PeteHski

It's a similar story in Europe. Late 70s and 80s was not a great era for sports cars following the fuel crisis - there are exceptions of course. Modern sports cars are now on another planet in terms of performance though.

genejockey 

Interestingly, that was the era when European sports cars, especially sports sedans, caught on here. The much-loved American muscle cars of the 60s had huge horsepower, but brakes and suspension were not much advanced from the 1940s. So they could go fast in a straight line, and when you tried to turn, they continued to go fast in a straight line.

PeteHski

Those Euro sports cars of that era were also heavily crippled by US emissions controls. The Porsche 911 in particular was hit very hard in the US market. It was way down on power compared to the European spec of the time.

genejockey 

Yeah, but we didn't know that!

PeteHski

Ha, ha. The only reason I was aware of this is from a few decades later when American spec cars from "dry" states started getting imported back into Europe.

pfaustus

You must be thinking of Russian planes. Virtually all the fasteners on both Boeing and Airbus jets are inch based, not metric. They don't even make the pretense the bicycle industry prefers like 22.2 (7/8) or 25.4 (1") .

CliffordK

Oh, man, and people keep posting those 10 MB photos!!!

alo

Does it matter?

You can buy bikes with different brand names one them, with exactly the same frame. Same strength. Same weight. You can say some are fake copies. Does it matter which is real, and which is fake. It is often just a case of a little-known brand using the same frame as a well known brand.

You can buy a copy of a Shimano derailleur. Shimano might be concerned about having less sales because of these copies, It is the same to use on the bike. In China they don't care.

CliffordK

My CF bike that I ride is a Colnago C-40. 100% CF (with aluminum dropouts). So, really in a transition era from old to modern.

The "Monocoque" frames are not truly made as a one-piece construction. Just they use a smooth lug transition.

But, I have no doubt there are benefits of the OS tubes, shaped tubes, and designs that are more than forming CF as if it was steel pipes.

I suppose I need to do some tuning, but my old Colnago Super just wasn't comfortable descending on a 15% slope or so. The C40 did very well (except that I broke a couple spokes on the descent, perhaps too much HP).

tomato coupe

How does one generate so much power on a 15% descent that you break spokes?

MattTheHat 

I don’t think Americans think differently than the rest of the world. IF we pay more for bicycles (or other non-essential products) than most parts of the world I’m guessing it has more to do with Americans having the highest per capita disposable income than the rest of the world.

MattTheHat 

Obviously by letting a horse ride one’s bicycle. That post clearly identified the power in question was HP. It’s all in the guads.

CliffordK

Oh, man, and everyone complains about me posting NDS photos!!!

1950 just followed a few decades of rapid change in the bike world. Cambio Corsa?

There likely are a number of subtle differences. 1980 would have followed the center pull era... So, side-pulls ==> center-pulls ==> side-pulls.

I can't tell, but those may well have been cottered cranks.

Reynolds 531 would have been quite old, but not necessarily all bike tubes. Butted tubing?

Chainstays were generally a round profile up until mid 70's or early 80's, when oval shapes began to dominate.

2x3 or 2x4 gearing may well have dominated around 1950. By 1980, that would have been either 2x6 or 2x7.

What is with all the chain slack with the 2nd rider in the 1950's photo? Man, is that a front suicide shifter on the second bike?

Oh, and metal vs plastic water bottles.

None of the riders have helmets? By the mid 70's, I had my Skid Lid. Hair nets were still popular. And we were getting the first generation of Bell Helmets. I'm sure helmets were required for my racing, and even the Skid Lids were frowned upon (too much open space). But, that would have been in the juvenile categories.

CliffordK

Oh, sorry, I may have exaggerated a bit.


I was trying to reach 55 MPH (didn't quite make it, but hit over 50 MPH).

I have pretty high gearing on that bike, and was very close to spinning out.

The HP equation is a combination of RPM + torque. I frequently mash in at relatively slow speeds. That hill took me way out of my spinning comfort zone. One doesn't count the hill as part of that equation, but I was ferociously spinning in my highest gear. So, I broke a spoke on that hill, replaced it in the field, and broke a spoke on the next hill descent. And have largely abandoned that set of wheels.

I don't have a power meter at this point. If Strava didn't mess up the stats too much, I could probably figure out how fast I was going when I broke the spokes, and calculate the approximate RPM. I know the cassette, but have to verify the crankset I had on that bike at the time.

UniChris

You don't.

What actually happens is that shock stress triggers the exhaustion of an already mostly used up fatigue life in an unhealthy wheel.

tomato coupe

You should be able to hit 55 mph coasting on a -14% descent.

CliffordK

That hill's slope varies considerably So 100 yards of steep, then less slope, the steeper again.

I'm not doing a riding the top tube descent (some of the pro riders are pedaling while off the saddle and on the top tube). But, I can definitely go faster pedaling.

The next hill where I broke the second spoke was about a 6% descent, and I can definitely go faster pedaling, especially pedaling at the rounded top of the hill, as well as at the leadout at the bottom.

vane171

I have worded it misleadingly, actually I do watch TCM and I am quite a fan of B&W movies (although I am not a 'moviephile' (as in audiophile )) and still have to say, some of the old movies have atrocious quality, picture and sound. Some are virtually borderline bad (I think mostly 1930s era). There was a fashion at some time or a genre of dark picture when nowadays you can just about only make out the shapes moving on screen and some movies have strong hiss in the sound and again, there was an era in those days when movie actors spoke slang and half mousing it just as people speak on streets in real life, which, coupled with low quality sound, makes it hard for even native English speakers to catch all that is spoken.

Generally I fear re-mastering efforts, except in cases like rescuing film from a dustbin like My Fair Lady and probably many others. But again, I don't count myself as a movie historian or moviephile since my life priorities are elsewhere, I just enjoy those early movies.

livedarklions

I actually do know quite a lot about this. A lot of what you're describing is not what the movies sounded or looked like at the time of their release, but are actually artifacts of stock deterioration, worn-out prints, bad reproductions (sometimes you're watching a copy of a copy of a copy), all of which degrade the sound and the picture. I don't find any of those types of defects charming in any way, and I think they detract from how great many of the works really are. Film restoration has become something of an art form in itself, often involving recompiling the original from multiple incomplete and/or imperfect prints, remastering the sound, and recreating the original look of the visuals through digital methods. There is a certain amount of reimagining that has to go into that because there often is no complete "master" print on which to base the editing and esthetic decisions.

I could go on about all the great movies that have been recovered from the dustbins (there are hundreds or more of them), but it's way off-topic.

PeteHski

The problem with fake stuff is that you have zero idea about the quality of materials, production, tolerances and inspection processes. The branded stuff is a known quantity. You know exactly what you are getting with a Shimano derailleur. A fake Shimano derailleur could be okay or it could be complete junk. Same goes with carbon frames. Carbon production is very labour intensive and quality control is vital. A fake carbon frame could be using very low quality materials thrown together in a poor layup full of voids etc. It could also be very good, but you just don't know. That's why brands exist in the first place. You associate a brand with a certain level of quality and service. Fake gear is a gamble.

teejaywhy

Is your issue with the uninformed, or those selling to the uninformed?

Uninformed people are uninformed for a reason. Most people have made bad choices in their life. Most learn from the experience. Some do not.

Metieval

Non racer. I love innovation.

I love that I can fit a 650bx48 under a bike that typical has a max tire size of 700x30.

I love index shifting.

I love clutched rd.

I love tubeless.

I love the stiffness of thru axle.

I love the innovation of newer tires, more supple, longer lasting.

I would have bought the 853 steel frame over the carbon with the RLT9. Based on Standover. Can't really complain on carbon frame. But the 853 definitely mutes vibrations more.

Wheels, oh I do love innovation on hubs, freewheel ratchets.

And after bending my aluminum wheel. I love the innovation of carbon wheels. Maybe I would have cracked it on same curb that bent my Al wheel? *hard to say*

It is even harder to desire to debate on what is a bad bargain for you, Joe, Jill, Todd etc...

I just know that I am thankful for innovation, a free market, all with the ability to choose options and choose innovations as I see fit for myself.


Life would seriously suck bad, if my only options in life (cycling) where the options that someone else chose for me.


I loved my custom hard tail giant Talon 29er. Sold it though. I deemed it wasn't worth buying hoops that were tubeless ready. I had previously tried ghetto tubeless. It held air but made wheels wonky. I also didn't want to invest in tubeless hoops for QR standards. So I sold it.

Is tubeless for all? No, tubes are fine. But when I had 15 goat heads in one ride. 10 front 5 rear. After having 2 front 1 rear.

Funny thing is, I walked in to buy tubes. But they had a bike in my size that I've been kind of wanting... it was an easy choice.

In closing, free markets drive innovation. I love it!

UniChris

Mostly the misrepresentation of what an average casual cyclist needs in order for a bike to be decent and sufficient for rides far beyond anything they're likely to attempt, and how little benefit most upsell (which in a bike shop may be even the minum sell) will have.

If someone already does a club or group of friends ride weekly and has decided they want to plunk more money into a passion, that I get. I suspect there's still a degree of misinformation there but it's more in the realm of willfully overlooking the ample evidence in front of them that it's mostly about the rider not the bike.

If it's what you do for fun or exercise and putting more money into it triggers reward centers, that's fine.

genejockey 

I think in this case it's more a matter of being new to the field of bikes and components. Being new to it, the amount of information these days is overwhelming and figuring out what sources to trust is daunting when you have no experience to use to guide you.

MattTheHat 

“Decent and sufficient”? Why would anyone want you deciding what’s decent and sufficient…for them? To reduce other people’s preferences to ‘triggering reward centers” is laughable!