tomato coupe

So many clouds, so little time ...

livedarklions

Right, I almost made the IHPVA comparison as well. What the IHPVA demonstrates is that it actually wouldn't be much of a technical challenge to build a, say, 40 mph consumer bike. The real problem is that there's really nowhere practical to ride the thing. I don't know about you, but I don't think I'd want to ride an encased low-slung little buggy on anything but a closed track.

ofajen

Lack of ventilation. Poor visibility. Awkward position. What are we waiting for? 😊

Otto

dkatz1

I sure wouldn't. At least to drive.
i've driving lots of cars from the 50's 60's and on. Keep in mind, in Kansas, where i grew up, you got a learner's permit at 14 and a full license at 16...doubt if that's still true...so I had a full license in 1967. And then '55 Chevy's, etc, were just used cars...
If I had the room and the money, I would want something like '53 bike.As a decorative object (I'm very fond of 50's GM cars).
But to actually drive? HELL NO.
Modern cars are so vastly superior.

mschwett 

lacking any nostalgia for the golden age of road bikes (missed it completely) i have to agree with you. things shouldn’t break so often that uber-simplicity of maintenance is a critical feature. that’s a bug, not a feature. i can see why people hate things like carbon or electronic shifting, but i’m over here not having touched my RD or FD in 1,500 miles and never once even heard the chain clicking from imperfect alignment. yes, the skills required to adjust it are different, but the ways in which it is better far outweigh any disadvantages for me.

just like a modern car. no, i can’t debut and reprogram the ECU. but i don’t need to……

70sSanO

I haven’t read all the posts, but no, a 1978 bike equipped with original 1978 components is a bad bargain.

And your 40 year old simple tools are of no value if you have to modernize components since original components might only be found in whatever condition at some co-op, or by pulling out the wallet and buying off eBay. You couldn’t even install a hyperglide cassette with those old tools.

As some others have said, 20 year old bike is a different subject; 9 speed, 130mm rear dropout, STI, hyperglide cassette, dual pivot brakes, etc. is more of what a “consumer” not an C&V enthusiast, might consider.

John

philbob57

My frame is about 49 years old, and I've been riding it for 41. My Campagnolo Record hubs are still very smooth. I got a new Tange headset for $20-$30 a year ago. I can still get new chainrings for my TA Pro 5 vis cranks. My seatpost still meets today's standards, so I can buy new saddles. I can still get quill stems at almost any price, except that they start at a lower price than threadless and don't go up as high. Nitto makes Technomic stems, in fact, that will place the 'bars in a physically higher location to help my less flexible body, but they are not as pricey as the priciest threadless mast+stem available. Handlebars for my 25.4 mm stem are not in large supply, but I can get new ones for less than $40 ((though maybe it's today; I last looked a year ago). I just bought a hyperglide freewheel for under $20, including shipping.

I don't have the riding skills I had 40 years ago, but I don't have to shift much around here. Brifters are an advance, but they are incredibly ugly; I can get them if I want to go through the trouble of installing them.

C&V bikes look a lot better to me than many of the 'modern' bikes I see. Some of the modern bikes are uglier than anything ever produced in the C&V era.

I want to ride. The bike is primarily a tool. Decently-maintained C & V bikes work. That's enough.

It's one thing to prefer modern bikes over C&V. But if you think for a minute that a decent C&V bike can be anything but a great ride, you're doing yourself a disservice. There are lots of ways to skin animals, and there are lots of ways to enjoy a bike ride.

beng1

New technology is mostly useless for anyone but a pro, but of course the industry will use it as marketing to sell the masses a bunch of garbage they don't need. The main reason for carbon-fiber is as a marketing tool, and on an assembly-line it can eliminate human workers because it requires no welding or brazing. So as with most consumer goods, as time goes by the changes in them are more for the manufacturers than the consumer.

The performance of any bike/rider combination on the road is going to be 90+% rider, and ten or less percent the equipment. The biggest scam on cycling is the "IT is lighter" or " It is more Aerodynamic" trends. As long as your equipment is in good shape and you are not using it to make money then there is zero reason to "upgrade" to the latest garbage they are pushing on people.

livedarklions

I'm sorry, but do you seriously think going 1500 miles without adjusting the derailleurs is a big deal for anything?

The car comparison is completely ridiculous. Today's decent bikes aren't fundamentally more durable, efficient or self-adjusting than decent bikes from previous decades. There's marginal improvements in some of those factors, but nothing like the really revolutionary changes in materials and controls in cars.

delbiker1 

Does this subject have any real meaning to anybody? The OP is just using reverse ego baiting. Take the ego out of the equation, and nobody cares.

livedarklions

I think the way the OP framed the question was ridiculous (borderline gibberish), but there is a reasonable question in there somewhere.

"What if anything will improve if I replace my 40 year old bike with a new one" is a reasonable question where people could meaningfully compare the technologies of the times. We'll have different opinions, but there are some objective differences that can be discussed.

But you're right--"how important will these differences be to me" is an entirely uninteresting topic of debate. How the hell would we know, and why should we care?

rsbob 

Not a racer or ever claimed to be, just a recreational cyclist who enjoys speeding along (I know, not for everyone.). In my 30s, I could ride my 1980s 10 speed, down tube friction shifting, 23 lb Bianchi 18 MPH riding 50 miles alone. Now I have a new Bianchi with brifters, some ridiculous number of speeds, tubeless and discs, and 7 lbs lighter (the bike, not me - I weigh 10 lbs more) and even being 30+ years older can do the same distance at 17 MPH average with 2000’ climbing. The big difference is comfort, braking and much better gearing. When I get on the old Bianchi, it reminds me of driving a 70s era Pinto compared to my new bike which feels like a new sports car. Does the old bike work just fine? Yes of course it does, but it requires far more effort, is far less comfortable, and doesn’t do anything remarkably well. Can it get me there, yes. But having the choice, I’ll take the new bike every time and keep the old one for sentimental reasons. Of course we all have our own values and budgets so YMMV.

Ogsarg

Those 78 steel bikes were too damn complicated. Lets go back to penny farthings. Get rid of those nasty chains and tires you have to put air into. Anything newer is a bad bargain.

t2p

steel - aluminum - or carbon penny-farthing?

clipless or flat pedals ?

tomato coupe

I had a '74 Pinto. Now I have a 911 4S. Other than the color, they're pretty much the same.

livedarklions

Ever notice that these "old bikes vs. new" threads always end up being about cars?

GamblerGORD53

There's something better than a 1903 SA 3 speed or 1930 drum brakes?? LOL Funny.
I'll be impressed when Joe Schmoe can ride his $10,000 CF bike on the LEJOG faster than the steel SA 3 record in 1939.

A350driver

Pretty sure Team Sky found a use for Li-ion batteries on their TDF bikes!

mschwett 

my only point of comparison are other bikes with mechanical derailleurs, which have required adjustment more often than that. just my own experience - electronic shifting is more "reliable." could be an outlier. i didn't ride road bikes in the 80s, but i have ridden road bikes from the 80s, and i do think a modern carbon bike with electronic shifting, brifters, a wide gearing range, tubeless tires, a power meter, etc is noticeably better in ways that matter to me. i completely understand that those may not be ways that are better for someone else.

livedarklions

I don't have any problem with that, except I put many, many more than 1500 miles between adjustments on mechanical derailleurs. . My issue was with the notion that older bikes were less reliable and the suggestion that the ease of working on them was a bug, not a feature. Bicycles have pretty much always been very durable machines. I have no idea what the longevity of e-shifting components is going to be, but mechanical stuff has been lasting for many, many decades.

Troul 

its a mechanical relationship.

Germany_chris

This thread ^^

​​​​Rolla more YouTube

70sSanO

To change things up a bit, a modern Dyson is so much better than a vintage Sanitaire.

John

mschwett 

i must have very bad luck with mechanical derailleurs. only perfect briefly until the cable stretches or something gets wiggled or who knows what, then the clicking starts and then after a while there's a shift in the middle which doesn't shift quickly, or doesn't shift at all, just goes click click click until the next shift and then it shifts twice. maybe 11 and 12 speed mechanical was just a bad idea to begin with.

no doubt these things can be fussed with until they're perfect, but by comparison my (only) di2 bike is completely trouble free, perfect shifts every time. snick snick. it seems like a genuine improvement with no downside other than cost.

Fredo76

Love these sassy youngins! Era of stagnation, indeed. You mean the one where we landed on the moon using slide rules and an on-board computer with 2K of RW memory? That era?

In MY day, we had NINE planets!!! And don't you forget it, sonny!

Love those photos, btw!