bamboobike4

Hmm… could be a hidden bonus there…
Win Win?

bamboobike4

Buzz kill.

bamboobike4

Gotta know.
What color jacket?

greatbasin

So the conclusion is that the '92 on skinny little 23mm tires wasn't especially slower or even meaningfully slower at all than a new '22 road bike, but it was comparatively uncomfortable -- not because steel is uncomfortable, but because 23's are. So basically, if you go back to an '82 with 27 x 1 1/4 tires, you'll probably be just as fast and comfortable as on the new bike. No, it probably won't be as light on climbs (although the Mexicos weren't boat anchors). Still, you could lose the difference in pounds on your body for a lot less than what a new Colnago costs.

Andy_K 

Low-invisibility yellow

Spaghetti Legs 

Either that or he got his fingers stuck in the holes.

Wildwood 

Or,
closely inspecting a defect in his investment cast crown.
A Buddha bummer to be contemplated.

P!N20

It was a solid block of meteoric iron before Yoshi got a hold of it.

vespasianus

[QUOTE=Andy_K;22572661]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./QUOTE]

Yes, lots of evidence that indicates that the person, and what they are wearing, makes the most difference in terms of aerodynamics. Most aero benefits come at higher speeds - 45-50 KMH. For pros, that is not out of the question. Don't know many punters who do that.

seypat

There are more of these tests out there.

seypat

Some more.

seypat

While not being a vintage or steel bike, I think this video sums up the attitude/ideas people should have.

seypat

This one's pretty good.

Rocket-Sauce 

I think this misses the point of the article. They are not trying to find the difference between old and modern frames (or wheels, tires, shifting, brakes etc). It is looking at how much racing bikes have evolved in 30 years. Sure, you could take an old frame and make it faster/more comfortable etc with modern parts. But those didn't exist back then.

That said, my favorite bikes are old frames with modern parts. Best of both worlds IMO.

Rocket-Sauce 

I replied with almost the same sentiments before I read this and realized you beat me to it!

madpogue 

Which one is faster? Dunno. Which person in the still frame from the video has the bigger smile on his face?

dddd

Is that supposed to be a real wind tunnel, LMAO.

genejockey 

Great minds run in the same gutter. Or something....

genejockey 

Yes, this thread has more than the usual proportion of "Yeah, but..." posts.

My favorite depends on what day you ask me, though for the last few months it's been old Titanium with modern parts.

nlerner

I've owned and fairly extensively ridden three Ti frames.

--A Merlin from around 2000 with a carbon fork.
--A Carver from around 2017 with a carbon fork.
--A Waltly that I had custom made in 2020 with carbon fork.

All three were the lightest bikes in my otherwise steel stable. I really like the way the Merlin road, but it barely fit 25mm tires and was a skootch too small, so I moved it on. The Carver was able to take 38mm tires, but it road like a dog. I moved it on. The Waltly sees about 90% of my riding, takes a 38mm tire, does everything from bikepacking, credit-card touring, and fast weekend rides. It's a keeper.

Bottom line: It's not simply what the frame is made out of.

genejockey 

In my case, it's a 1995 Litepseed Ultimate, with the original Time carbon fork, built up with R8000 Ultegra. A few weeks ago, I did the final fit adjustment and since then it's just perfect.

Andy_K 

On my coasting-down-the-hill test, I was topping out around 55 KMH (35 MPH). It's not a typical speed for my riding most of the time, but coasting down a steep hill I can hit it pretty quickly. Even with the pros, the kinds of aerodynamic improvements they're finding in wind tunnels seem to only give them on the order of 30 seconds over a 20 minute TT. Of course, they don't need someone at the start of the test suggesting that maybe they should take off the flappy jacket. On the other hand, when I'm riding to work with an average speed around 15 mph, the jacket probably doesn't slow me down a whole lot.

Andy_K 

Yeah, but I feel like we've pretty well established that the guys at GCN are basically clowns. (For the record, I love GCN. I just don't take their stuff like this seriously.)

embankmentlb

right on!

genejockey 

Just don't unzip it when riding into a headwind.