I watched this video this morning and found it interesting.

Thank you for watching it, so we don't have to. Presumably their conclusion was the same as it always is: that "modern" bikes are much better and we should all go and buy them?

IMHO, the #1 biggest improvement - Brifters. Followed by wider tires (and many older bikes run 28's just fine). Followed by modern day handle bars and seats.

Everything else - meh. Is a full on race bike faster at race speeds - sure. Is it "better" for the regular rider - that comes down to rider preference more than the actual bike.

Disc brakes, fragile lightweight frames, internally routed brake hoses, no rack and fender mounts, ever changing tire clearances, cartridge bearings, integrated cockpits, proprietary seat posts, electronic shifting that’s not compatible with any other brands parts is better.

What a new and novel topic for a bf thread! We’ve never discussed this before!

I look at it like "have Nascar, Indi, and F1 cars gotten better in the last (pick a number of years)?, sure, but does that make a difference on my commute and recreational driving on my old trusty clunker?, not so much. I find no matter what bike I ride, I drop guys that are slower than I, and I get dropped by guys that are faster then me, no matter which of my bikes I'm riding, and since I don't race anymore, meh.....

To be fair - this was a full race spec bike vs a full race spec bike - fenders and racks are not part of that. And you can find modern bikes without all of the proprietary parts/integrated everything.

Gearing and shifting were the main differences, followed by tires and wheels.

A fit ex pro 300w+ rider couldn't get the old bike up the hill, the new bike allowed him to spin right up. Meaning us less fit, non ex pro riders have more of a chance to ride more places on a race style bike.

Here is the kicker for me - all the marketing and hype about speed. X watts faster, aero this, speed that. 50 years of development = 6% speed gains. Much of that is from tires and wheels, and some weight. 6% for an ex pro going full gas. Less for us normal duffers.

Yup, faster wheels, better tires, and wider gearing is most of the real advantage. The aero advantage is minimal, unless you are always at the front or chasing seconds.

I rode a friend’s “modern” bike. Sweet ride, but when I stopped for a breather I didn’t see any of the nicks, scratches, and dings that bring me back to the many many thousands of miles and enjoyable days riding with my wife along countless oceanside routes. Absolutely the “modern” was an improved pedal, but not a better ride.

Besides speed, there are lots of other potentially very legitimate reasons to prefer one bike over another - among them (in no particular order) durability, purchase price, aesthetics, availability of parts, ease of maintenance, comfort, braking performance, ease of shifting, and mounting points.

To their credit, the bike industry today produces bikes that excel in each of those categories (separately).

If we'd do like we do with automobiles and get a new bike every few years. And even send quite a few old bikes to the scrapyard when the sum of maintenance needed becomes to much. Then perhaps the bicycle industry might be a little more robust. And even still make high end steel bikes that aren't just a niche market for a few.

Actually that reminds me: an earlier GCN video was apparently unironically claiming that the latest Chinese carbon bikes were good value because you were basically getting a "formula one bike for the road" for just 20Gs or whatever they cost. Difficult to know where to start with how ridiculous that is. But you are right that a pro or even an amateur racer will see a benefit worth having from a decent CF bike. For the rest of us, well, it's a matter of taste (or lack of it

I think they have tapped into that kind of model a bit in NL with e-bikes. People over there already bought new bikes quite often, and now there's even more excuse because your battery's probably a bit knackered, and the new one might have a bit more capacity anyway.

'Tis the season. Threads on waving, spandex, Lance wannabes, saddles, etc. say spring is truly here.

And twenty years from now, with minor maintenance, which bike will still be operational?

Actually they both will but with a big difference, like today the people would prefer to ride the newer one. The only people interested in these old bikes are old themselves and most likely in 20 years most will be lucky to still be alive much less riding. Take a look at the recent demographics thread regarding the ages of the participants of these forums which are way older than the actual participants of the sport. Or perhaps examine the prices of vintage bikes which has collapsed due to a lack of demand and surplus of supply.

Most of the technological and mechanical developments in bicycle design have generally been improvements. That said, had they not been developed I'd still be enjoying bicycling. I prefer index shifting to friction, hydraulic brakes to rim brakes, lighter weight frames, and the list can go on. But none of them really matter to me. I was happy with my old Sekai touring bike with a quill stem, rim brakes, downtube friction shifters, and narrow tires. When I buy my next bike, if I ever do (I'm 78) I suppose it will have whatever the current innovations are.

Do you feel the same way about your shoes? The ones you walked down the aisle with, or perhaps drove to the hospital for the birth of your child!

Bikes come and go it’s the memories that last.

I'm not sure whether the fall where his feet readily came out of the toeclips is evidence that the fall was staged, or evidence that the test was improper. Maybe both? Not being clipped in reduces available torque by about twenty percent, and so would be an improper test. Claiming that the 24T rear was 'pro' gearing, then riding a course that he admits was steeper then pros rode, seems a setup. A 'pro' mechanic would have spun on a 28T freewheel for such a course.

He did a good job avoiding the piles of wet debris along an interesting climbing course. Points for gum sidewalls and a shiny finish on the Condor, but both colors are dullsville, imo. Irrelevent perhaps, unless you want to gab about 'soul'.

One thing I like about '70s racing bikes is that they are perhaps the best example of 'form follows function' since the canoe. Instead of seeming faintly disgusted by a classic ride, a more impartial judge would admit how capable Eddy's rides actually were.

If the 'test' would have included a 2019 rim-brake Trek Emonda SLR with electronic shifting and an appropriate gear range, it would have easily won. Minimum 2 pounds lighter.

Then upgrade to tubulars, for further weight reduction and increased safety and performance.

Biggest downsides to the 2026 bike: clinchers and discs. Both add a lot of weight, the latter being unnecessary in most riding conditions.

My 2008 S-Works Roubaix, recently purchased used, is bone-stock and doing just fine, thank you very much. I'm also confident it'll go another 18 months and then continue beyond your stated fail point.
You can hate, sure. But at least come correct when you do.

Is the large font meant to suggest that that's a mic-drop question?

You can still get parts for '57 Chevy Belairs, but not too many people use them as daily drivers.

Geeze. The obvious solution to this ‘dilemma’ is to have one of each!

And of course there is this: Every rider needs at least one Wall Hanger... Ha

The video said that in the past the races didn't have as steep grades as today's races. Is that really true? I was under the impression that the big famous climbs in the Tour De France were all historic.