A lot of the recent "innovation" is a bad bargain for anyone not pushing a competitiv
#576
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 7,299 Times
in
2,947 Posts
#577
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
#578
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 7,299 Times
in
2,947 Posts
#579
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
#580
Klaatu..Verata..Necktie?
Join Date: May 2007
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 17,980
Bikes: Litespeed Ultimate, Ultegra; Canyon Endurace, 105; Battaglin MAX, Chorus; Bianchi 928 Veloce; Ritchey Road Logic, Dura Ace; Cannondale R500 RX100; Schwinn Circuit, Sante; Lotus Supreme, Dura Ace
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10435 Post(s)
Liked 11,912 Times
in
6,100 Posts
I could not stand trying to read beng1's atrocious attempt at quote editing. Geez, beng1, do you not get how HTML tags work? Anyway, here's his post quoting AlgarveCycling, but readable, not just an unreadable mishmash.
Just because something is rubbing to you, does not mean it is rubbish, your view is subjective.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Just because something is rubbing to you, does not mean it is rubbish, your view is subjective.
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.
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.
__________________
"Don't take life so serious-it ain't nohow permanent."
"Everybody's gotta be somewhere." - Eccles
"Don't take life so serious-it ain't nohow permanent."
"Everybody's gotta be somewhere." - Eccles
Likes For genejockey:
#581
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
That's a shame..., for me,anyway. Certainly the 'new' stuff gets the most miles - just so deeply engrained in my cycling DNA... but getting out on my old gaspipe becomes approval to let memories flood back into the mind's eye. I have the same problem with motorcycles and ice skates... and surf boards... and... LOL!
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
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
Likes For GhostRider62:
#582
Klaatu..Verata..Necktie?
Join Date: May 2007
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 17,980
Bikes: Litespeed Ultimate, Ultegra; Canyon Endurace, 105; Battaglin MAX, Chorus; Bianchi 928 Veloce; Ritchey Road Logic, Dura Ace; Cannondale R500 RX100; Schwinn Circuit, Sante; Lotus Supreme, Dura Ace
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10435 Post(s)
Liked 11,912 Times
in
6,100 Posts
Likes For genejockey:
#583
The Wheezing Geezer
Join Date: Oct 2021
Location: Española, NM
Posts: 1,055
Bikes: 1976 Fredo Speciale, Jamis Citizen 1, Ellis-Briggs FAVORI, Rivendell Clem Smith Jr.
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 414 Post(s)
Liked 920 Times
in
447 Posts
Some people consider cycling to be a serious hobby and don't want to be tied down to whatever old tech you happen to prefer. It might be convenient for you if a brand new current part happened to fit your 40 year old bicycle, but that's not a realistic prospect with any technology. Wherever you do get long-term standards they usually end up becoming a restrictive bottleneck for future development. A prime example would be the standard gauge rail network, determined by the width of your average Victorian horse and cart!
In 1990, not only could you find parts for 40-year-old bicycles, you could buy brand new ones, that fit and worked because of standards. Probably still can, thanks to standards!
Honestly, using rail-gauges as an argument against standards is possibly the silliest thing I've read this July, so far.
#584
Cheerfully low end
Join Date: Jun 2020
Posts: 1,978
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 646 Post(s)
Liked 1,044 Times
in
667 Posts
But things like QR wheels compatible with rim brakes and classic era hub widths, square taper bottom brackets and crank sets, caliper brakes, quill stems and quill stem adapters, all manner of indexed and friction shifters, freewheels and even non-aero brake levers are still being made and sold.
I’ve switched both my bikes to quill stem adapters, so I can use all modern stems but still make height adjustments in a few seconds.
Curiously, I’ve recently developed a preference for using a classic era drop bar set up on both bikes (traditional round bend bars, plenty of reach and drop, non-aero levers and drops nearly parallel to the ground), but as noted using modern stems and quill adapters.
Perhaps an argument for the current age being great for cycling is that even older tech remains an option for anyone interested, along with the more prevalent choices for new tech?
Otto
Likes For ofajen:
#585
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
A light aero bike is not going to make a non-competitive rider competitive. I am not a competitive rider, I have no ability to win, and that goes for 99.99% of all riders. So it is a waste for anyone unless they have a chance at winning, a waste for 99.99% of all riders. So those arguing that modern bicycles are worth wasting time and money on will always be over 99% wrong. Me dumping five-grand on a time-trial bike so I can go 22mph instead of 19mph would be idiotic. And since it takes someone who can go around 30mph average or more to win most time-trials, even those little local events most will never hear of, it is also a waste of time and money for someone to dump thousands into a TT bike if it will only get them to say 28mph from maybe 25 or 26mph average. Still going from not good enough to still not good enough. And if it is a waste for those who are that fast, it is absolutely a waste for anyone who does not race at all, who just rides around the roads and city for fun. But of course lots still buy bikes which will always be much better bikes than they are riders, and if they are lucky they are common hipsters and not suckers, because at least then they will get to pose for other hipsters, where the suckers will never get anything for their money.
#586
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 was going to ask what your ride is, so that I might be able to buy it if I am alive in 15 years and the price goes down, but then I noticed, your road bike (or gravel bike depending on how you have set it up) seems to be an 1980's replica!
I'd love a 1980's Tange steel bike, or replica, with more modern components.
Soma Fog Cutter
https://thelionscyclery.ca/blogs/the...oma-fog-cutter
Last edited by timtak; 07-05-22 at 08:39 PM.
#587
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
A light aero bike is not going to make a non-competitive rider competitive. I am not a competitive rider, I have no ability to win, and that goes for 99.99% of all riders. So it is a waste for anyone unless they have a chance at winning, a waste for 99.99% of all riders. So those arguing that modern bicycles are worth wasting time and money on will always be over 99% wrong. Me dumping five-grand on a time-trial bike so I can go 22mph instead of 19mph would be idiotic. And since it takes someone who can go around 30mph average or more to win most time-trials, even those little local events most will never hear of, it is also a waste of time and money for someone to dump thousands into a TT bike if it will only get them to say 28mph from maybe 25 or 26mph average. Still going from not good enough to still not good enough. And if it is a waste for those who are that fast, it is absolutely a waste for anyone who does not race at all, who just rides around the roads and city for fun. But of course lots still buy bikes which will always be much better bikes than they are riders, and if they are lucky they are common hipsters and not suckers, because at least then they will get to pose for other hipsters, where the suckers will never get anything for their money.
Aha! Now we are getting somewhere!
I have already stated that non-competitive riders will get less of a benefit since they can't get to the speeds where they will materialise the most. I agree with you on this point. The problem with your original post was that it included everyone and made a sweeping, blanket statement about how faster bikes aren't worth the investment.
In your case, while I will still maintain that a 'super-bike' will be faster for you, there is a real argument that the gains are not worth the cost. We agree on that too. A simple test would be to take your current bike and rent a super-bike, go to the top of a 5 mile or so hill and freewheel down, timing both. You would be faster on the super-bike. Similarly, going back up at the exact same power level. This has been demonstrated countless times and it is easy to replicate yourself.
So while there are speed gains to be had, each individual has to do the math and decide if those gains are going to make much difference to their own goals. Clearly, you have decided that in your case, the gains are not worth the investment and only you can be the judge of that - if that is your decision based upon what you know you can achieve, then you are making a good choice. There will be folks in similar positions who have plenty of disposable income who will spend it anyway - that too is their choice.
For some though, the difference between 28mph and 30mph could mean the difference between a Top 20 or a Top 10, or a podium place or even a win. For them, chasing marginal gains is worth the investment if those sporting achievements mean enough to them.
While we have agreed common ground, you are still making sweeping statements, judging all by your own personal goals, needs and abilities and projecting what is good or bad for others. I'm 53, I stopped racing league 2 decades ago and while I was at the top of the Cat 1 Amateur game and Neo-pro in my country, now I do only a few races a year but I still want to win them or, at least, place on the podium. As such, I do have fast bikes and I know, from personal experience, that they help me towards my goals. I am not alone, there are tens of thousands like me around the World.
Where you see a wasted expense, many of us disagree and find it is a worthwhile expense: be that because we do gain material speed benefits or simply like shiny new things and can afford them.
Your choices are valid to you but to you alone; you can't project yours upon others and remain correct. The same as my choices are mine and everyone else's equally valid.
Likes For AlgarveCycling:
#588
Junior Member
Join Date: Jan 2022
Posts: 179
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 137 Post(s)
Liked 51 Times
in
31 Posts
I've posted on other threads about my 25.5 mile midweek route, which I've ridden with 7 different bikes now. There's 4 minutes difference in best time between my newest bike (2020) and my oldest (1982). Same route, same rider, similar effort (based solely on HR, since they don't make power meters for Dura Ace 7200 cranks). Basically a 5% difference.
#589
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2020
Location: Scotland
Posts: 503
Bikes: Way too many
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 900 Post(s)
Liked 607 Times
in
364 Posts
What does it take to be considered a "serious" cyclist? 250 miles/week? A watt-meter?
In 1990, not only could you find parts for 40-year-old bicycles, you could buy brand new ones, that fit and worked because of standards. Probably still can, thanks to standards!
Honestly, using rail-gauges as an argument against standards is possibly the silliest thing I've read this July, so far.
In 1990, not only could you find parts for 40-year-old bicycles, you could buy brand new ones, that fit and worked because of standards. Probably still can, thanks to standards!
Honestly, using rail-gauges as an argument against standards is possibly the silliest thing I've read this July, so far.
#590
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
I was going to ask what your ride is, so that I might be able to buy it if I am alive in 15 years and the price goes down, but then I noticed, your road bike (or gravel bike depending on how you have set it up) seems to be an 1980's replica!
I'd love a 1980's Tange steel bike, or replica, with more modern components.
Soma Fog Cutter
https://thelionscyclery.ca/blogs/the...oma-fog-cutter
But it is basically modern: sloped top tube, disk brakes, modern wheels (cartridge bearings, tubeless compatible rims), threadless headset, modern compact bars with 12 deg flare, STI shifters. I switch between Time Atac clipless and modern flats.
I’ve got the 1st gen Fog Cutter (the red one with QR instead of TA). To be honest, it is a fine frame for what it cost, but it is nothing special. Looks good though, and had the geo, rack mounts and tire clearance I was looking for,
Part of the reason I see this as the golden age is that along with the modern components and tech, there is an amazing variety to choose from these days. You want a fast paved road rocket with electronic shifting? Or a retro looking all-road bike? Or a touring bike? Or a gravel bike? Or a commuter town bike? Or anything in between those things? You can get it all now (well, maybe not NOW with supply chain issues).
Likes For Kapusta:
#591
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
What does it take to be considered a "serious" cyclist? 250 miles/week? A watt-meter?
In 1990, not only could you find parts for 40-year-old bicycles, you could buy brand new ones, that fit and worked because of standards. Probably still can, thanks to standards!
Honestly, using rail-gauges as an argument against standards is possibly the silliest thing I've read this July, so far.
In 1990, not only could you find parts for 40-year-old bicycles, you could buy brand new ones, that fit and worked because of standards. Probably still can, thanks to standards!
Honestly, using rail-gauges as an argument against standards is possibly the silliest thing I've read this July, so far.
Actually, if there are standards holding back meaningful progress in bike technology, it's probably those of UCI.
Likes For livedarklions:
#592
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
Aha! Now we are getting somewhere!
I have already stated that non-competitive riders will get less of a benefit since they can't get to the speeds where they will materialise the most. I agree with you on this point. The problem with your original post was that it included everyone and made a sweeping, blanket statement about how faster bikes aren't worth the investment.
In your case, while I will still maintain that a 'super-bike' will be faster for you, there is a real argument that the gains are not worth the cost. We agree on that too. A simple test would be to take your current bike and rent a super-bike, go to the top of a 5 mile or so hill and freewheel down, timing both. You would be faster on the super-bike. Similarly, going back up at the exact same power level. This has been demonstrated countless times and it is easy to replicate yourself.
So while there are speed gains to be had, each individual has to do the math and decide if those gains are going to make much difference to their own goals. Clearly, you have decided that in your case, the gains are not worth the investment and only you can be the judge of that - if that is your decision based upon what you know you can achieve, then you are making a good choice. There will be folks in similar positions who have plenty of disposable income who will spend it anyway - that too is their choice.
For some though, the difference between 28mph and 30mph could mean the difference between a Top 20 or a Top 10, or a podium place or even a win. For them, chasing marginal gains is worth the investment if those sporting achievements mean enough to them.
While we have agreed common ground, you are still making sweeping statements, judging all by your own personal goals, needs and abilities and projecting what is good or bad for others. I'm 53, I stopped racing league 2 decades ago and while I was at the top of the Cat 1 Amateur game and Neo-pro in my country, now I do only a few races a year but I still want to win them or, at least, place on the podium. As such, I do have fast bikes and I know, from personal experience, that they help me towards my goals. I am not alone, there are tens of thousands like me around the World.
Where you see a wasted expense, many of us disagree and find it is a worthwhile expense: be that because we do gain material speed benefits or simply like shiny new things and can afford them.
Your choices are valid to you but to you alone; you can't project yours upon others and remain correct. The same as my choices are mine and everyone else's equally valid.
I have already stated that non-competitive riders will get less of a benefit since they can't get to the speeds where they will materialise the most. I agree with you on this point. The problem with your original post was that it included everyone and made a sweeping, blanket statement about how faster bikes aren't worth the investment.
In your case, while I will still maintain that a 'super-bike' will be faster for you, there is a real argument that the gains are not worth the cost. We agree on that too. A simple test would be to take your current bike and rent a super-bike, go to the top of a 5 mile or so hill and freewheel down, timing both. You would be faster on the super-bike. Similarly, going back up at the exact same power level. This has been demonstrated countless times and it is easy to replicate yourself.
So while there are speed gains to be had, each individual has to do the math and decide if those gains are going to make much difference to their own goals. Clearly, you have decided that in your case, the gains are not worth the investment and only you can be the judge of that - if that is your decision based upon what you know you can achieve, then you are making a good choice. There will be folks in similar positions who have plenty of disposable income who will spend it anyway - that too is their choice.
For some though, the difference between 28mph and 30mph could mean the difference between a Top 20 or a Top 10, or a podium place or even a win. For them, chasing marginal gains is worth the investment if those sporting achievements mean enough to them.
While we have agreed common ground, you are still making sweeping statements, judging all by your own personal goals, needs and abilities and projecting what is good or bad for others. I'm 53, I stopped racing league 2 decades ago and while I was at the top of the Cat 1 Amateur game and Neo-pro in my country, now I do only a few races a year but I still want to win them or, at least, place on the podium. As such, I do have fast bikes and I know, from personal experience, that they help me towards my goals. I am not alone, there are tens of thousands like me around the World.
Where you see a wasted expense, many of us disagree and find it is a worthwhile expense: be that because we do gain material speed benefits or simply like shiny new things and can afford them.
Your choices are valid to you but to you alone; you can't project yours upon others and remain correct. The same as my choices are mine and everyone else's equally valid.
TL/DR version: Competitive =/= chance of winning at top level. People may have more modest "competitive" goals that the new technology may help them reach. Whether that help is worth the expense is an individual decision.
Likes For livedarklions:
#593
Senior Member
A light aero bike is not going to make a non-competitive rider competitive. I am not a competitive rider, I have no ability to win, and that goes for 99.99% of all riders. So it is a waste for anyone unless they have a chance at winning, a waste for 99.99% of all riders. So those arguing that modern bicycles are worth wasting time and money on will always be over 99% wrong. Me dumping five-grand on a time-trial bike so I can go 22mph instead of 19mph would be idiotic. And since it takes someone who can go around 30mph average or more to win most time-trials, even those little local events most will never hear of, it is also a waste of time and money for someone to dump thousands into a TT bike if it will only get them to say 28mph from maybe 25 or 26mph average. Still going from not good enough to still not good enough. And if it is a waste for those who are that fast, it is absolutely a waste for anyone who does not race at all, who just rides around the roads and city for fun. But of course lots still buy bikes which will always be much better bikes than they are riders, and if they are lucky they are common hipsters and not suckers, because at least then they will get to pose for other hipsters, where the suckers will never get anything for their money.
Likes For BlazingPedals:
#594
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
A light aero bike is not going to make a non-competitive rider competitive. I am not a competitive rider, I have no ability to win, and that goes for 99.99% of all riders. So it is a waste for anyone unless they have a chance at winning, a waste for 99.99% of all riders. So those arguing that modern bicycles are worth wasting time and money on will always be over 99% wrong. Me dumping five-grand on a time-trial bike so I can go 22mph instead of 19mph would be idiotic. And since it takes someone who can go around 30mph average or more to win most time-trials, even those little local events most will never hear of, it is also a waste of time and money for someone to dump thousands into a TT bike if it will only get them to say 28mph from maybe 25 or 26mph average. Still going from not good enough to still not good enough. And if it is a waste for those who are that fast, it is absolutely a waste for anyone who does not race at all, who just rides around the roads and city for fun. But of course lots still buy bikes which will always be much better bikes than they are riders, and if they are lucky they are common hipsters and not suckers, because at least then they will get to pose for other hipsters, where the suckers will never get anything for their money.
5 grand barely gets you into the dumpster worthy bikes.
Who said new technology is only about winning races.
Comfort and less energy expenditures are two other worthwhile attributes.
I rarely race anymore. Most of my riding is long distance randonneuring where the modern technology takes my sleep from 90 minutes per day to 180-240 minutes........priceless.
Likes For GhostRider62:
#595
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: Wake Forest, NC
Posts: 5,794
Bikes: 1989 Cinelli Supercorsa
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3513 Post(s)
Liked 2,926 Times
in
1,775 Posts
And if it is a waste for those who are that fast, it is absolutely a waste for anyone who does not race at all, who just rides around the roads and city for fun. But of course lots still buy bikes which will always be much better bikes than they are riders, and if they are lucky they are common hipsters and not suckers, because at least then they will get to pose for other hipsters, where the suckers will never get anything for their money.
Likes For smd4:
#596
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
Likes For Kapusta:
#597
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 want to save up for a second hand one one, if they exist.
#598
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
#599
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
Likes For Kapusta:
#600
Klaatu..Verata..Necktie?
Join Date: May 2007
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 17,980
Bikes: Litespeed Ultimate, Ultegra; Canyon Endurace, 105; Battaglin MAX, Chorus; Bianchi 928 Veloce; Ritchey Road Logic, Dura Ace; Cannondale R500 RX100; Schwinn Circuit, Sante; Lotus Supreme, Dura Ace
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10435 Post(s)
Liked 11,912 Times
in
6,100 Posts
interesting post. Is it a weight difference that makes your newer bikes faster? Tires? Frame materials? Good post. I'm now wondering if anyone has printed a bike frame, or tried to do so that is actually rideable and what weight reductions are left for a mass produced bike. I know the lightest bike in history is around 6 lbs but I'm thinking the cost was close to 40 k. Makes one wonder what the future holds eh. And if this question will still be asked in 40 more yrs.
EDIT: The route has 1200 ft of climbing, but only one segment of about 0.2 miles at 8%, whereas the rest of the "climbs" are in the 2% range. No technical descents, either, but some long stretches going down the other side of those 2% gradients, and one short descent that mirrors that 0.2 mile climb. So, the lightest bike isn't automatically the best.
__________________
"Don't take life so serious-it ain't nohow permanent."
"Everybody's gotta be somewhere." - Eccles
"Don't take life so serious-it ain't nohow permanent."
"Everybody's gotta be somewhere." - Eccles
Last edited by genejockey; 07-06-22 at 09:25 AM.
Likes For genejockey: