tomato coupe

Every group on this forum skews older, regardless of what they're touting.

WhyFi

Kids, these days: wtf is a "forum"?

tomato coupe

Don't know, but I keep seeing it at the top left corner of the page.

livedarklions

Then, so much for the theory that we all favor the bikes of our youth.

genejockey 

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.

GhostRider62

Too uncomfortable and slow. I get joy looking at it.

genejockey 

Well, you know - All Generalizations Suck.

Fredo76

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.

ofajen

At least for the moment, it’s surprisingly easy to populate an old frame with compatible parts of new manufacture, though of course, other than tires, those generally aren’t anywhere near the bleeding edge of bike tech.

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

beng1

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.

timtak

　
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

AlgarveCycling

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.

jdogg111

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.

Herzlos

Of course, bikes (and everything else) would still be stuck in the past if we stuck to standards forever. The new standards are (almost always) objectively better for everything except compatibility, but I don't feel the need for any of my 2020's bikes to have interchangeable parts with something 30+ years older. It's a pretty niche field.

Kapusta

It is a replica in style (tan sidewalls, silver components, tan cork-looking bar tape).

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).

livedarklions

Actually, if there are standards holding back meaningful progress in bike technology, it's probably those of UCI.

livedarklions

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.

BlazingPedals

This argument seems to be that technology is a binary choice: Either you want to win races and the technology is worth the price, or else you don't want to win races, in which case all technology is a waste of resources. Isn't there an few levels of in-between? I mean, I don't race, but if technology enables me to ride further with less effort, or keep up with the faster riders that I couldn't otherwise do, or just make my overall experience better, who are you to state that I'm idiotic to spend the money? It's my money and your opinion is... well... not mine.

GhostRider62

You are out of touch with reality.

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.

smd4

I have a bike that is a much better bike than I am a rider. I am neither a "common hipster" nor a "sucker." I am an aficionado. I ride my bike for fun. I appreciate the high quality of the materials, the precision of the high-end components and the workmanship in the frame, and was lucky enough to be able to afford it. I have a floor pump that probably cost four times what your Huffy cost. But I appreciate the workmanship and the quality of it. These things are not for everyone. Quality means nothing to you--we get it, and and that is your prerogative. But how dare you judge those of us who do appreciated quality, workmanship and precision? How dare you tell me my money was "wasted?" I assure you I've gotten way more than my money's worth of enjoyment out of my cycling hobby, and the way I've chosen to enjoy it.

Kapusta

Wut?

timtak

Are there road bikes which facilitate less energy expenditure? Are there are any aero road bikes, recently?

I want to save up for a second hand one one, if they exist.

livedarklions

That $5000 figure only makes sense if you're talking about being competitive at the MOST elite level. "I wouldn't ride it on the TdF" means that it's dumpster worthy?

Kapusta

I hear the TdF dumpsters are quite exclusive.

genejockey 

The fastest bike is the lightest, but one of the bikes tied for second is the heaviest.
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.