shoota 

bamboobike4

Um, they're both slow with me on them.


Total cost here (combined) is about $3800. Used, of course. I am 100% sure a $15,000 C68 would be wasted on me, or even an $8,000 one, used.
They are simply different bikes, and while both are Colnagos, they don't ride like there's any connection.

There have been posts here about "when I do shootouts, or fast rides, I take the carbon."
In this case, I do not have that feeling. At all. Ever. That is significant.
No idea which one goes to Colorado next month. Mt. Evans (since renamed) and Triple ByPass.
I'm leaning towards the carbon because it can get rained on and not cause rust anxiety.

vespasianus

I hate test like these. Put modern components on the older bike along with some nice modern rims and I bet the "differences" would be minor.

himespau 

Yeah, I especially don't get the complaints about the narrow tires when that's an easy fix and will definitely work on that bike. Clearances on most road bikes got narrower in the 00's, but in the 90's there was plenty of room.

SurferRosa

P***y.

vespasianus

I have a Tommasini Sintesi from 1999 that I still ride. I also have a nice modern disc brake carbon bike (Cinelli Superstar). Both are good and fun. Both run 50/34 compact cranksets, with 11 speed 11-32 rear cassettes. Both run nice light wheels with 28 mm tires. Old bike frames were good. New bikes frames are good. Bikes are good. There have been huge improvements in tire, wheel and component technology that has a much greater impact than a bike frame. Ride your bike and enjoy the feel.

bamboobike4

"So, did you win on Strava?"
"No, but I got a PR on one segment, 2nd on six, and 3rd on four."
"Good job, I got two PR's, two 2nds, four 3rds."
"Did you adjust your Garmin elevation?"
"Yeah, picked up 802 feet."
"Hmm, mine picked up 906."
"Something must be wrong."
"Yeah, technology, go figure."

"What are those guys doing over there?"
"Looks like drinking beer, laughing, talking about bikes."
"Boy, that's weird."
"Yeah, those guys are kind of crazy."
"But all those women standing around."
"Not sure about that, either."

"OK, see you at the car."
"Yeah"

Germany_chris

It was more new v new..if the C68 had 12 speed Di2 then the master get's 12 speed Di2..pretty much match all specs possible

bamboobike4

If they'd buy those and send them to me, I could do a comparison, and wouldn't even charge for my time.
54cm, if you have any influence......

Oldairhead 

Here you go, but a 2008 with Campy Athena 11 speed is about as modern as I get!

Spaghetti Legs 

Yes, but if you want the wheels and parts so the you can actually ride it, you're looking at another $2-5k.

squirtdad

this may be of interest

comparing new and old steel 753 vs. 953 | Kirk Frameworks

comparing 30 different bikes by the builder, Dave Kirk Old vs. New ? Serotta vs. Kirk Onesto | Kirk Frameworks

Andy_K 

If you have a $10k bike budget, this is a major advantage for the carbon bike. When you buy $10k worth of vintage bikes, your significant other is very likely to start complaining about how much garage space they're taking up. The $10k carbon bike solves the N+1 problem for all but the wealthiest among us.

genejockey 

Well......The test was properly designed to answer the question, "Can a classic steel race bike beat a modern superbike?"

Could you make the old bike faster with modern bits? Sure. You could probably make the modern bike slower with old bits, too. But that wasn't the question being asked.

Andy_K 

The 14 second difference is kind of a non-result, given how he did the test. Having a degree in physics (and not engineering, as so many here do), I tend to view things like rolling resistance as noise that can be eliminated from your calculations. So if you ride both bikes over the same uphill course with the same power input, the difference is going to come down to combined mass of rider plus bike, right? Figuring about 6 pound difference in the weight of the bikes, that makes the combined mass difference of about 3.6% (conveniently, the author lists his weight). Based on that alone, I would expect the steel bike to take about 17 second longer over an 8 minute climb. I'd say 14 seconds is within the margin of error, assuming he didn't hold the power exactly even over the whole course. Or maybe the steel bike is slightly faster than the carbon bike apart from the weight.

squirtdad

my significant in general thinks i have too many bikes (does not understand that at "only" 3 I really don't have lot of bikes (plus her bike and my son's BMX bike been saved for a some day future grand child), but does not really count them, however I learned that de rosa red is quickly noticed.... so future de rosa would have to be another color that said my next bike is going to be tis color...I think she wil notice

genejockey 

Alternatively, the $10K carbon bike solves the significant other problem.

Wildwood 

This is one thread where I have to agree with almost every post. Not sure that matters.

the issue with Soul. Soul comes not exclusively from material or time; the bike's creation, how much ridden and how it responds help create Soul. My Calfee, created for me 20+ years ago has it. The Zeus has it. Not sure the rest. Even the beloved Daimlers fall short of Soul. Not sure aluminium is Soul-capable, but I have been wrong before.

Atlas Shrugged

As a lifelong metalworker not sure what this mystical soul people are talking about. Especially with what would be considered a mass produced bicycle. Even the most artistic photographs of Colnago’s shop shows stacks of frames laying about welded by low paid minions in the background. Further evidenced by the thousands of them around the world, every group ride or criterium race in the late 70’s early 80’s effectively consisted of these Italian bikes, even in Podunk Idaho. Having spent decades as a precision machinist and tool maker there is nothing special about a bicycle frame, lugged, filet brazed or tig welded. That is why you see most frame builders are home taught hobbyists without any formal training, mitre some readily available tubes, joined them, be careful not to overheat use a jig, align afterwards, done. Take a look at the frame-builder thread and you quickly see its really not so mysterious. There is as much marketing BS in an Italian steel frame as there is in a new S-Works. Don’t even get me started on the ultimate scam, Titanium!

52telecaster

Groucho!!!!! Spaulding right?

Andy_K 

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. The soul is in the story. It's an article of faith. Here's a picture of Yoshi Konno endowing a fork crown with soul.

genejockey 

Hurray for Captain Spaulding, the African explorer!
Did someone call me schnorrer?
Hurray, hurray, hurray!!

squirtdad

oh come on, what issue do you have with titanium?

seriously,

I have felt difference in steel frames, from a torpado super strada with allelle tube that rode super well to an 84 team miyata (double butted) that just wants to go. Of course light wheels and good tires make a difference also...said 84 did not feel geast with some super heavy 25mm bontrager tires and tubes as thick as tires on ma40 rims, but 25mm challenge tubies and mavic gel330 rims....total magic. same bike with the ma40 and 28mm gravel kings is still really nice

fit is also critical....I had a de rosa that was just a tad big and as such it was nice but not special....moved it on and it worked much better for the subsequent owner

Andy_K 

I found the remarks about the aerodynamic advantage of narrower bars on the vintage bike interesting. Years ago I wanted to compare the rolling resistance of various tires, so I devised a test where I'd pick a fixed point on the hill I live on, coast away from that point from a dead stop, and record my max speed at the bottom of the hill. What I found was that this test showed no significant and repeatable differences between tires. In fact, the only thing that made any significant difference in the test was whether or not I was wearing a jacket. Wearing a jacket dropped my max speed by about 10%. Nothing else mattered. I wasn't measuring rolling resistance. I was measuring aerodynamic drag. Such is real world cycling.

Likewise, I'm pretty sure the quantifiable measurements in this guy's test were measuring aerodynamics and bike weight. He says that he felt like going faster while riding the carbon bike and kind of dismissed that as a flaw in his process. In fact, you could make a pretty good case that it was the only observation that genuinely mattered.

Wildwood 

Mass produced Soul or CNC'd Soul seems a stretch. Maybe, Soul must be bestowed instead of produced.

Titanium - not a scam if purchased used at a good price.

Heck....We all know tires + wheels (saddle,bars,shoes) make more 'ride quality' than frameset. Even fork is more a variable than frame. (edit: with exceptions = there are some really, really crappy frames out there.)
YMMV