

You appear to have missed the key point - "...riding at the same power they do..."

Sure, someone really fit can overcome a disadvantageous bike by working harder. That's not in question.

Ayn Rand would extoll the virtues of the solitary cyclist while sitting in on every group ride, never taking a pull.

Speaking of hammers...

I was a carpenter for a number of years back in the early 1980's. Laugh at a wood-handled hammer all you want. The thing is, wood is the one material that saves your elbow and wrist better than any other material over the long term. Fiberglass is pretty good too though. Steel-handled hammers will kill an arm.

Arguably the world's best hammer is the Stiletto and it's most famous head is made of Titanium but they offer wood and fiberglass handles as well as an all Titanium model.

But technology caught up to the simple hammer, even the Stiletto - it's called the nailer.