A lot of the recent "innovation" is a bad bargain for anyone not pushing a competitiv
#551
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,949
Bikes: Colnago, Van Dessel, Factor, Cervelo, Ritchey
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3952 Post(s)
Liked 7,297 Times
in
2,947 Posts
You don't have to believe anything. I am entered in a time-trial in a week and a half I last ran 25 years ago and you can look at the results here, I finished 40th out of 401 entrants riding a 12-speed Motobecane.. https://www.highmarkquad.org/backup/pdf/1997b.pdf I am not going to go that fast or finish that high this time around, I am sixty years old and have had a heart attack, but you will be able to look up the results for this year too, and I will not be finishing the course in 33 minutes like I did then, but should have no problem running it in 38 or 39 minutes as long as it is not a very windy day. Do you like crow ???
#552
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 678
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 790 Post(s)
Liked 348 Times
in
195 Posts
Anyone can google erie. pa highmark quad games and find results of 1997. and as for not riding the Huffy 25 years ago, I did not have it then, and never said I did.
https://study.com/academy/lesson/ad-...-examples.html
https://study.com/academy/lesson/ad-...-examples.html
#553
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,949
Bikes: Colnago, Van Dessel, Factor, Cervelo, Ritchey
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3952 Post(s)
Liked 7,297 Times
in
2,947 Posts
You provided a link that doesn’t exist. Why should I waste my time trying to find the valid link? That’s on you.
#554
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: Wake Forest, NC
Posts: 5,790
Bikes: 1989 Cinelli Supercorsa
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3511 Post(s)
Liked 2,926 Times
in
1,775 Posts
Love that you traded "up" from the Motobecane to a Huffy.
#555
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 8,431
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4407 Post(s)
Liked 4,860 Times
in
3,006 Posts
All super-light materials and patented and copyrighted "aero" technology do is make cycling expensive and it destroys perfectly good older equipment by putting it in danger of no longer being supported in the way of spare parts by manufacturers who have to jump on the lightweight aero bandwagon that exists for no good reason at all.
Likes For PeteHski:
#556
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: Wake Forest, NC
Posts: 5,790
Bikes: 1989 Cinelli Supercorsa
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3511 Post(s)
Liked 2,926 Times
in
1,775 Posts
Which is, of course, a myth. Everyone knows that standard gauge was based on the width of Roman chariots and therefore the width of a horse's ass.
Last edited by smd4; 07-01-22 at 08:58 AM.
#557
Tragically Ignorant
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 15,613
Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Giant OCR A1; SOMA Double Cross Disc; 2022 Allez Elite mit der SRAM
Mentioned: 62 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8186 Post(s)
Liked 9,098 Times
in
5,054 Posts
This standard gauge has kept RR systems interoperable, and when needed, other gauges (usually narrower for mountains) continue to be used. Ironically, the BART system in the SF Bay Area uses a 5'6" gauge, and the biggest complaint about that is that it makes it impossible to adopt new technology built for standard gauge.
#558
Tragically Ignorant
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 15,613
Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Giant OCR A1; SOMA Double Cross Disc; 2022 Allez Elite mit der SRAM
Mentioned: 62 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8186 Post(s)
Liked 9,098 Times
in
5,054 Posts
Likes For livedarklions:
#559
Full Member
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 425
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 167 Post(s)
Liked 291 Times
in
163 Posts
...
All super-light materials and patented and copyrighted "aero" technology do is make cycling expensive and it destroys perfectly good older equipment by putting it in danger of no longer being supported in the way of spare parts by manufacturers who have to jump on the lightweight aero bandwagon that exists for no good reason at all...
.
You wrote that you finished 40th out of over 400 in a TT 25 years ago. You say you are 60 now so that made you 35, a man in his prime still. Given the bike you say you had then, it wasn't that bad at the time for a TT of that type; amateur average level. But a lighter, more agile bike might have possibly helped you to a top 35, maybe top 30 depending upon the course.
40th is not a great result if you are trying to impress - you basically finished with the riders aiming for PB's and those just taking part for fun but weren't in any way among the fast guys in contention, not even close.
So you would have benefitted from a faster bike back then, and most certainly now. Just as you are benefiting from airing your views on this Forum...on the internet...via the keyboard of your computer...that didn't exist when you did that time-trial...because...technology has improved in all areas and an acceptable consequence of that, is that it makes older stuff eventually out-of-favour for the majority. Just as you are driving a car and not getting around on horseback.
However, don't fret, keep your older equipment in good condition and it will last a lot longer yet - indeed, if it is something desirable, the 'cottage-industry' will always ensure spares are available for the few who want them.
Cycling can be expensive, yes. If you opt - because it is optional - to chase speed. The very vast majority of cyclists don't. They want comfort and cycling fun and there are plenty of good quality affordable bikes out there. However, start chasing speed or just having a machine to match your sporting hero's and things will get expensive quickly, and the more expensive, the more all you are getting is increasingly marginal gains. This can only be justified by the person paying the money - do they need it? Can they afford it? What are their cycling goals? Some of us deem it worthwhile.
Just as you want manufacturers to stagnate and stay with old tech, a far greater majority are pushing them to innovate and do exactly what they are doing.
Still...if you do want old tech that is newly supported, look to China and get yourself a Flying Pigeon. Their most popular bike, sold over 500 million around the World, it is largely unchanged since 1950 and still in production today. Your dilemma solved.
#560
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2021
Posts: 4,083
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2333 Post(s)
Liked 2,097 Times
in
1,314 Posts
OMG....this happened to me a few days ago on a long Z2 endurance ride. Three weenie club members chased me down and once they passed me, they slowed way down and then fanned out from the center line to the gutter. So, I waited until I could pass and said passing on your left, yet, they did not give way staying 3 abreast. They chase me down again. Rinse and repeat a few times. I was just trying to stay at a specific power and these turkeys saw me as some kind of object to race against. They had nice bikes.
Likes For GhostRider62:
#561
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,760
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1109 Post(s)
Liked 1,200 Times
in
760 Posts
Pick an age where you started enjoying pop music. For me, this is about the time the British Invasion happened in the US, I was about 9 in 1962.
All pop music before (your baseline year) as "oldies", either not good or quaint. Definitely outdated.
The only pop music that is creative, progressive, interesting, artful and listenable happened between (your year) and (a year about 20 or so years later, for me the early 80s)
All pop music produced after (your later year) or so is ***** and just doesn't have the quality and creativeness of music produced between those two years of your favorite pop music.
The main symptom of this sort of attitude is when you yell at kids for having fun and making noise "get off my lawn", "kids these days".
I'm sort of kidding of course, but every generation thinks the previous generation is outdated and the next generation are slackers and tasteless dweebs. I hear my contemporaries talk about millennials, etc. in these terms and just laugh to myself because that's how my parents' generation talked about us and every millennial I know a great, hardworking person.
I love vintage bikes for nostalgia rand aesthetic reasons. I love modern bikes because they work so darn well and also like the aesthetics of some of them. I do NOT like vintage cars at all, not one bit. OK, maybe late 60s Mopar muscle cars - for aesthetic and nostalgic reasons. Current cars are just so much more comfortable and durable and look great in many cases.
Last edited by Camilo; 07-01-22 at 01:14 PM.
Likes For Camilo:
#562
Stuck in Toeclips
I read somewhere and will not describe it well, I'm sure, but, concerning pop music:
Pick an age where you started enjoying pop music. For me, this is about the time the British Invasion happened in the US, I was about 9 in 1962.
All pop music before (your baseline year) as "oldies", either not good or quaint. Definitely outdated.
The only pop music that is creative, progressive, interesting, artful and listenable happened between (your year) and (a year about 20 or so years later, for me the early 80s)
All pop music produced after (your later year) or so is ***** and just doesn't have the quality and creativeness of music produced between those two years of your favorite pop music.
The main symptom of this sort of attitude is when you yell at kids for having fun and making noise "get off my lawn", "kids these days".
I'm sort of kidding of course, but every generation thinks the previous generation is outdated and the next generation are slackers and tasteless dweebs. I hear my contemporaries talk about millennials, etc. in these terms and just laugh to myself because that's how my parents' generation talked about us and every millennial I know a great, hardworking person.
I love vintage bikes for nostalgia rand aesthetic reasons. I love modern bikes because they work so darn well and also like the aesthetics of some of them. I do NOT like vintage cars at all, not one bit. OK, maybe late 60s Mopar muscle cars - for aesthetic and nostalgic reasons. Current cars are just so much more comfortable and durable and look great in many cases.
Pick an age where you started enjoying pop music. For me, this is about the time the British Invasion happened in the US, I was about 9 in 1962.
All pop music before (your baseline year) as "oldies", either not good or quaint. Definitely outdated.
The only pop music that is creative, progressive, interesting, artful and listenable happened between (your year) and (a year about 20 or so years later, for me the early 80s)
All pop music produced after (your later year) or so is ***** and just doesn't have the quality and creativeness of music produced between those two years of your favorite pop music.
The main symptom of this sort of attitude is when you yell at kids for having fun and making noise "get off my lawn", "kids these days".
I'm sort of kidding of course, but every generation thinks the previous generation is outdated and the next generation are slackers and tasteless dweebs. I hear my contemporaries talk about millennials, etc. in these terms and just laugh to myself because that's how my parents' generation talked about us and every millennial I know a great, hardworking person.
I love vintage bikes for nostalgia rand aesthetic reasons. I love modern bikes because they work so darn well and also like the aesthetics of some of them. I do NOT like vintage cars at all, not one bit. OK, maybe late 60s Mopar muscle cars - for aesthetic and nostalgic reasons. Current cars are just so much more comfortable and durable and look great in many cases.
Likes For mikeoverly:
#563
Grupetto Bob
Join Date: Sep 2020
Location: Seattle-ish
Posts: 6,218
Bikes: Bikey McBike Face
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2581 Post(s)
Liked 5,639 Times
in
2,921 Posts
Likes For rsbob:
#564
Full Member
I read somewhere and will not describe it well, I'm sure, but, concerning pop music:
Pick an age where you started enjoying pop music. For me, this is about the time the British Invasion happened in the US, I was about 9 in 1962.
All pop music before (your baseline year) as "oldies", either not good or quaint. Definitely outdated.
The only pop music that is creative, progressive, interesting, artful and listenable happened between (your year) and (a year about 20 or so years later, for me the early 80s)
All pop music produced after (your later year) or so is ***** and just doesn't have the quality and creativeness of music produced between those two years of your favorite pop music.
The main symptom of this sort of attitude is when you yell at kids for having fun and making noise "get off my lawn", "kids these days".
Pick an age where you started enjoying pop music. For me, this is about the time the British Invasion happened in the US, I was about 9 in 1962.
All pop music before (your baseline year) as "oldies", either not good or quaint. Definitely outdated.
The only pop music that is creative, progressive, interesting, artful and listenable happened between (your year) and (a year about 20 or so years later, for me the early 80s)
All pop music produced after (your later year) or so is ***** and just doesn't have the quality and creativeness of music produced between those two years of your favorite pop music.
The main symptom of this sort of attitude is when you yell at kids for having fun and making noise "get off my lawn", "kids these days".
Likes For Ubie:
#565
Advanced Slacker
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 6,210
Bikes: Soma Fog Cutter, Surly Wednesday, Canfielld Tilt
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2762 Post(s)
Liked 2,537 Times
in
1,433 Posts
#566
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,760
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1109 Post(s)
Liked 1,200 Times
in
760 Posts
I could say the exact same thing for the entire 2000s. Some of the cast members and overall ensembles were all time greats, some very weak. I didn't watch much in the 80s and 90s so can't really judge. I was in my early 20s when it started. I watch some of that old stuff, 70s 80s, 90s and can say the exact same thing about the casts and skits as I wrote above. Sometimes it's brilliant, but it wasn't uniformly great and never has been.
What's interesting to me is when new cast members start. There's been several I just didn't think were good at first, but really blossomed.
#567
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Yamaguchi City, Japan
Posts: 1,091
Bikes: Trek Madone 5.2 SL 2007, Look KG386, R022 Re-framed Azzurri Primo, Felt Z5, Trek F7.3 FX
Mentioned: 36 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 404 Post(s)
Liked 85 Times
in
73 Posts
I get the pop music theory and largely agree. I started to listen to pop music in about 1971 (age 6) and I don't like hardly anything after 1992. The first bikes that I rode, however, were steel with down tube non indexed shifters. I can't remember the ride quality but I want indexed brifters. The first bikes that I owned were aluminum and I now don't like them due to their bone shaking rattle. I got my first comfortable carbon bike when Lance Armstrong was still in the TDF.
Now I have Lance Armstrong's bike. A Trek Madone 5.2 SL 2007 in Ultegra 5700 plus Dura Ace DR in ten speed, I don't think I want anything "better". No, I would like electronic shifting but can't afford it, and can't see that it makes all that much difference. The Ultegra 6700 last (?) not under the bar tape shifting is so easy and good. I had been using 105 5800 for a while and thought it great, but the front shift on the 6700 is so much easier that I thought the wire in my 5800 had snapped, it was so hard to shift up. The horizontal top tube and 13.5cm head tube of the Lance Armstrong bike puts me in an areo position.
Are there any "aero road bikes" that are aero when taking into account the rider position? If such exist then I want one (my Look, from the LA era is getting there but the carbon is a bit less springy) but if not then they are a step backwards. "Aero" is only aero if it takes into account the whole package (bike plus rider). If the "aero road bikes" are upright then they are on balance, in toto, anti-aero and thus bollox (or for fat people).
Or is it that the pop music theory needs to be modified: people love the bikes that they wanted when they first fell in love with bikes?
Now I have Lance Armstrong's bike. A Trek Madone 5.2 SL 2007 in Ultegra 5700 plus Dura Ace DR in ten speed, I don't think I want anything "better". No, I would like electronic shifting but can't afford it, and can't see that it makes all that much difference. The Ultegra 6700 last (?) not under the bar tape shifting is so easy and good. I had been using 105 5800 for a while and thought it great, but the front shift on the 6700 is so much easier that I thought the wire in my 5800 had snapped, it was so hard to shift up. The horizontal top tube and 13.5cm head tube of the Lance Armstrong bike puts me in an areo position.
Are there any "aero road bikes" that are aero when taking into account the rider position? If such exist then I want one (my Look, from the LA era is getting there but the carbon is a bit less springy) but if not then they are a step backwards. "Aero" is only aero if it takes into account the whole package (bike plus rider). If the "aero road bikes" are upright then they are on balance, in toto, anti-aero and thus bollox (or for fat people).
Or is it that the pop music theory needs to be modified: people love the bikes that they wanted when they first fell in love with bikes?
Last edited by timtak; 07-04-22 at 01:23 AM. Reason: better in quotes.
#568
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 678
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 790 Post(s)
Liked 348 Times
in
195 Posts
[QUOTE=AlgarveCycling;22560603]You wrote that you finished 40th out of over 400 in a TT 25 years ago. You say you are 60 now so that made you 35, a man in his prime still. Given the bike you say you had then, it wasn't that bad at the time for a TT of that type; amateur average level. But a lighter, more agile bike might have possibly helped you to a top 35, maybe top 30 depending upon the course.[QUOTE]
It was a relatively flat course, and I weigh 200 pounds, A little lighter bike is not going to help a clydesdale rider, and do little for anyone else, like the 361 riders that finished slower than I did for instance who were certainly not all on older equipment than I was. The only thing that would have helped me is if the time-trial was late in the season when I was in better shape and pulling another 1-2mph in similar situations. It is scientifically proven that on flatter courses bicycle weight is not a big factor, and it is also scientifically proven that rider position on the bike and their fitness are by far the most important factors in speed.
[QUOTE=AlgarveCycling;22560603]40th is not a great result if you are trying to impress [QUOTE]
The thread is on technology, having a 12-speed round steel tube motobecane Jubile with friction shifting finish ahead of 361 out of 400 other bikes, many of them much lighter, with trigger or brifter shifting, aero-tubing and wheels and riders wearing racing outfits and helmets is an obvious example of technology not being necessary and is on subject. Ad-Hominem statements like yours are not only off subject, but the earmark of someone losing a debate due to lack of facts and/or logic.
[QUOTE=AlgarveCycling;22560603]Just as you are benefiting from airing your views on this Forum...on the internet...via the keyboard of your computer...that didn't exist when you did that time-trial...[QUOTE]
Huh ??? Ever hear of Windows 95' and AOL ??? How old are you ??? Automobiles have been around since the 1800s, so your point about driving them is also nonsense. Again, it looks like the only way you can win a debate is by making things up, or thinking that because you say something louder, or just say it period, that it means something. You have no facts, logic or common sense in your statements.
[QUOTE=AlgarveCycling;22560603]Cycling can be expensive, yes. If you opt - because it is optional - to chase speed. The very vast majority of cyclists don't. [QUOTE]
Which nicely backs my position up. It takes no new tech to attain a comfortable bicycle, a nice Schwinn cruiser from the early 60s with a three-speed hub and nice wide sprung seat will work just fine. And you reiterate your statement about speed being tied to technology, when it is proven by science research that rider position and fitness are by far more important than the equipment for speed.
[QUOTE=AlgarveCycling;22560603]Just as you want manufacturers to stagnate and stay with old tech, a far greater majority are pushing them to innovate and do exactly what they are doing.
Another illogical false assumption on your part, stating that something is constructive or makes sense because a lot of people back it up is like saying because Britney Spears had a number-one hit she is a better singer or artist than opera singer Renee Fleming, who is known to much less of the population. Just because the majority of the Western population has been brainwashed by establishment media since WWI to go along with wasteful consumerism that destroys the ecosystem while stuffing the wallets of Wall-Street billionaires, does not make them authorities on quality or necessity, in fact it makes them quite the opposite.
#569
Tragically Ignorant
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 15,613
Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Giant OCR A1; SOMA Double Cross Disc; 2022 Allez Elite mit der SRAM
Mentioned: 62 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8186 Post(s)
Liked 9,098 Times
in
5,054 Posts
I fell in love with road bikes in the 1970s. I buy a fair number of used bikes, and I won't even look at a bike with downtube, stem, or bar end shifting
Seriously, if you look at the people touting the latest and greatest on this forum, I think you'll find that as a group, they skew older.
Likes For livedarklions:
#570
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2021
Posts: 4,083
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2333 Post(s)
Liked 2,097 Times
in
1,314 Posts
Born in the 50's and started to ride in the 70's, my vintage Masi GC hangs in the garage and I pretty much only ride carbon and electronic shifted bikes with carbon hoops
#571
Advanced Slacker
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 6,210
Bikes: Soma Fog Cutter, Surly Wednesday, Canfielld Tilt
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2762 Post(s)
Liked 2,537 Times
in
1,433 Posts
It is also the Golden Age of TV, IMO. Were I to make a list of my favorite 10 TV series, I’d guess at least 7 of them have been since the mid-2000s. Yet I watched a whole lot more TV in my youth.
#572
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: TC, MN
Posts: 39,520
Bikes: R3 Disc, Haanjo
Mentioned: 354 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20810 Post(s)
Liked 9,456 Times
in
4,672 Posts
I can't say that I've paid much attention to current comedies...
#573
Full Member
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 425
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 167 Post(s)
Liked 291 Times
in
163 Posts
You actually believe the nonsense you write here, don't you? You're not debating, you're engaging in an exercise of making yourself look stupid.
Give you head a wobble and think: Once you have got your personal fitness and strength peaking, once you have got your position dialled in...what is left to improve performance? The bike. And it can make a very significant difference, and this is, as you like to say, "scientifically proven". But you seem incapable of grasping this fact.
Science (and every cognisant, non-idiotic rider who has ever ridden different types of bikes) has proven in wind tunnels that a 15 lb aero bike vs 20 lb non-aero bike saves x-number of watts at x-speed over 1 hour where x will vary in favour of the lighter, aero bike depending upon the course - including pancake flat.
Therefore, it is logical - since you claim to be logical - that the lighter, aero bike will be a benefit at all times. So if you could do 200W for 1 hour on a 20 lb bike, those same 200W on an aero 15 lb bike that saves you watts against the elements, gets you further down the road. This is an undeniable fact. Proven by countless actual athletes - not fun riders like you that want cycle tech to stagnate for selfish reasons.
Your own performance would improve if you used better tech regardless of your ability. But sure, for the fun, easy pace racing you do, probably not necessary just for the joy of taking part and having a laugh but for anyone who takes their racing seriously then faster bikes will help them towards their racing goals.
Anyway, I do realise I have just wasted time typing this since it is going into a vacuous space and I feel a little like I'm picking upon someone a tad 'disadvantaged' so I'll leave it at that....
#574
OM boy
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Goleta CA
Posts: 4,368
Bikes: a bunch
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 517 Post(s)
Liked 644 Times
in
438 Posts
The equipment is such an extension, that it becomes part of me... I know, crazy... LOL!
But it adds to the overall enjoyment.
If I was 35 again, now - I'd prolly obsess about 'new tech'. Thinking back, I did obsess when I was 58... LOL!
It's really OK to love the old gaspipe, Ok to 'need' the electronic/latest/lightest anything. I guess I'm avoiding the 'latest/lightest/fastest' tech, because I KNOW that this stuff won;t let me hold the wheel of really 'fast' groups around. A reality of my '73' which can't be undone...
You should get the MASI on the road more often, there's a different type of 'joy' to riding when the objective is different from being your 'fastest' self.
Ride On
Yuri
#575
OM boy
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Goleta CA
Posts: 4,368
Bikes: a bunch
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 517 Post(s)
Liked 644 Times
in
438 Posts
Originally Posted by timtak;22563022
... Now I have Lance Armstrong's bike. A Trek Madone 5.2 SL 2007 in Ultegra 5700 plus Dura Ace DR in ten speed, I don't think I want anything "better". No, I would like electronic shifting but can't afford it, and can't see that it makes all that much difference. The Ultegra 6700 last (?) not under the bar tape shifting is so easy and good. I had been using 105 5800 for a while and thought it great, but the front shift on the 6700 is so much easier that I thought the wire in my 5800 had snapped, it was so hard to shift up. The horizontal top tube and 13.5cm head tube of the Lance Armstrong bike puts me in an areo position.
...
...
... Now I have Lance Armstrong's bike. A Trek Madone 5.2 SL 2007 in Ultegra 5700 plus Dura Ace DR in ten speed, I don't think I want anything "better". No, I would like electronic shifting but can't afford it, and can't see that it makes all that much difference. The Ultegra 6700 last (?) not under the bar tape shifting is so easy and good. I had been using 105 5800 for a while and thought it great, but the front shift on the 6700 is so much easier that I thought the wire in my 5800 had snapped, it was so hard to shift up. The horizontal top tube and 13.5cm head tube of the Lance Armstrong bike puts me in an areo position.
...
...
people love the bikes that they wanted when they first fell in love with bikes?
... and also - 'people' love the equipment they might have had in their halcyon days of yore... no matter how un-halcyon those days actually may have been... LOL!
'admiring the 'niceness' of some of the latest stuff, doesn't diminish the value of the stuff you choose to have.
I like our moon, I don;t need to have 11 more...
Ride On
Yuri
EDIT: the BOLD is totally unintentional, for some reason, it just wants to be bold... Tried redoing the post in 'edit', but same,same... weird.
Last edited by cyclezen; 07-05-22 at 02:17 PM.