Six jours

As a grumpy old man, I'm kind of tired of hearing about how much faster today's race bikes are as compared with those from 20, 30, 40 years ago. People seem to think that anything not swoopy and carbon and covered with logos is some kind of barely rideable old relic that couldn't possibly compete. Well, I'm all for swoopy carbon bikes if that's what floats your boat, but let's inject some reality...

Weight: Yeah, lighter is better, as a general principle. But ignoring that extra 15 pounds you're carrying around, and ignoring that a few pounds of bike weight make a difference on paper that doesn't really turn up in the real world, are today's bikes really that much lighter anyway? Reliable sub 20 pound bicycles have been available for more than 50 years. You could buy a 17 pound Klein in 1980. You could buy a 17 pound Barra in 1950. And if really wanted, you could push down into the 15 pound range, for enough money, even 30 years ago. Yet none of those bikes set the world on fire. Hmm...

Bearing friction: All I hear about is "ceramic bearings!" Well, okay. I'll buy that ceramic bearings have infinitesimally lower resistance than steel ones. But the friction of your hub bearings (let alone your bottom bracket bearings) is such a tiny part of the overall picture that it just doesn't matter. And the issue is compounded by the fact that today's bicycle bearings are so thoroughly shielded that they actually have quite a bit more resistance than plain cup-and-cone bearings of a few decades ago. Pick up an old Campy Super Record or SunTour Superbe Pro hub in good shape and give it a spin. There's almost no resistance; the axle will spin a few revolutions on its own. Now try it on one of today's miracle bearings. If it's typical, it'll stop turning the instant you stop turning it.

Rolling resistance: great tires have been available since the 1930s, at least. In fact, we seem to have forgotten quite a bit about how to make tires roll well. Today's harsh plastic tires may hold up well on a steel drum, but then, so would a tire made out of steel itself! A fast tire is a supple tire, absorbing road shock rather than sending it directly to the rider. A handmade, high thread count cotton tire will outperform a machine-made nylon casing tire every time.

Frame stiffness: If stiffer is better, why have so many races been won on wet-noodle frames? In the early days of carbon we were riding around on swingsets fashioned out of narrow diameter carbon tubes glued into aluminum lugs. And guys like LeMond and Indurain kicked ass on them. Before that, the Vitus 949 frames - made on the same principle as the glued carbon bikes, but with aluminum tubes - were used to win just about everything worth winning. The great sprinter Sean Kelly beat the best finishers in the world on his Vitus. And even if stiffer is better, it's not like stiffness was patented in 2005. Klein and Cannondale have been making ridiculously stiff frames for decades. Those frames have won a lot of races - but they've lost a lot to less-stiff bikes too. I'll buy that today's carbon race bikes are stiff. I just don't buy the idea that it matters.

Aerodynamics: I'll accept that aero wheels make a big difference in timed events. There's no way anyone's winning a high-level TT without a disk. But in a pack? I don't think so. Even today you'll see pro racers together in the pack, some of them on deep Vs, and others on essentially box section rims. Group dynamics all but eliminate differences in bicycle aerodynamics - and we all know by now that rider position plays a far more important role in aerodynamics than does any bicycle equipment. And an aerodynamic advantage of shaped carbon frame members over tubular frame members? Please...

Pedals: ever time a clips vs. clipless vs. platforms thread comes up, people will be singing the praises of the great retention offered by clipless over clips and straps. I can only assume this exists because there are so many lousy clip/strap set-ups being sold to the fixie kids these days. Well, a properly put-together clip and strap system will hold your foot in so tightly that it won't come out even in a crash. I don't know how much more retention a person could need. A clipless system may be more comfortable and is almost certainly easier to use - but it doesn't make you any faster.

Shifting: I know, I know, downtube shifters are difficult and dangerous and obsolete. Except that the one time they really went head-to-head with brifters (the 1990 TdF) the downtube friction bike came out ahead of all the STI bikes. I view brifters in the same light as clipless: they work fine, and they're easy to use, but they don't seem to confer any real advantage. The better rider is still going to win.

And that's kind of the bottom line for me: the better rider is still going to win. The guy who can put out a few more watts, the guy who knows how to position himself for the finish, the guy who knows where to save his strength and where to use it, he's the guy that's going to win, regardless of what kind of bearings he's got or whether his bike is a couple of pounds more or less or if his frame is stiffer or not so stiff.

So by all means, buy the swoopy carbon bling if you like it. Enjoy the hell out of it. But don't go around giving it the credit for beating your buddy up the hill - and don't think your buddy beat you up the hill because of his bike.

[/RANT]

rooftest

I bet there would have been more, but you had to get up and yell at those damn kids who were on your lawn.

abstractform20

whats with all these damn horses delivering mail? smoke signals and transcontinental walking work perfectly fine, and dont require all the financial obligations of horsery.

abstractform20

lol, OP uses shifters. whats the matter, legs too weak for one gear? my dandyhorse doesnt even have pedals. thats what feet+ground are for.

badhat

its about time we had this thread

marqueemoon

*popcorn*

I agree on most counts. None of the technology will teach you how to properly sit on and operate a bicycle.

Training with power is legit though.

36Oly_Rider

Phew, I'm in the clear...I'm glad I just bought a swoopy hydroformed aluminum frame and not one of them swoopy carbon fiber frames he talks about...This post would have changed my mind...

Leukybear 

Good reads. You make quite the nice rant.

Bob Dopolina 

I agree with the main premise but sorry, STI was a game changer.

Jed19

Sure you are right. The better rider is still gonna win most times. The better rider on obsolete/inferior technology (especially the ones you wrote about) is gonna be working much harder than required were he to be riding modern technology. Sure, maybe ceramic bearings are bulls**t, but the days of the TdF and other grand tours or even classics being worn on a steel bike equipped with down tube shifters and strapped clips are long gone. It will never happen again.

So get used to the modern conveniences (at least some of them).

And another thing to think about is the fact that among elite riders, skill and talent level are real close (why grand tour victory margins are sometimes in seconds), so, a superior rider on crappy/obsolete equipment is kinda doomed.

ivan_yulaev

Agree with pretty much everything.

Now does anyone know where I can get some 100mm carbon rims and some stiffer cranks?

ls01

Come on, get with the times! He didnt even mention DI2.

hueyhoolihan

IMHO, after the diamond frame and the pneumatic tire, only the freewheel qualifies as a significant technological advancement.

a little exaggeration...

abstractform20

i think OP fails to realize the overwhelming majority of cyclists dont have competitive goals, and enjoy making their bikes as sexy as possible. we are all sexy bike lovers.

chasm54

I'm prepared to bet that the OP is a sexy bike lover too. But if he's anything like me, he thinks a really classy vintage steel frame looks way sexier than todays oversized plastic tubing.

And yes, I ride carbon bikes too.

The performance advantages of weight and stiffness aren't imaginary, but I'll bet they decide far fewer races than we might imagine, even at the top level. Like Six jours said, Kelly's Vitus was exceptionally noodly even in an era when noodles were commonplace. But he, and others, beat the crap out of plenty of good sprinters while riding it.

krobinson103

I agree with most of it. A high level racer MAY benefit from the latezt and greatest, but joe average probably won't. Still I prefer my indexed bar mounted shifters any day over old fashioned friction any day.

contango 

But my buddy did beat me up the hill because of his bike. That's more comforting than looking in the mirror and seeing how much more work it takes to haul my fat ass up the hill than his lightweight frame.

Silvercivic27

Ride whatever you want, you dusty old fart! We'll be waiting for you back at Starbucks loading our Colnagos back on our M3s when you get dropped.

patentcad

The next thing you'll tell me is my Bogner Shiva guitar amp won't make me a better guitar player.

patentcad

Old guys who rant on Internet forums are morons.

patentcad

I see what you did there.

Training.Wheels

I don't get it.. did you just quote and respond to yourself?

Essex

Humor. Probably the best laugh of the day for me. Have to get to the Bronx now.

Inertianinja

typical bikeforums post. i'd think it was trolling if there wasn't so much text.

the only bike worth buying is the one I have
all products are gimmicks until I buy them

Sidney Porter

The derailuer need to be on that list.