Schwinn Paramount vs Trek Domane
 

The owner of the shop ,where I work a couple afternoons a week, has a nice 1966 Schwinn Paramount. Chrome frame about 23” size, Campy equipped, Brooks saddle, standard tubed wheels , but no pedals. I put it on the digital scale and it weighed 24.57 pounds.
There was a Trek Domane also in the shop. It is a fairly good size frame, with pedals, and a light tool bag.
It was 22.5 something pounds. This is a 2022 bike , carbon frame and rims, with electric shifting and disc.

Seems to me that the super classy 57 year old Schwinn is really a light beast all things considered.

And in another 57 years, the Schwinn will still be around and functional. I wouldn’t bet on the Trek or its parts.

And the Schwinn will still ooze class.

Seems a tad chunky, worked at a shop whose owner had a last generation of schwinn made paramount with 9sp record, with pedals it was under 20lb and close to 18.

Anyone who would consider the Schwinn classy in 57 years will be long dead. Just the same if you show up for your local club ride in a Penny Farthing today. The good thing is the Schwinn is just worth a fraction of the current bike cost so why no just get both. Ride the current bike and enjoy the experience and one to hang on your wall and look at. Win/Win.

That’s just silly. People still think the HMS Victory or USS Constitution are awesome. Same with vintage aircraft or cars. Or vintage pocket watches. Steam locomotives. You name it. Class will always be class, and there will always be aficionados. Plastic and batteries… not so much.

Just as silly as reducing the latest Trek to nothing but plastic and batteries.

Yes an 1966 Schwinn is an interesting time capsule. But who in their right mind would choose to ride it over a top end modern bike for a serious ride or multi day event. It always comes back to this, these old bikes are not being destroyed or thrown out but rather parked and not ridden and that is for a reason. Much like the examples you gave, historically interesting but not relevant to modern usage.

Confused again, :wtf:

If you're truly not like minded, why don't you please move along.

We don't agree with your assessment at all, this is C+V, not crapon fiberville.

You are not one of us and that's fine but we don't really care if you agree with us, again, you're obviously not one of us.

We know what we like and we know what we are doing which you clearly don't agree.

If our opinions agitate you this much, hang out somewhere else, again, please.

Incorrect.

Shows a complete lack of bicycle knowledge.

Apparently you haven’t read too many of the 121,000 posts in the C&V section. Understandable. That’s A LOT to read! Not to mention the tens of thousands of posts asking about how to work on these bikes in the mechanics forum.

Given the choice, I’m sure you’d prefer a plastic Timex digital watch than a Rolex. The Timex is lighter, more accurate and has a billion more functions.

By all means, continue to keep your head in the sand.

I would say Atlas was correct in you should buy both.

Apples and oranges if you are talking about the very last actual Paramount's as they benefited from a lot of frame building and other tech by then.

1966 was still the dark ages comparatively but still a very cool time in history.

:thumb:

And or simple disdain for us and C+V.

Sadly there may be a little bit of truth in both of these statements.

But the thing is I think the OP was just pointing out, that for the day, the Schwinn wasn't that bad. I didn't get at all that he was on the fence at all about which one to own.

Where can I get a crapon fiber Penny Farthing? :roflmao2:

Agreed but I don't think there should be any doubt where our true allegiance lies, nor should we have to be brow beaten for it in our own forum.

You know as well as I do that we are a very tolerant lot but calling BS on it as is happening here and is not the first time is not ok IMO so....

Btw, I use vintage frames for multi day tours routinely. I did go on a night ride Friday and had another guy mistake my gugiefied Austro Daimler for a rivendell.

Wouldn't a top end racing bike be compared to a top end racing bike?
A modern Domane is quite the do it all, but is hardly a race bike.

Remove .75# for the pedals and bag(assume it's empty).
A gen 4 Domane dropped .66# of frame weight because Trek recognized it had become bloated.

A friend has a 62cm sized gen 4 SL7 with electronic shifting and carbon wheels. He has 32mm tires on it and the bike weighs less than 20# ready to ride(cares and pedals).

So in your example, a top end race bike weighing 24.57# was compared to a stable endurance comfort road bike weighing 21# when compared equally.

And then there is the reality that I have em weighed a 62 Domane with di2 and carbon wheels and it came in less than 20#.


What we're you expecting though? The old top end race road bike weights 3.5-4.5# more than the nicely spec'd comfort designed road bike.

I'll spoil something else now for yoh- aero trumps weight. Crazy, right? Brands moved away from weight a bit and focused on aero benefits as the selling point based on testing.

Sorry I didn’t check that this was the C&V sub forum where reality is suspended. I have nothing against vintage bikes and have a couple myself. Just find it ridiculous how modern bikes which obviously have superior performance characteristics are derided and criticized it makes no sense.

My 1986 paramount, all Dura Ace 7400, clinchers, 60 cm weighed about 24 lbs. that always bothered me.

But the thing is I think the OP was just pointing out, that for the day, the Schwinn wasn't that bad. I didn't get at all that he was on the fence at all about which one to own.[/QUOTE]

You hit it right on the head of the nail. The Schwinn is not bad at all. And yes, I would prefer the old Schwinn. But you want one of the latest and “greatest”, then go for it. The new bikes hold little attraction for me. The carbon framed Trek is ok, just not my cut of tea.

Sorry but had to respond to the Rolex comment. I have two, a Datejust and a GMT Master II. The watch I wear daily is my Garmin Enduro II. The Rolex’s are significant to me for reasons other than keeping time and will hopefully remain in my family for generations. I also inherited a 1960’s Omega Seamaster from my father which will also be handed down. My Garmin will be given away like used lawn furniture in a few years.

Your Cinelli is a perfect example of a classic piece of functional art worthy of reverence. That said as I repeat ad nauseam that doesn’t negate the clear performance and comfort advantages of modern bicycles. I would never take my vintage Marinoni out for a challenging day nor would I take a Rolex on a bike tour, I have better tools in the quiver for that. That’s why I recommend to get both the incremental cost addition is minimal. I did not notice this was the C&V sub forum when I jumped in. T

Can show up at TTown for a track ride on your penny farthing, I've been wanting one just cause they ooze real old school coolness especially if you dress the part.

No suspended reality here except yours, we don't care whether you have anything against vintage bikes or not.

We also don't care if you find it ridiculous, we don't care about the performance, we know its apples and oranges, no brainer.

The ridiculous part is you thinking we should take any of this into account when it has nothing to do with C+V on a C+V forum.

Again, we are not your audience and wish you could understand that we don't want your narrow view pushed on us here.

There are plenty of other forums where you can complain about us and our narrow view.

Your "superior" performance attitude is lost on us because at the end of the day, we don't care about it.

It is what it is and that's fine but we're not comparing the two head to head in today's world except for weight in the opening post which on its own is telling for the difference in cost.

Dollars to donuts, the Domane should be 10lbs or less, sadly that is not the case and in another 57 years the Paramount will be a very valuable, collectable relic, where as the Domane could easily be fiber and dust in 5.7 years, maybe a bit more but it will without a doubt be old tech and virtually useless to the latest and greatest hotshots that need it to justify their existence.

Again, please go commiserate elsewhere, like I said, your diatribe is lost on us.

You hit it right on the head of the nail. The Schwinn is not bad at all. And yes, I would prefer the old Schwinn. But you want one of the latest and “greatest”, then go for it. The new bikes hold little attraction for me. The carbon framed Trek is ok, just not my cut of tea.[/QUOTE]

Exactly this, the Paramount was well up to the task in its day as racing was far more brutal, crappy roads, minimal support, most only had one bike, maybe a team spare not in your size and you might be able to fix it yourself on the road with minimal help.

Now days you better hope your team car is nearby with your spare or you're toast, even then it doesn't work out all the time.

???? I rented a Domane a few years back for a day. Put on my saddle and a set of my wheels/tires and then road it on my base 20 mile route of rough chipseal road. It fell quite short of comfort and speed in comparison to many of my old steel rides. This surprised me for sure as I expected more.

In fact, I pretty much moved away from modern C.F. after spending a 6 week period where I did the same century ride on my Trek 5.9 and Scott CR1 Pro and then four of steel bikes. Tracked time, avg speed, and even how I felt at the end of the rides. Yeah, that's right, the performance and comfort went to the old steel bikes not the C.F. ones. So my reality of what works best under me is all that matters.

I won't even go into what bikes put up the fastest times when I did my silly 19 mph challenge a couple of years ago. The clearly fastest (proven over many rides since then) was my heaviest, mostly steel, and quite the odd duck. Oh and around 30 years old. It was also the most comfortable. Of course, I'm just an averaging old dog riding bikes.