genejockey 

"Are you doing better on your modern bike than professionals did 30 years ago?" is a weird thing to ask. Wouldn't the correct comparison be to HIMSELF years ago? Or whether he does better on a well-maintained old bike than on a new one?

smd4

Thirty years ago, the 30-year-younger you was saying the exact same thing about bikes from the 1960s.

EDIT: Oops. That's right. The 30-year-younger you was actually saying, "Man, someone should invent wireless index shifting and get carbon fiber bikes below 15 pounds."

genejockey 

And if he's still alive in 30 years, and still rides, he'll say that then and it'll also be true. This is an argument against a point nobody's making.

Fredo76

I think half an hour's sleep, more or less, the night before would make more difference in the next day's performance for most any grand tour rider since the 1950s, than the decade their bikes were built in. Hypothetically speaking, of course.

smd4

Whoosh! There goes that point again!

The point is, "modern" bikes have "always" been cutting edge. Except now you pay a lot more for that edge in dollars adjusted for inflation.

PeteHski

I’m actually quite pragmatic about bikes and only replace them when there is something I find significantly better. I rode the same high-end mountain bike from 2004 until 2015 and the new bike was a hell of a lot better. Since then I bought one more new mtb in 2019 and that was only slightly better. Not such a leap, but still better. I had the same road bike from the mid 80s through to the late 90s and the new one was only slightly better. Then I bought a new road bike again in 2019 and found it was a lot better with the wider tyres, properly designed carbon frame, carbon wheels and disc brakes. I was so impressed that I bought another modern road bike in 2022 in a higher spec with electronic gears. That’s all for me. I don’t have an endless collection of old or new bikes.

3alarmer

...why is it weird to ask about the performance level of an older individual, as it relates to the "capabilities" of the current crop of bicycles ? The point, if there is one, is about how much of this "capability" is of use to the majority of riders. In this case, age does play a factor. Arguably, a more "capable" MTB can get you into trouble if you don't heal as well and as quickly as you did 30 years ago.

So no, I don't find it weird at all. Which is why I asked it.

I constantly get the impression in these threads, that the people who disagree most vehemently with me, are looking at age creeping up on them, and running just as fast as they can to buy some sort of "performance" advantage that exists only for the most highly skilled and conditioned athletes in the sport. Not being one of those, I guess it's hard for me to figure out why one of them would be posting in General Cycling.

3alarmer

...I seem to recall something about how you don't keep cars more than a few years. Did I imagine that ?

genejockey 

Because you're comparing an amateur to professionals. Duh.

genejockey 

That's your point? Again, arguing against something nobody's saying.

PeteHski

No, but I can ride trails on modern MTBs that I certainly couldn’t ride on a 1990 MTB. I crash a lot less now too. Modern MTBs are like having a cheat code. Some would argue that they don’t want a cheat code, but that’s another thing.

3alarmer

...we were, IIRC, discussing advances in technology. Not advances in marketing...which I agree has made significant strides in the past 20 years. I would argue that advances in marketing have outstripped advances in technology, but then someone would accuse me of being a "big Bicycle" conspiracy theorist. Which I am most definitely not.

I just find the whole topic, as it gets discussed these days in General Cycling, to be quite strange. Like I outlived my time period, and the people around me when I woke up are all enthusiastically drinking Brawndo, because it's got electrolytes.

PeteHski

That’s true. But that has nothing to do with bicycles

3alarmer

...yes. I'm saying that the "advantages" are limited by your personal ability to take advantage of them. This is not a hard concept...but you seem to be having trouble with it.

3alarmer

...ok

genejockey 

I'd note that there seems to be a much larger market for high-end luxury goods these days than there used to be. Watches, cars, bikes, what have you. There seem to be more people looking to buy ever more expensive halo products.

What are we supposed to drink? Water? Like out of the toilet?

genejockey 

Which means the appropriate comparison for an amateur cyclist is not professionals of the past.

3alarmer

...as I got older, I used to fall less when downhill skiing. This had little or nothing to do with tech improvements in ski's (of which there were many). It had everything to do with me becoming more cautious in what I attempted to do on the mountain. I'm sure increased travel and better suspension components makes a difference, but I'm unconvinced that your crash history is a direct result of technological improvements. Forgive me.

smd4

Excuse me? The entire subject of this thread is "Why are Modern Bikes So Expensive?" All people can come up with is "Modern bikes are more advanced." And again, my point is that in relative terms...they're not.

3alarmer

...the professionals of the past were, presumably, taking the most advantage of the product available. Pete is, presumably, taking the most advantage he can of the current product. I'm asking if he can take so much advantage, that he exceeds the guys back then, who were better than both of us. That's a legit question, and you are either trolling today, or desperately in need of another cup of coffee. I'm out.

3alarmer

...beverage technology over the past 20 years has made incredible progress. I'd look for something with the best marketing.

seypat

The only thing that really makes me laugh is that as trends come and go, people in the forums end up talking out of both sides of their mouths. The same people are flipping and flopping as the winds blows. First it lightweight is the be all end all. Then some stuff gets added like disc brakes get added. Then weight wasn't really important after all. Then there stiffness in the frame and wheels. But then we have to start running our tires at low pressures for cushy rides. It goes on and on as each new or new again thing comes out. Now we have a thread about the revolutionary tech called hookless rims. It's already been around once and wasn't good then. We got people talking about how it's the bees knees. Just wait though, if the UCI bans them those same people will be talking about how unsafe they are and how they should be wiped from existence. Comedy like that is why I tune into BF.

genejockey 

That assumes the pace of innovation is constant, which I would argue it not the case.

prj71

You know what's more expensive than a modern bike?

Hospital stays and drugs that are required from living a sedentary lifestyle.

smd4

Then you would agree that the same assumption about the non-constant pace of innovation was also true 30 years ago?