Lakerat

If you are riding your vintage bike with your best shoes and pedals, what kind of handicap do you have vs riding a modern bike? I'm not asking this for those who don't care about speed and only the riding experience. How much faster is your modern bike and what is the main feature that makes it faster?

texaspandj

I don't have modern bike to compare my vintage to, but I'd suspect a minute on a 40k time trial.

jr59

Depends. Where I live now is very flat, so almost none. Now when in the mountains, the modern would be quicker. Weight and brifters, with better wheels.

How much? It's to hard to say for sure, b/c I always am going to feel different on different days.

rhm

I'm not faster on a modern bike; the bike really doesn't make a difference as far as I can tell. The thing that makes a difference is who I'm riding with. My fastest long ride was a 300k brevet last year, the whole time struggling to keep up with a fast group, on which I rode my 1959 Allegro.

Velognome 

I could be faster with all the gears, OS tubes, brifters, and light wheels; but truth is, it just makes me lazy.

mstateglfr 

I rode a modern Trek Pilot 5.2 for 13mi of flat road recently. Carbon frame and fork, light wheelset, Ultegra 10sp groupset. Its light and I think qualifies as quite modern, even though its older gen Ultegra.
I am no faster on it than on my '87 Miyata 912. I have ridden the 13mi course many times before and am sure of it.



I am faster on the Trek than on my '90 Fuji touring bike or my '80 Voyageur 11.8 though. But I am for sure faster on my Miyata than those other two bikes too. They flex more, are heavier overall, and have heavier wheelsets on purpose.

Chrome Molly

My modern custom steel bike with campy record, thread less stem and deep profile wheels is about .3 mph faster over the same distance as my 731 bike that has a quill stem, lower profile wheels and mostly veloce brifter type components. The 731 bike is nearly 2 lbs heavier than the custom.

The 731 bike is about .8 mph faster than an indexed DT shift 531c bike. Brifters do matter for me with lots of hills and rollers around here.

The 531c indexed DT bike is 1 mph faster as compared to a 531 friction shift bike.

Admittedly I don't take the friction shift bike out to hammer on but it is noticeably slower than the indexed DT bike on a rolling hill course. On the flats they are almost identical.

The above said, my fastest single times on my set routes were on brifter updated vintage frames similar to the 731 bike. Partly because the custom is designed as more of a century bike whereas some of my older frames are smaller and still stiff enough to climb and accelerate well.

The data is from 3 years of gps logs.

gearheadgeek

I often do a 12-17 mile loop during my lunch break. Most times I ride my fairly new full carbon Bianchi with compact double. Sometimes I ride my 1972 PX-10, which is equipped with modern ultegra rear derailleur and a 2003ish Bontrager 9 speed wheelset. Everything else is period correct for the frame, including the Barcons and the Stronglight crankset. Both bikes have SPD-SL pedals. The only speed difference I notice from ride to ride is based on weather or how tired I am that day. My office is in a pretty flat area. I've also done a 26 mile hilly route near my house - the Bianchi feels a little faster on climbs but the overall average speed doesn't seem to vary much.

My 1989 Fuji Saratoga (all 32 pounds of it) is a completely different story. Noticeably slower, even when I'm not loaded down for commuting. I call it my secret training weapon.

- John

Salamandrine 

I dunno since I don't have a modern bike. By modern do you mean a carbon fiber bike with 20-28 spoke wheels, a hollow crankset, and brifters?

On a flat time trial there wouldn't be any significant difference between a modern road bike and say an early 80s DeRosa etc with race wheels and the usual Campy SR group. Maybe a couple seconds because of the 3 or 4 lb weight difference and slightly more aero wheels.

On a hill climb, there'd be a bit more difference, partly from the weight savings and partly from the increased stiffness. I think there's a chart somewhere that shows how much time weight savings will make on a hill climb.

For the average recreational rider, even a tiny bit of fitness gain and weight loss is going to give you more of an advantage than a modern bike vs a vintage racer. For a fit racer, you'd be silly not to have a modern bike since you want every advantage you can get, and a few seconds can mean the difference between winning and losing.

rccardr 

Have done a few experiments on this, trying to keep as many of the variables (e.g time of day, course used, tire pressure, same pedals and shoes, day of rest before each trial, similar temp and humidity) constant as possible:

Trek Madone 6.6 10 speed vs Eddy Merckx Corsa Extra with Shimano 9 speed, DT shifters. 20 mile course, mix of flats and hills, about 1000 feet of elevation change, average moving mph was exactly the same for both bikes @ 18.2 mph.

Trek Madone 6.9 10 speed vs Tommasini Velocista with 8 speed DA, DT shifters. 32 mile course, mic of flats and hills, about 1650 feet of elevation change, elapsed moving time for the Trek was 1:46:20; elapsed moving time for the Tommasini was 1:42:45.

Both times I rode with the same partner, who is significantly faster than I am, so was really pushing hard. Clearly, in my case, a modern and slightly lighter bike does not result in a significant speed advantage.

Lakerat

If the only significant area of loss is brifters vs downtube shifters, I don't care about that loss. For the type of riding I do this factor is pretty insignificant. Wheels and tires is also an acceptable loss and vintage bikes could be outfitted with some modern options if desired, working within the hub width limitations.

Salamandrine 

RE: shoes - I am assuming the vintage bike is used with cleated shoes and cleats.

If you're comparing flats to clipless, that's a huge advantage difference right there, and an unfair comparison. Cleats were as efficient as clipless shoes/pedals, but less comfortable. No one seems to use them even on vintage bikes today.

I bet the difference between a modern jersey and an a vintage wool jersey is more than the bike. Much more aero.

Steve Whitlatch 

I recently downloaded strava and have found that whatever bike I ride that day is the fastest bike in the fleet. Racing against my own time is making me faster. The one I have reached the top speed with is the Miyata 912 but that was just one segment. The lightest bike is the Fastback Pro , 4 lbs lighter with low spoke count wheels. The wheels carry no momentum.

Lakerat

"I bet the difference between a modern jersey and an a vintage wool jersey is more than the bike. Much more aero."


Not questioning the veracity of this idea, but it'd be funny if this is true. It makes me wonder if a bare head is less aero than wearing a modern helmet.

dailycommute

Rode a 2005 team fuji sl for a year, not really modern but closer than all my cv. Without a doubt the SL was much faster bike esp on climbing. Noticeable enough to where I could do a moderate pace group ride and totally keep up on the hills vs 22lb+ cv rides that generally ended with me getting dropped on hilly sections. A fun bike but it lacked the soul of the cv bikes so I sold it. But no doubt in my mind (and legs) it was a faster bike relative to my standard output.

Mobile 155

I might have to split hairs here. Sometimes my CF bikes "Seems" faster. It does make it easier to climb or at least it is easier for me to climb with. That being said it is hard to judge from looking at Strava or Garmin connect.

But it is quicker to speed than my other bikes. Keeping my place in a pace line is much less taxing. It takes less energy to close on other riders after a corner.

However once up to speed it is hard to tell the difference if it is flat and my GPS tracking more or less shows this.

Wildwood 

I'm fastest on the tandem. Then a modern single. Then my vintage.
Primary reason (given a fairly flat/moderate hills course) = Gearing
Tandem = 54X11 (+ occasional 2nd engine)
Modern = 52X11 (+ more gears for optimal cadence)
Vintage = 52X12 (largest gear gaps)


On long, consistent climbs the fastest might be the one with the lightest wheels.
Downhill all bets are off.

CliffordK

I've recently built up a mid 90's Carbon Colnago C-40 with mostly modern components.

It just rides very nicely.

I've reset most of my Strava PR's with the "new" bike. For example bumping an intense 11 mile out and back segment from 19.0 mph with the old bike to 20.1 mph with the new bike (I know, not real fast, but as fast as I can do it (no drafting, mild hills). Hopefully I'll push it faster for further.

No doubt that also included a few months of additional riding/training, although not specific for that segment.

I need to get the old bike back on the road for a full comparison, but even that bike has received a few upgrades over the years (mostly recently).

A few of the changes that I've incorporated into my riding recently.

• Aero brake levers. I never used to be comfortable braking from the hoods of the old Universal levers. The areo levers give me additional hand positions, and more positive braking from the hoods.
• Gearing. I think the old bike came with 52/13-23 gearing (or maybe 21T on the rear). I've added a 54T chainring so long ago that it would now be considered vintage (or worn out). However, 11T and 12T rear sprockets seem to fit my riding style better. 9 or 11 speed rear-ends just give more gearing choices than the old 2x5. I don't know how important the "perfect" gear is, but I find myself often bumping up or down by 1T, and like the option for higher gears, especially for faster segments (let's not argue the benefits here). Oh, and maintenance on those old Rigida freewheels was a PAIN!
• Tires... I took the sewups off a while ago. I'll try some again soon. But, I've been riding a variety of not so cutting edge tires on the old bike lately. The new bike has a GP4S front, Gator Hardshell rear. I'll probably make a few more changes. I hunted for flat resistant tires decades ago without much luck... Certainly not being stopped beside the road with flats helps with my average speed. And, I do believe that one does realize some differences between quality lightweight tires and heavy clunker tires. I'm not sure the pressure rating of the old tires.
• Pedals. I'm really liking my new clipless. I do pull up some of the time, and they are generally quite secure, if set right. I've misplaced my old leather heel-less shoes. Hopefully they'll show up sometime. However, I'll say those shoes were downright treacherous off the bike, especially for climbing marble stairways. Clips & casual shoes are a nice benefit that I've lost. But, they're not perfect either.
• Brakes. Well, not really for going faster, but I really like my Campy SR-11 levers + Ultegra 6800 callipers. They just give very quick and secure stopping from any position.
• Wheels. Moderate deep with 16/20 ovalized spokes vs box shaped with 32 or 36 spokes. It is hard to say. So far, despite trying hard, I haven't bent the low spoke rim. Again, like everything else, they just feel snappy. I'm looking forward to building up a set of tubeless deep CF wheels. So, more hope in the future.
• Weight: Down to a chubby 18 pounds from maybe 23? I've got to work on that a bit more.
• Shifting. Certainly the brifters are easier to use on hill climbs. I also shift a bit more frequently with them. One can also smoothly shift at higher power. Maybe not a big deal, but that couple of seconds of low power shifting may add up. I'm pretty good at finding gears, but the newer cassettes are also easier to shift with less hunting than the old 5-spd freewheels.
• Seats. I will ride just about any seat. I've got an old round barrel shaped seat on my cargo bike at the moment, and it sure is uncomfortable. I may still have the old Selle Italia somewhere so I might pull it out and try it. But, I think the more modern flatter profile seats are just a little nicer. I'm riding a Carbon Fiber seat (not the Chinese one that broke) at the moment. I still haven't decided whether I like it or not.
• Stem. I'm not sure there is a huge advantage of quill vs external clamping stem. But, it may help with drop a bit, and certainly makes it easier to fit aero bars (for comfort).

Anyway, I can't really point at any one thing and say that it makes the newish bike any better or faster than the old bike. But, all the little things do add up to a very nice riding experience. And I think it is moderately faster. I suppose I could rebuild the old bike with vintage components to be a bit faster than stock. Drillium? However not everything would get me there, at any expense. Still patching sewups was a major hassle, and never was quick.

seedsbelize 

Funny you should ask. My 73 World Voyageur, which I normally take on my morning constitutional, has headset issues. So this morning I took my modern bike, the 92 Paramount. Even with platform pedals and no toe clips (which the other one has), I still completed the 25 km (15 mi) ride 5 minutes faster. Even though we're flat here, we always have wind, and I think the indexed shifting made a difference as well as all the rest.

Bandera

What others have noted about lower weight & the advantage of close/wide ratios brifter drivetrains being an advantage is certainly true for me but Aerodynamics in a TT/long solo are key.

I recently did a 50 mile solo fixed gear ride into a steady headwind on my old FG machine re-fiited w/ aero brake levers and the deep rim section low spoke count front wheel from my CF Merckx while wearing race-fit kit.
Every watt saved by reduced drag goes into moving the machine just that much faster/farther.

You can't get that advantage w/ C&V tech, I'd love to ride a modern aero road bike set-up as a FG.

-Bandera

fietsbob

You will go faster if you are shaped like a Fish.

spock345

It seems to work for swimmers.

Salamandrine 

I wasn't entirely making this up. There was some study during the great aero craze of the early 80s in which they wind tunnel tested a bunch of stuff. I only half remember it, but IIRC aero brake levers weren't actually more aero. Aero rims had a slight but not terribly significant advantage. Maybe lower spoke counts mattered more. Someone will have to dig this stuff up.

The significant take away was that clothing mattered way more than anything, by like 10x margin.

Bandera

That generation of "Aero" stuff is now C&V! (See attached pic.)

In the decades since with the liberation in designing shapes that CAD/CAM & CF affords, wind tunnel testing and real world race results the current generation of tech in road racing bikes can be quite slippery indeed compared to my Vitus and certainly my venerable International.

Descending at pace on our lovely chip-seal roads on the old 979 calm confident bike handling is highly recommended while the CF Merckx descends like a howling-mad-bowling-ball-on-rails.
Gotta love 'em both.
Which is faster descending? Advantage Merckx.

When "Aero" road helmets are ventilated for TX heat I'm in.

-Bandera

Lazyass

I am just as fast on my 30 year old 24 pound bike with 27 1-1/4 tires and 6 speed freewheel as I am on my 16 pound modern bike with 25c tires and 10 speed cassette. In the mountains it would probably be different but I don't live in the mountains.