Fahrenheit531 

Earlier this week we got a road bike for my wife: a 2006 Specialized Dolce Elite. This is the first 21st-century bike either of us has owned, and it's a fairly serious machine. Lots of 105, Flight Deck brifters, aluminum frame manufactured by Columbus. The whole nine yards.

We went out for a ride yesterday, and she was noticeably faster than she had been previously. Like, a lot faster, and effortlessly so, as far as I could tell. There are a lot of variables here. Her previous "road bikes" ranged from a Univega Mixte to a Trek 7900 CF/alu hybrid, so we're talking about big differences in both weight and geometry. But I was shocked at how much effort I was putting out to keep up with her at times.

So my question, I suppose, is for those who own both vintage and modern bikes: Do you notice a real difference in personal performance depending on which you're riding? Up until now I thought it was a matter of a bit less weight and a few gadgets, slight differences easily overcome through strength and endurance. Now I feel I may be riding at a substantial disadvantage on my Tempo.

This doesn't really bother me, mind you. I love C&V bikes. They're elegant, beautiful and fast, and amazing in their simplicity. But damn. Is the modern advantage that substantial?

Zaphod Beeblebrox 

get more rides in. See if she continues to be faster. report back.

iab

No.

That said, gearing options are your biggest advantage assuming tires are the same. Over a 3 hour ride, I may be 5 minutes faster on modern on a flat course, on a hilly course, depends on how many hills, but maybe up to 15 minutes edge on a modern bike.

But this is somewhat limited data. Modern is a Saturday ride, vintage is Sunday. Sunday tends to be more of a softer ride than Saturday.

The data you generated from 1 ride is worthless.

RoadTire 

( Assumption here is going from drop-bar to drop-bar road bike. Changes in fit and riding position are notwithstanding. )

Nope, not really. At least for those of us that are not hard core racing. Engine first. Lesser engine can be assisted by the closer gear ratios of 10 sp cluster keeping your cadence at optimum. That is a big difference in longer rides and hills for me, over the older 5-gear cluster of my '75 "10 SP." My actual average speed over a few rides turned out to be almost exactly the same. I have been riding 3 years on this particular set of roads and paths, almost 1/2 the time on a similar full 105/ultegra equipped bike and no real difference. Maybe 1/2 mph ... but hills and longer rides are more enjoyable because I can vary my cadence from 80-something to 95-something depending on how my legs and HR are doing.

So there again, Engine. Clipless makes a difference to the ride quality too. Weight makes a difference on hills. Tires make a huge difference is the ride comfort and some reduction of effort. Better wheels help you get off the line a little quicker. Carbon forks, seatpost, seat stays, etc. all make for a comfortable ride.

But major several mph increase in speed. All between the ears.

RoadTire 

Wow are we a bunch of kill-joys. Sorry about that. Sheesh. Probably jinxed your rides too.

3alarmer 

...I'd look at the wheels and tire differences. Sure you can go faster on the newer stuff, and certainly
simplifying your shifting and expanding the gear ranges helps, but my impression is that probably what
you're experiencing is related to wheels and tires.

ThermionicScott 

Perhaps the bike, and in particular the brakes, has more of a reassuring feel to her. I know that my girlfriend was hesitant to go fast when her mixte still had the steel rims on it, and I can't exactly blame her.

Fahrenheit531 

Of course. I wouldn't even call it "data," so much as a surprised observation. Thus the trip here to gather more observed data from all of you.

iab

I will say there is a definite psychological to riding a bike you like over a bike you don't like. I lent bibliobob's wife my modern bike for a ride as her vintage bike was having issues. At the end of the ride she was asking why did she "have to" ride vintage.

garage sale GT

A lot of C&V bikes have wider rims and tires than modern road bikes.

Shp4man

From a mechanical engineering standpoint, the engine has a fixed amount of horsepower- something like .6HP in a strong rider, So power transmission, gearing tuned to optimum RPM, wind resistance, rolling resistance, frictional losses and vehicle weight affect speed.
So, what's different with a modern bike? Vehicle weight is likely lower by a few pounds, gearing has a greater variance to match speed and load, and wind resistance may be lower due to riding position.
Does that make a modern bike faster? Guess so. Does that make me want one? Na.

Hoss Cartright

When I got my first modern bike (2004 Cannondale R600) I noticed that when riding with my friends in the club, I fell behind less on climbs. I could drive deeper into the hill and effortless downshifts with less spread between ratios meant that I held my speed far longer and lost less momentum whilst fiddling with non-indexed five speed rear. (The Cannondale is flight deck nine-speed)
Other than that, I don't think I lose much to modern bikes when riding out in the flat-lands.
I pick my ride depending upon the terrain. When were are riding faster rides with climbs, I ride my 8-speed 1995 brifter equipped Bob Jackson and if we are going to have some killer climbs, I ride the Cannondale as it has a triple on the front.

I run Panasonic Pasela clinchers on my vintage 27" bikes at 90~95psi, so not a real tire difference that I can feel vs. the 105psi 700c tires.

My overall ride speed averages are no different when riding mostly flat-land. (Typical 30~40 mile club irdes in 15/16 mph average speed range)

Sometimes in prairie wind conditions the five speed can be a little worse than the eight or nines. Under some headwind conditions, there are times when I feel that the jump between rear cogs is just a little too much on one and a not quite enough on the next one down, causing me to jump up and down on the front rings.

Fahrenheit531 

Man. You guys are fast. I was typing a one-line response about worthless data and there are a bunch more responses.

Seems the consensus is "yes, they're a bit faster, but the main thing is she thought she was gonna be faster so she was faster." (And wheels and tires.) Makes sense, and that's more along the lines of what I thought before our ride. And that's actually pretty cool, too, because I can dump those creeping thoughts of how much faster could I be?

Chrome Molly

Probably the largest advantage you're noticing is the general difference between a road bike and a hybrid. But even in road bikes, a mid level quality 70's or 80's bike gives away the following advantages to the newer entry to mid level bike:

Tires - generally the newer tires at the mid level are better than the old mid level tires. Top level tire performance hasn't really changed that much over time, but mid level tires are better now than they were back when.

Shifting - indexed brifterized shifting with a relatively close ratio has definite advantages on anything but flat courses. Old school friction can be done right, but it takes more time to shift and get to the preferred gear meaning you spend more time shifting and less time on the pace. The advantage is largest in rolling hills

Wheels - while there really isn't a huge advantage of new vs old except for spoke counts meaning less effort in cross winds, modern wheels with cartridge bearings probably roll easier as compared to a vintage bike that has put in many miles. Much of this can be negated with a proper rebuild and maintenance, but weight and spoke counts are definite differences that a person can feel while riding

Stiffness - this is subject of debate but newer bikes tend to translate power to the rear wheel a little better than a mid level frame of yore. The older frame might ride a lot nicer than the newer frame, but when it comes to hammering newer frames tend to be more stiff.

Newer other drivetrain components - Chains, RD pulleys, etc all either are better when new or have improved a bit over time.

My new ride with completely modern and higher end drivetrain, wheels, and other bits with a stiffer frame where it counts generally carries me along at 1mph faster than my "updated" 80's steel bike (updates on the 80's bike include just about everything that's not the frame). The updated 80's frame, in turn, carries me along at 1.5 mph faster than my period correct early 80's bike. Part of it I can chalk up to my mentality that I have when picking what bike to ride for what occasion (the more leisurely occasions taking the older bike), but I sometimes take the old bikes out for a hammer fest and the speeds quoted tend to have held up over lots of measurements on the same courses.

I really think the net of it is that newer components with more gears, slightly less resistance and better power transfer allow someone to stay "on top of it" easily and that translates to conserving the power for when it's required. Really a person's pedal stroke doesn't change much on different bikes, but having 20 gears at your disposal with fast changes allows you not get sucked down into grinding as often as you will on a bike you are reluctant to shift as much.

Fahrenheit531 

Chrome Molly= winner, winner Chicken Dinner!!!
~j.oxley's wifey, Esther



[Edit: Rolling hills are definitely part of the equation on our recent ride.]

iab

I like to troll the 41 with this - please provide data that shows a correlation between stiffness and increased performance.

Bandera

Not really, my pace on a '92 Vitus is about the same as a '10 CF Merckx on the same routes.
The biggest performance gain is in a proper fit not the frame material, drivetrain configuration or even color of the bike.

The best performance of this season was time trialing for home to beat a fast approaching rainstorm on my '77 fixed gear, motivation trumps hardware.

-Bandera

Chrome Molly

Assuming we're talking bikes here and not little blue pills...

I'm not going to pretend to have data backing it up (you got me there). It's something that I notice on climbs more than anything. Comparing the new frame to my trek 760 there's a very noticeable difference in out of the saddle hammering up hills (the type where you stay in the current gear and hammer up the balance of a hill). No data to point to, but I consider it a difference in the two bikes that generally translates to getting up a hill faster. Neither is what I'd consider a harsh rider, or designed like a stiff crit bike. Comparing the 760 to my carbon specialized epic (back in the mid 90's), I reached the same conclusion back then in favor of the 760.

I would agree that it is probably widely applied common knowledge that really applies in limited situations. But, in terms of out of the saddle climbs, I notice it and consider it a performance gain. On a flat road under typical conditions I'd probably prefer the less stiff frame for other reasons. Fortunately, I managed to get both in the new setup.

Steve Whitlatch 

I noticed big improvement when going to brifters. The ease of shifting without losing power reaching down to shift is just awesome on hills. I am now going to upgrade my Schwinn Circuit to brifters and modern wheels. The funny thing is that I never thought I needed anything more than my friction shifters. That was before I tried them out.

noglider 

Modern bikes that are built for performance are faster than old bikes built for the same purpose. Speed and stamina will improve. I know people say engine, engine, engine. The engine makes more difference than the "transmission," but the bike makes a measurable difference.

ofgit

You don't. You WANT the brifters.

RoadTire 

That's because you are using a steel frame C&V keyboard. Get a carbon keyboard. Their lighter, more aero, and flex less.

Steve Whitlatch 

I have very little experience but the little I have had makes me agree. I would say that having the more modern components on my Trek 1400 helped me go faster. Not that it was a faster bike. I used less energy with the ease of shifting that helped me maintain a faster speed longer. On my Circuit I can keep up with my fast riding partner for only so long before fatigue. On my Trek I can go toe to toe the whole ride. I will be updating my Circuit soon so I guess I will be able to see if it helps my Circuit. The Cicuit is so much more fun to ride .

iab

There is no doubt you notice a difference, but why does it necessarily mean a performance gain?

I also notice the difference between a stiffer and more flexible frame going uphill. Not so much in a field sprint because I don't field sprint. But what I have noticed the difference only requires a different riding style and I prefer the rhythm of the more flexible bike.

iab

Everything is measurable.

Significant?

Not at all to anyone who is not putting food on the table by riding a bike. Messengers don't count as they are paid to deliver packages. How they do it is irrelevant.