co_rouleur

Hi Guys,

I have just written up a big article discussing the differences between riding a 21st century modern road bike and riding a retro (1980s) road bike. I've tried to cover as many points as I could think of. I hope you find it interesting and hope that anyone who only rides a modern bike is inspired to go out and add a retro ride to the fleet!

Modern vs Retro Bicycle Comparison

shelbyfv

Very nice pics!

Lemond1985

Excellent write-up! One typo spotted in the photos:

ridelikeaturtle

Your Colnago is gorgeous.

Great write-up. Doesn't seem to be much in favor of the vintage bikes - except that one "intangible", which may also be the most important, that you love to ride it. Very accurate assessment!

jamesdak 

Interesting read but I'll leave it at that.....

You started losing me at the beginning with the comment on tubulars.

Still a fun little piece good to see another's view.

mstateglfr 

That could have just been typed here and discussed. Why not write the review/ comparison here instead of linking your blog and forcing members to go away from the site they are on to read your site?
Hmm, I wonder...

co_rouleur

Thanks for taking the time to read my post, but I'm not sure which word is misspelt in the photos?

mstateglfr 

That cervelo definitely isn't from the 80s...

co_rouleur

Ouch!

I think posting an article of that length, most people would have lost interest before getting to the juicy comments section below..
Luckily as a regular reader of this forum, I know this is where all the cycling experts hang-out ,

I think I have an Emoji additction? Have I overdone it?

Wileyrat

For some reason I can't get the article, but I really just need to look in the garage at the 83 Team Fuji hanging right above the 2015 Ridley Fenix to see the difference.

TimothyH

The site is down.

"Error establishing database connection."

Phrases like "Wow factor", "Loads of personality" and "Beautiful to admire" make it an opinion piece, an editorial.


-Tim-

co_rouleur

Tim, that is a very interesting observation regarding the nomenclature I used to describe my article (ie. 'a review') and how this word means different things to different people. Essentially I don't mind what people want to call my article; an editorial, an opinion piece, a review etc..

However, your comment stoked my curiosity, so I looked up the definition of 'review' in the Cambridge dictionary and it said;
When you think about it, writing a bike review or bike comparison requires discussion of things like performance, comfort, handling, fit, aesthetics etc. which are all subjective and specific to each individual, their experiences and personal preferences. Essentially these representations are their opinions - informed or otherwise.

If you were unhappy with some of the terminology I used to represent my opinions, I am happy to clarify as follows;

For aesthetics I used the phrase "Wow factor" - The Colnago inspires praise and compliments from total strangers. The Cervelo R5 does not.

In summary I used the phrase "Loads of personality" - The Colnago is so different to a modern bike to ride. It demands more effort and skill from the rider when compared with a modern bike, but it provides a greater sense of satisfaction in return.

In summary I also used the phrase "Beautiful to admire" in relation to the craftsmanship of the Colnago. The Italians long been regarded masters of style and this bike and components are no exception. In contrast Cervelo and Shimano are performance focussed first and foremost, style is second. I love their products which is why I own them, but in my opinion, they are not (as) 'beautiful to admire".

I hope I have been able to clarify any misrepresentations for you.
Sorry my blog was down for a short period.
Hosting services can sometimes let you down, lucky this isn't a commercial venture, just my little piece of the internet to share with fellow cycling enthusiasts.

I-Like-To-Bike

Most of the posts and responses on BF consist of the posters' opinions, so what?

The site worked fine for me yesterday and today.

Interesting and well written article about the poster's bicycle project.

I found it a far more interesting read than the typical BF thread about bicycles and bicycle products/brands that consists of an OP of what should I buy? or what is the ultimate this or that? with numerous responses consisting of various "opinion pieces" and "editorials" touted as the one true answer from self anointed experts with their own agenda/biases.

livedarklions

You're identifying both bikes as 1984.

I enjoyed reading your review, btw. A good review is opinion informed by fact, so I don't read them to see if I agree, but rather to see if there's something in there that might get me to change my mind or try something different. You did a very good job of explaining your opinions and the reasons for those.I

I'll leave it up to the moderators to determine whether linking to your blog is preferable to pasting, but I don't see anything wrong with it.

Happy Feet

I don't mind the linking as long as there isn't an ulterior motive.

One problem with posting directly is the nature of forums (and FB) where content tends to disappear down the feed over time. Having your own blog or website allows you to control the aesthetics of content and how it is gathered/presented. And it can become an aspect of the hobby that allows enjoyment during times when you don't ride. I maintained a niche diving website for years and it was a fun creative outlet.

kcblair

Great article, many reasons why I own and ride both classic (2 Italian bikes) and a couple 2017 bikes (aluminium and CF).KB

Bandera

An entire sub-forum exists, if not a highly active one, likely because "My Bike Blog" = Who Cares?.

https://www.bikeforums.net/blogger-s-forum/

co_rouleur

Thanks to everyone who pointed out that chronological error in the article regarding the production date of the Cervelo. I have since fixed it to show the correct date of 2014. Also thanks to everyone that has taken the time to read my article and post a comment. Much appreciated.

co_rouleur

Yeah, you spend hours preparing photos and typing up the content for a few curious readers. It's definitely a labour of love. However, reading that some people have enjoyed the article makes it worthwhile. I certainly don't expect everyone to agree with my conclusions and openly respect other's opinions.

masi61

I enjoyed reading your detailed comparison of your modern and vintage steeds.

The Colnago really is stunning to look at! It is really cool to build your own bike up and your remarks throughout your review reflect the learning process and discovery of intricate details that impact your set-up or feel of the ride.

I just thought I would comment on a few of your remarks throughout your review, in no particular order:

1) The idea that horizontal dropouts aren’t as good as vertical dropouts and that the quick release skewer requires high force to prevent slippage: This perception to me shows that you learned wheel mounting and dismounting more in the modern era so mounting old school wheels created a type of cognitive dissonance that felt foreign. Me on the other hand - I cut my teeth on standard horizontal drop out frames (with and without dropout adjusters) and steel quick release skewers. I learned early on the correct amount of clamping force of the lever in order to assure a slip free connection to the dropout. My benchmark for tactile feedback are Campy curved skewers with the domed adjusting nut. The progressive feel you get (sort of 2 stage tightening) is lovely. Dura Ace 7400’s are the same way BTW.

2) The comfort of the Veloflex Master tires I would think would exceed that of your modern bike. The high thread count sidewalls are like a tubular so they can be set up to optimize road feel and grip. I don’t think you necessarily need to abide by a suggestion on the box that tire pressure be a minimum 100 psi. To me, this is more of a recommendation, not a rule. If these are 25 mm width and you are, say #210 pounds or less and unweight the bike as you strike road cracks, then I think you’ve got some free comfort to explore just from lowering tire pressures. I’d say start by lowering the rear to 90 psi and the front to 80 psi. Then ride, evaluate and report back on the comparison with the modern. Speeds should not suffer as a result and I doubt that flats would be more numerous either. One other thing about Veloflex and stiff road feel: if you’re not already using latex tubes, (I think) you should be. They dial in a softer but somehow faster road feel that is very tubular like indeed!

3) The bulky rubber tubes covering the bottom bracket cable guides: you’ve got the right idea here but the sloppy fit makes that little detail a little less than show quality. Why not remove the inner liner from some cable housing and use that instead? It would look much more tidy.

4) In your remarks about setting toe-in of brakes it appears you may have made a typo, not sure. Did you mean to say you used 2 wrenches to toe in the caliper arm? What I read that you wrote wasn’t quite clear enough.

5) I’m surprised that some of the died in the wool classic & vintage guys didn’t call you out on this right away about the quill stem being equal (or harder to set-up) than modern Ahead unthreaded fork headset designs. Like the horizontal dropout aversion, many older riders (like me) see quill stems as a super-elegant engineering interface for steering the bike. Adjusting the stem height up and down and adjusting the headset bearings perfectly are strong points. And it can be argued that the look is much less clunky. With that said, I tend to agree that modern threadless headsets and stems have the potential to be superior to the old design. Unfortunately the implementation of these modern threadless systems with their bland all black stems covered in loud clashy graphics at discordant angles betrays a harmonious build.

Thanks again for the comparison. I subscribe to Road Bike Action magazine which is a bit of a throwback to bike magazines from back in the day where they try to identify intangibles of different bikes in an engaging way that is sometimes lacking in the modern era.

Maybe your comparison will spawn spawn a bit of a resurgence in C&V members digging a little deeper to quantify what makes a road bike (vintage or modern) truly dialed.

Phil_gretz

calipers

co_rouleur

Thanks for your note, I have changed the spelling to calipers.

co_rouleur

Hi, thanks for your considered reply and interesting perspective. I'm hoping you can help with some of my questions below also. My thoughts as to your points;

1. Yes I only experienced horizontal drop-outs for the first time when building this bike. Not having your years of experience, I found the whole design fiddly and still don't really understand why the rear dropouts would be designed in this fashion. The modern design gives you (theoretically) perfect rear wheel alignment with no effort, the rear wheel pretty much drops in and also comes out pretty easily without the need to rotate the rear derailleur out of the way and the QR doesn't require as much clamping force as the chain is not able to pull the wheel out of alignment. Perhaps you can shed more light on why design a bike with these inward facing horizontal drop-outs? What are the benefits? I've read people say you can alter the handling of the bike by moving the wheel in and out a bit, but this would also have some effect on the chain wrap around the cogs and shifting I would suspect.

2. The Continental GP4000sII tyres are specified as a 330 tpi, the Veloflex Master 23's are specified as 320 tpi so not sure if the Veloflex are really more supple? During my research (for tan sidewall tyres) I read about the Veloflex and their open tubular concept, that was why I bought them and really like them. As for using lower air pressure in the Veloflex tyres, I must say I was opting on the side of caution as I haven't been using the tyres for very long. I have been using Continentals for years and know that they are still safe to use with much the lower pressures than 90psi. However for the purpose of a comparison, I tried to follow the manufacturer recommendations regarding tyre pressures. Also, I thought 100psi wasn't that all that high for 23mm tyres, I thought everyone used to ride with higher air pressures 'back in the day' to reduce rolling resistance? It's only in recent times that studies have revealed that lower pressure & wider tyres reduce rolling resistance.

3. I have never used latex tubes primarily because I mostly ride with carbon rims and latex tubes are not recommend for carbon rims due to braking heat build-up. The tubes I am using the Colnago are not latex, they are spares from another set of wheels I own, but I have also read that latex improve ride quality and will definitely have to give them ago. Thanks.

4. Yeah the plastic tubes under the BB make for quieter, smoother shifts but I don't like the look of the either. I started with thin clear gear liners, but the cables were grabbing and pulling the liner along with the cable, so wasn't sure how to fix that. I didn't want to run liner all the way from the shifters to the rear derailleur. So, maybe my liner just wasn't the right stuff. The diameter of the tubing I used is large enough so that the metal cable guides keep it locked in place. Can you recommend where to buy or a brand of liner that will stay in place?

5. Thanks for the correction re: 2 shifters. I must have been tired when I was writing that part, it should say 2 adjustable wrenches and I have now updated that page.

6. Yes I can understand your comments in regards to aesthetics of modern stems vs quill stems. The main negative I mentioned about quill stems was that it is much more difficult to remove the stem (from the steerer) at least my stem anyway, which is a 3ttt that features a round wedge nut that is pulled up into the centre of the stem when you tighten the bolt, thereby forcing the sidewall of the stem into the steerer tube to hold it tightly in place. The only way I can think of how to remove it is to loosen the top bolt a little, then gently tap the head of the bolt down to force the wedge slightly out from inside the stem and repeat this process until either the wedge is totally pressed out of the stem (and falls down into the steerer tube - and you have to retrieve it) or press it out just far enough to allow the stem to slide out of the steerer and not scrape all the black paint off the stem when you pull it out. Would be great if you know a better method or a trick to this? I find modern stems much easier to remove, simply loosen a few bolts and the whole thing just slides off.

TimothyH

I did not say anything was misrepresented and the article can be called anything - review, write up or op-ed. It doesn't matter to me.

My whole point is that all of the article is true for you but not necessarily anyone else. It is your personal opinion, that's all.


-Tim-

canklecat

Good write up. I enjoyed it.

Pretty much mirrors my experiences with older and newer bikes. Like 'em both. Both have quirks and advantages. If I had to choose only one I'd probably stick with the steel bike and downtube shifters, but that's only because it's what I started with umpteen years ago and it's familiar.

And I do get comments on my steel bike, although it's just a Centurion Ironman, the Everyman of affordable road bikes. In most group rides at least one person will chatter about the Ironman they started with years ago. Maybe the distribution network was more extensive here in the 1980s.

The '93 Trek 5900, meh. Nobody comments on it. Great, functional early-ish carbon bike, lightweight and fun to ride, feels pretty much like riding a lighter weight version of a diamond frame steel bike. But cosmetically it's in that nether region era before carbon bikes were designed without slavish adherence to old school standards. Those 1990s carbon bikes just looked like diamond frame steel bikes with odd looking fat tubes. I'm not even sure it's a monocoque, I think it may just be cosmetically designed to resemble one over conventionally joined tubes.

Some newer carbon bikes are works of art in their own right. None that I can afford.