icemilkcoffee 

If you were living on flatland with no traffic you could conceivably argue that 9 pounds make no difference. But you live in the mountains. Every pound counts. Walk up one of your hills carrying 9 lbs of groceries vs empty handed, and you'll quickly see the difference 9 lbs makes.
Newer bikes also have better brakes, and STI shifters are easier to use. Although you can upgrade your old bike with dual caliper brakes and brifters, without buying a whole new bike.

WhyFi

Even on flat land, that kind of weight reduction would make a world of difference in how the bike feels under you.

Gresp15C

The advantage of a new bike is you keep the old bike and now you have two bikes.

Gresp15C

I've built a number of bikes on 1980s steel frames, including a couple of Traveler frames. Right now my single speed is a Traveler frame, 22 pounds total, including rear coaster hub. It's my comfort cruiser, for fair weather commuting, getting around town, recreational rides, going to the opera, etc. The weight of the old Schwinns was not just the frames, but was spread throughout all of the parts. There are a number of things that I look at when I assess an older bike. Probably two major issues:

1. Are the wheels in good shape and do they have alloy rims? I see no point in riding or maintaining steel rims. You know that 27" tires keep getting harder to get.

2. Are the brakes good enough? Those old Dia Compe can vary according to their condition and upkeep. Some have been good as new, others mushy.

Perhaps the biggest headache is accommodating modern, wider tires, and fenders. Many of those old frames didn't have enough clearance so you're limited in your tire choices.

grizzly59

Point much in your favor, you have mech skills and can wrench your own bikes. The cheapest and easiest way to upgrade your bike if your craigslist / FB Marketplace is functional like mine: Find a newer used bike that you want, buy that, tune up that, sell your old. Or keep your old as a runabout / steal me and I won't cry bike.

CAT7RDR

I think the Traveler was a little lighter maybe 25 lbs? It shared the same frame if I recall as my two Le Tours a 1986 and 1987 21" frames were 25 lbs stock specs.

bnot

Mine is heavier because of the non-stock seat, the Marathon tires, Velox rim tape, Slime, a bottle cage, bell, LED lights. I haven't been careless with the weight, but I didn't intend to claim the stock weight. The rims are Weimann alloy, not steel.

70sSanO

Count me out on that “love” of climbing with a 40lb, or even 30lb, bike with a low gear of 42/28. Mid-80’s gearing is nowhere near what is out there today. I rode 42/28 for many years on a much lighter bike.

John

WhyFi

Wrong.

vane171

I still ride bike from ~1976, the steel frame and brakes are original, everything else from 1990s - aluminum drivetrain, friction shifting on the DT. To treat myself to something better, I bought secondhand bike some twelve yrs old but very nice, depends what you can find and how lucky you are to find something nice.

While I upgraded the old bike in the 1990s, it wasn't to make a light racehorse out of it (not economical to throw much money into it), just so it is mechanically a little more like a clock, not a clunker that it was. It had steel shifters and steel stamped out chainrings on steel spider with the steel crankarm riveted to it - it was impossible to adjust FD so the chain wouldn't rub for all 10 gears...
For sporting rides, you need something that is mechanically sound and clicking as it should, like a watch. For beer and sight seeing rides, just anything will do as long as it goes.

You might want to spend something like 1-1.5k on a new bike, or get a much better bike for less than that if you buy secondhand. 'Better' when it comes to bikes doesn't mean just lighter but even more important is the new technology, like going from DT friction shifting to indexed on bars is a huge improvement as well as shifters that respond like a clock. Also clincher tires, say 25-58 size make huge difference if your old bike had some bigger touring tires.

But to appreciate better bike, you have to have some appreciation for things that are mechanically tuned up. Some people just have both hands lefthanded when it comes to anything mechanical and perhaps they can't tell the difference between old jalopy and a Ferrari, both get you from point a to b, so why spend the money on a new car, right?

Hiro11

No, there is no way you can improve upon a 1986 Schwinn Traveler. This is true for elite crit racing, cross-continental loaded touring, Red Bull Rampage, underwater cycling, professional Keirin and for use by bicycle-riding dogs as seen at the circus.

Eric F 

I would argue that "ride quality" is a very subjective determination. My '77 Nishiki was a top-level race bike in its day - the ride is agile and smooth. However, it doesn't have the immediate response and precision of my modern carbon fiber rocket ship, which are qualities I value. In fact, I like the ride of my 18-year-old carbon fiber bike better than the steel one. None of this is about weight, but how it feels under me, and when I put power into it. Again, it's totally subjective.

All that said, I agree that I want to be on the more efficient (lighter) machine on a long ride.

ofajen

Just for fun, I used my weight of 175 lbs as an example and tried to estimate the difference 9 lbs of bike weight would make in a couple of my typical riding situations.

omnicalculator.com says that riding at 18 mph with no wind on level ground on gravel, I would need 181W on a 29 lb bike vs 179W on a 20 lb bike, other things (aerodynamics) being equal. That’s about 1%.

Climbing a 5% grade at 12 mph, I need to provide 325W on a 29 lb bike vs 312.5W on a 20 lb bike. That’s about 4%.

I ride single speed for fun and fitness and couldn’t be happier riding along on my cheap 80s Schwinn Sprint SS conversion. It’s a cheap, heavy frame. Weighs about 23 lbs, not counting accessories like pump, water bottle and spare tube.

OTOH, I’m pretty careful to pick fast rolling tires. The watts you spend in tires are watts you spend all the time. The Marathon is tough but it’s not a fast rolling tire. I’d swap it out for an Ultra Sport if I was staying with 27” tires. That will probably save a total of something in the range of 10-15W, climbing or not. YMMV.

Otto

Maelochs

I have bikes which weigh 18 or 20 pounds fully loaded for a long ride---food, two bottles, tools, tubes, pump, and all that---and bikes which weight 28-30 pounds--or more--set up for the same ride.

I generally find the lighter ones to be a Little more fun.

If the OP likes his bike, he should just ride it and stop posting here---which seems to have happened. Excellent.

if the OP really wants to learn stuff--which I doubt, but who knows---s/he needs to go to a bike shop and arrange a test ride.

The difference between a friction-shifted 12 and an indexed 22 is enormous. The difference between huge heavy wheels and tires and light wheels and tires is enormous---to me, at least. But ... no mattwer what you ride, at some point the rider, not the bike, determines "performance" (which means different things to different people .... )

Climb a hill on a 17-pound CF race bike and you will find it easier, or go faster, than on a 30-pound steel dinosaur. But eventually, if the hill is long enough or you ride hard enough .... it will be too tough no matter which bike.

Since most of us don't race, what does it matter if the day's ride lasts twelve minutes longer or the average speed is a mile per hour lower? Isn't the ride what determines the ride? Isn't the time spent on the bike what matters? If you like what you ride .... you win. No need to keep competing.
But ....

A light bike feel more responsive--wheels particularly make a difference here. And having a wider range of gear options means that the rider will more often be pedaling in that sweet spot where the demand on the legs, lung, and heart a re all in balance. And with more gear options, it is easier to keep momentum on the climbs---if I see a big hill ahead, i can drop to my small ring and shift up to the top cog, then work down the cog set, without having to make the rather larger accommodation needed to shift the front. Shifting chain rings under load is nto a great idea, and letting off the power on a steep climb isn't the best idea either.

But .... you can enjoy riding a single-speed, too. If enjoyment is what you seek .... just ride what you have and stop stirring up trouble here.

If you Really want to know ... which I do not think you do----then do some test rides and get your own information. Only you know which information is relevant to you. Think for yourself.

(By the way ... I did an 1100-mile fully loaded tour on a (heavily modified) 30-pound Schwinn. One hundred miles per day for 11 days, no problem. Nothing Wrong with the bike .... but that bike had 18 speeds, and without the extended range I wouldn't have made it. So while I appreciate that you love your bike and it is good for you .... there can be things which are better, without your bike being Bad.)

shelbyfv

And there you have it, done!

friday1970

I haven't read through most of the posts. But what caught my eye was 10K hills and steep passes. In the case of a newer bike, if the bike was aluminum or a good stiff carbon frame, less torque/power loss compared to the flexing of the 4130 chromoly frame would be the only real advantage.

Eric F 

The OP has indicated that he is also lacking the gearing for riding in those mountains.

cbrstar

Just IMHO but I find that people get hung up over the weight listed on paper and not real life applications. Most of my experience is with BMX so maybe I'm wrong but I've had two different bmx's side by side. And the one that is listed at 29 pounds felt lighter then the one listed at 24lbs. One of the only explanations I can think of is the heavier one might have a longer frame so the weight is distributed over a longer wheel base. So at least with BMX frame geometry and the over all balance comes into play.

I enjoy restoring older bikes so maybe I'm a little biased. But the main selling point for me to run out and buy a modern bike would be the disc brakes. It's not going up the Mountain but going down! Disc brakes work better and they don't heat up as much as rim brakes. BITD I've worn out my brake pads in a single run white knuckling down a mountain side

But there's nothing wrong with fixing up a older 80's bike to meet your needs either. I know people hate car analogy's but you see guys put modern motors and suspensions on old muscle cars and it turns out great. It won't keep up to the modern sports car on the track but it's still really cool. But you need to do the upgrade economically. Running out and buying a $2500 modern group set for your $200 80's bike is pointless and you should spend the $2500 on a new bike. However finding a much newer bike for dirt cheap where maybe the frame is toast or a cheap used modern group set and swapping it over to your 80's bike can make riding it way more enjoyable.

70sSanO

As others have said, the OP is posting just to post. Whether trolling or just one of those people who takes the stand that my 35 year old inexpensive bike is just as good as your new $5k bike for how I ride, it is pretty much a moot point. There is no convincing argument.

I have a number of interests and have some good old stuff, but at my ripe old age I find literally nothing that is older is really better than comparable new technology.

John

Iride01 

All my old upgraded bikes are a great ride. The new bike is an even better ride. Therefore the old bikes sit and the new bike gets ridden. If I'd never bought the new bike, I'd still be happy not knowing what I'm missing. And maybe I might even be a scoffer like the OP.

genejockey 

I like my older bikes, but they have limitations my new bike doesn't have - gears and brakes. I'm not up to doing big climbs in 39x25 anymore, and even dual pivot rim brakes leave me less confident on descents than disks - even though I used to do those same descents with the older bikes.

cbrstar

The guy who spent $5000 certainly won't think so but isn't it really a matter of perception? I've owned a BMW for many years and when ever I got a ding a ling telling me his Honda Civic was better it used to irk the heck out of me. It wasn't until I bought a used Ford Escape this year just to haul bikes and keep the miles off my BMW that it's changed my perception. Now the BMW is starting to look a lot less attractive to me and it's more about how the Ford suits my current lifestyle better. If someone parks too close I don't care etc so it's more stress free lol. Maybe having a older bike that you can leave locked up outside suits the persons lifestyle better. Or having a bike that can take a dent after a fall.

friday1970

I saw that as well.
When I went from a 1980's Reynolds 501 frame to a 2014 stiffer aluminum frame, I definitely felt I was applying more power to the rear tire with nearly the same gearing. I feel the OP would notice the same difference with a newer carbon frame also. And since the newer frame would not loose as much torque, he could possibly to use similar gearing but not suffer as much.

biker128pedal

Ok I went through the same thing back in 2005. I have an old Trek lugged Chrome moly frame. Even converted it to index shifting and 700c wheel. My advice is hope you can find a shop and test ride bikes. Sound like you NEED a new road bike and a new mountain bike. So go ride.

New road bike say a carbon framed Trek Check Point.
Ride will be much smoother and more comfortable
Oh don’t have to reach down to shift or adjust derailleurs.
Frame will fit narrow tires for speed or wide for comfort.
Less flex but absorbs more road shock.

1 month later you’ll think oh my what did I spend. I could have bought all new kitchen appliances. Matching. Then go for a ride and smile and think, now I now why.

Then 16 years later your thinking of upgrading but really don’t need too. Unless like me you got a Madone and can only fit narrow 23mm tires.

Moisture

There are other factors which determine why you are able to apply more power with the newer frame other than the material. HTupolev taught me that the shape and butting of the tubes make more of a difference with frame rigidity than the material itself.

Things such as stack and reach (ie) where the crankset is centered over your legs,.and therefore how effectively you are able to trasnfer power to it) , crank arm length, rear rim spoke pattern, the way the rear wheel is trued, your saddle (avoid bouncing around) etc all play a role. You'll realize that how old the frame is or what its made out of really doesn't have thst much to do with anything.