georges1

Not my cup of tea either but I would rather have 40th Anniversary Allez in Reynolds 853 made to 74 units

Trakhak

Quoting from this page, where a bunch of present-day custom steel bike builders offered some (possibly slightly biased) opinions on "the best frame material":

"We also need to think about fatigue strength; what happens after lots of applications of load, after 20 years of continued pedaling forces, for example. Typically, the stronger materials are less ductile, i.e., more brittle. This leads to worse fatigue strength. But in reality, steel is plenty strong, and it is often bad design features and poor welds that lead to fatigue failures.

As discussed earlier, a stronger steel means you can use less of it to achieve a certain strength and stiffness, so less weight. However, there is a bit of a limit to this with regards to wall thickness. If the walls get too thin, they will just buckle under load (a function of Young’s Modulus, not material strength) or they will be susceptible to impact damage."

Physics is inescapable. But, as I said earlier, since those modern high-end steel frames are, of course, great examples of the framebuilder's art and are built in such minimal numbers and unarguably likely to be babied by their owners (and certainly almost never raced), chances are that very few will ever fail, despite their being built with thin-walled, brittle steel tubing.

By the way, just came upon this debunking video:

iab

I won't argue that. But entirely irrelevant to the choice of bikes everyone who ever has visited this forum. To claim any one bike is more serious for the likes of us is laughable.

madpogue 

One would be lucky if all they did was yell. Such a stunt would very likely become a Very Bad Day.

Atlas Shrugged

Where in any of my comments on this ridiculous thread or any others do I state that is about the bike? With your logic we should all ride single speed beach cruisers because we can’t beat Bartoli? I just believe that modern bikes perform better than vintage bikes in the areas I and most cyclists consider important. A vast majority of cyclists feel the same way including C&V owners that’s why you never see them out and about only in garages or hanging from walls. I have participated in mass start events in numerous countries including L’Etape and the Maratona, ridden the bucket list of iconic routes C&V bikes are nonexistent. You could sit at the top of Ventoux or the Stelvio all day before someone rolls in on a C&V bike. The only time they are seen in any numbers is during designated events where they are dusted off and paraded about like hogs at a 4H fair. Modern bikes are amazing tools and have substantially improved the experience for cyclists in every way.

bikingshearer 

The first highlighted quote reflects an incorrect premise, or at least a premise that is grossly over-generalized. Some old steel-framed beauties have become wall-hangers or garage queens. But many others are still on the road on a regular basis providing lots of joy. And plenty of modern carbon fiber bikes just sit unused in somebody's garage.

The second highlighted quote reflects a common failing; saying Widget A is "better" than Widget B without any discussion of the criteria one is using to determine what "better" means. That ends up being a pointless back-and-forth of "Mine is better because it's better" and "No, mineis better because it's better." It is also why this thread as generated so much heat and precious little light.

panzerwagon 

OP made a positive statement about a 50 yr old bike, with nothing negative said about the trek. Don't know why this was such an injury to your carbon fibrous ego that you had to defend the honor of modern bikes everywhere. We don't live in a zero-sum world.

Hanging on walls and garages? Hardly. You keep coming back to take pot shots, in a sub-forum you yourself admit you mistakenly entered. Now you keep arguing against various strawmen.

Move along, or better yet, take a deep breath and go take a bike ride.

fender1

This thread is like watching an episode of Jerry Springer.

52telecaster

None of my old steel bikes are wall hangers. They all get ridden.

iab

Damn. Your memory sucks.

Also, please please show me exactly where I wrote "With your logic we should all ride single speed beach cruisers because we can’t beat Bartoli[sic]?". I didn't. Like most, I think you should ride what you please. I have a 2008 steel frame with crabon bits and all sorts of clicky bits that weighs 6.9kg. I could easily get it below UCI limit, but I don't care to. Ride that on Saturdays. Vintage on Sundays. Crappy fixed commuter M-F.

But there is absolutely zero reason that a shiny Paramount can't do a serious ride or multi day event. I understand your perception is your reality. But you seem to be dead ignorant of the fact your reality is that, just yours. And quite frankly unless you are putting food on your table from racing a bike professionally, "performance" from a bike is purely an illusion. And laughable.

First pic is a 150km ride with 10k+ of climbing. Second is from a 200km ride over gravel mountain passes in Montana. The third is an easy ride, going up Going To The Sun road. All on that same bike Bartali got as his first team bike, only 80 years later. Yeah. That's not ******g serious at all.

106100-002-026f by iabisdb, on Flickr

Cino 146 by iabisdb, on Flickr

Going To The Sun by iabisdb, on Flickr

Kilroy1988 

I get that, but I also get that when I'm out for a long day ride and would like to get home before dark for safety reasons and because I told my wife I would, I sometimes do choose to take a more modern bike to ensure that I can take advantage of that 5-10% advantage I gain in speed, which may account for up to an hour of my saddle time before the end of the day... And I'm just out putting around, for sure, but meaningfully as it goes.

More modern, in that regard, may be the choice between a 1950s single speed and a 1970s 10-speed, or between the latter and a contemporary 22-speed. Just depends on the objective(s) of the ride.

-Gregory

iab

95% I'm riding at dawn (not counting the commute home ). I understand that a 3-hour ride on my off-topic bike would last 3.5 hours on a vintage bike. I understand safety and won't argue against it. But it has never been an objective of mine to spend less time on a bike. I don't understand if you like doing something, why do less of it?

Kilroy1988 

Well, my bike rides are often taken during time spent between tending to other responsibilities, like work, school, gardening, volunteering with local organizations, going out with my family, etc. The amount of time I spend on a bicycle is usually predetermined before I begin my ride, except for those luxurious, lazy Sundays or holidays, in which case I may still opt to take the fastest bicycle I can precisely because I aim to go as far as possible while the daylight may guide me.

-Gregory

Russ Roth

What is with this harping on DI2 batteries. The list of 30 year old bike parts you can't get replacements for is legion. Seriously, show me a new 6sp freewheel that's anywhere close to as nice as the 6sp shimano 600 freewheel I had 30 years ago, you're not finding it new unless its an ebay lucky find or some dude that's been squirreling it away for whenever. Batteries are rebuildable, even your power tool batteries. And sorry your power tool batteries suck, pick a good brand next time since all the quality brands still use same standards or at least offer replacements for anything made in the last 15 years. My next road bike will have axs wireless shifting and I'm not worried that in 20 years I'll still have batteries, cause I will.

Not really a fair comparative, how many high end steel frames do you actually see on the road today to be able to ask that question in a legitimate manner? I look at the collection in my household and across 25 bikes among 5 people there's only 3 higher end steel frames, a columbus genius, whatever tubing Paul Seller's decided was best, and a vari-wall THRMLX along with a lower end 4130 that has been broken. But I also know that's an oddity compared to most people I know who ride and don't have any steel frames. When the fatigue test was done they used higher end steels for their time, and slx was high end at the time, and the results were telling, more modern steels are stronger but that just means they're built with thinner tubes which I suspect would result in a similar outcome. Working in shops for almost 20 years starting in the 90s I saw plenty of steel failures, mostly from crashes with a few random failures but there were lots of steel road bikes floating around. By the mid teens I saw mostly carbon failures due to crashes and rare random failures and no steel failures. But when I stepped out of the shop in 2014 there wasn't a single steel road frame on the showroom floor and hadn't been for at least 5 years but carbon frames dominated anything above 2000.00. For anyone claiming "plastic" frames won't last, try to remember the trek 5500 is now a classic at 31 years old and aging and there are still plenty of them around and riding. same with the old aluminum lugged trek 2300 and many of them aren't close to dying. As for choosing between a 57 year old paramount or a modern Domane, I'd really rather have a DeRosa Neo Primato.

merziac

There were actually 80 frames, 74 plus an extra 6 warranty frames.

chain_whipped

Ok, light bulb.
Wrong, wrong and wrong.
Do we need to teach the difference between carbon fiber, composites vs. plastics?

Not all are lightweight. Matter of fact, many are heavier than frames made of other materials, especially in the mountain bike segment. There's reasons for it, but this not the place to get into it all.

Most are repairable and again, you like many have zero experience in any of this, yet even some simple fingering of your keyboard will lead you to companies whom repair those frames, state of the art work and with expertise. Not Band-aid work. Most repairs cost are comparable to steel frame repairs.

Ps. Frames made of carbon fiber have greatly evolved in 40 years. There's C&V subforums on many and differences through its era's. The 'V' stands for vintage.

I don't care to discuss more of the subject and it’s not worth the time. Too many [ mod edited] whom can't respect the remarkable engineers and science. If looking at the best available in today's carbon race bikes doesn't insult or hurt your brain, no imagination but there are concept / prototype weighing 40% less and equally strong. None of it will ever be UCI legal, hence no reason to market.

Hondo6

Definitely a possibility at some of the rougher places.

madpogue 

....but now, I might be mis-taken......

smd4

You are 100% correct. Modern bikes are better in nearly every measurable way. The have more gears; they're faster; they're lighter; they stop better. And yet...how should I gently put this so it's easily understandable?

WE DON'T CARE! WE DON'T CARE ABOUT THESE METRICS! NO ONE GIVES A FLYING F!

Now...why is that so difficult for an enlightened, rational adult to understand?

Hondo6

I understand that particular "shack" did not allow alcohol, prohibited bad language, and had a strict dress code for patrons.

Trakhak

In the thread(s) where you mentioned that you like riding 23-mm tires at 140 psi, you got dozens of posts arguing that the science has proven that wider tires at lower pressure offer superior rolling resistance, greater comfort, etc.

All true, and all beside the point: all you'd said was that you just like riding those tires at that pressure. Dunno how people can argue with that, and yet they did.

Where this thread went wrong was when people started making easily refutable claims about the superiority of steel to carbon fiber in bike frames. Sorry, but that triggers the "Someone is wrong on the internet!" reflex.

Some people like steel frames better than aluminum and carbon fiber frames. Great! If they had simply said that, this thread would have petered out immediately.

Trakhak

Can you honestly claim that you've seen a post on Bike Forums where an owner of a carbon bike has expressed disdain toward an owner of a steel bike? If so, please provide a link. There are plenty of examples of the reverse, though (including posts by merziac and you, among others, in this thread).

That's precisely the same claim as seen in the threads where someone declares hotly that "Lycra-wearing Lance wannabes" look down on him. Yet, if it happens (anything is possible), I can't remember ever seeing an example on Bike Forums. Again, only the reverse.

That's what we call "projecting." It's just high school, all over again---the Jets versus the Sharks, the Goths versus the punks. Us versus the Others.

smd4

Sure.

Suggesting that people who prefer these bikes are "not in their right mind." I.e., insane. But certainly not disdainful.

Nice.

Not disdainful at all.

Trakhak

In this thread, outrageous (and nastily personal) claims have spurred outrageous responses. How about in other threads?

smd4

Stop moving the goal post. You asked for a "post on Bike Forums where an owner of a carbon bike has expressed disdain toward an owner of a steel bike" and I gave some to you. If I get the time or the inclination to find more, that should be pretty easy.