Originally Posted by
Andrew R Stewart
What happens is that you might learn the unspoken (by any sales person at least) cost of a carbon frame. That it's less rugged is some aspects then old fashioned steel is. One benefit of the "claimingly new" trend to gravel bikes is that they tend to have the clearances that out club touring bikes had 40 years ago. Sad how cyclic this activity is. Or should I better say sad that the rehashing of old stuff needs new names to be accepted. Andy
When judging cyclic activity starting points matter. 40 years ago a great deal of clearance had already been lost. Just took some quick measures from the wife's '73 Colnago Super. Which is a racing frame, not a club touring frame. She has measured 27mm tires mounted. At the rear the tight spot is the chainstays, 6 plus mm of clearance on either side. At the front there is only 7-8mm clearance above tire and below the brake. This is on a 51cm frame, larger sizes would have more front clearance. My bikes are all racing bikes too, but older, they have more clearance.
Spokes don't break with the frequency they once did. Team support is more often on the spot immediately. Or in races with support it is. It is more possible to get away with line-to-line clearances than in past. And it is still a bad idea. Greg Lemond won World Championships with two broken spokes in his front wheel. Outsprinted Kelly and Konyshev with two broken spokes. A modern bike would have a locked wheel.
Gauging where we are are in the cycle usually begins with what you know from where you began in the sport. I began sporting rides over 50 years ago. Privileged to have mentors who were racing 100 years ago. In one case my mentor was second generation of pro in his family. His family was racing bike as soon as there were bikes. I look at 1979 touring bikes shod with 18mm tires and what I think is in 70s and 80s the bike business lost its mind. Others see 70s and 80s as good old days. Perspective matters.