genejockey 

What, you don't think experiments with uncontrolled variables and an 'n' of one are really rigorous? Say it ain't so!

Drillium Dude 

This soul everyone is speaking of doesn't exist in the bike or the rider, but rather in the interface between the two. Without one or the other, the magic can't happen.

DD

bamboobike4

Well, there you go.

vespasianus

It is also your position on the bike. I bet that an upright position will negate all "bike' aero gains.

bikingshearer 

I think the real take-away from this particular comparison (and most of them) is that the engine matters more than anything else. At the uppermost levels of the sport (the pro racers), the relatively small differences between aerodynamics, rolling resistance, etc., can make a significant difference in outcomes because the top racers are so close in overall performance. For the rest of us - not so much. At our level, it comes down to what feels best to each individual - what floats our respective boats. We aren't going to be appreciably faster (or in my case, appreciably less slow) on any top drawer bike from any era that (1) fits and (2) we have had time to get used to.

As for bikes having soul, some do, some don't. Which is which is a purely subjective thing, and there will always be disagreements. The bike I think is possessed by angels will feel like it has four legs and barks to somebody out there, and vice versa. For example, some folks rave about Miyatas; the one I had from the early 1990s felt dead and lifeless to me. This is the very essence of YMMV. If you find a bike that you think has soul, ride it like you stole it and don't worry about convincing anyone else. If that Cinelli SC feels bad to you, don't let anyone tell you it's the bee's knees (although I, for one, still might try). Ride what you like. Don't ride what you don't like. You can and probably should listen to others to determine what might be worth your while to try out, but it's up to you, having tried it, to determine whether that machine is right for you, and make no apologies for what your body tells you.

/sermon.

RiddleOfSteel

You can do it! I'm working on 11-speed Di2 at the moment. Aaaannny day now, I'll get it off the back burner and pick up the remaining wiring and battery to put on an as-yet unnamed project...

martl

Unfortunately, after several of those videos, the knowldge gain is still stuck on "oh my god toestraps!!!1!!!"

Narhay

It would have been nice to have the same tires and gear range.

RiddleOfSteel

That and a semblance of ergonomic setup. Those bars dive so steeply, and then are coupled with angled up and short-body STIs. That's massively uncomfortable and minute zero, not to mention during or at the end of a ride.

genejockey 

But, again, that would not have been testing a classic race bike from 1992 against one from today. The 1992 bike as equipped was perfectly representative of top-end bikes of that time. Give it modern wide tires and gear range, and you're doing a different comparison.

For that matter, why not hobble the modern bike with skinny tires and a corncob cassette? Because that's not what the test is about.

genejockey 

The bike apparently belongs to the guy who did the test and wrote the article, and AFAICT it's set up pretty much like it would have been in 1992, ergonomically.

It's really funny to me the sheer volume of "Yeah, but..." posts on this thread. Take the test for what it is - a test of entire bikes, each set up as they would be in their era. Deviate from that, and it's a different test.

BTW, I did something like this test over the last few months. I got a 1995 Litespeed Ultimate frame, and built it up with Dura Ace 7410, and rode it for about 750 miles that way. Then I stripped it down and built it up with R8000 Ultegra, and have been riding that for 500 miles. I loved the 7410 build, but, honestly, for me the Ultegra build is better - better shifting, more gears, better ergonomics (even though I LOVE the 7400 STIs) and the modern wheels with fewer, and bladed spokes are more aero.

Road Fan

Yes, for added equalization, similar wheels, similar gearing range (with suitable derailleur changes, such as for a 50/34, perhaps). The rider might be powerful enough to feel the lack of a 52 versus the 50 ... but this is just speculation. Also get the ride position aero to be more similar. With a 14 second difference, equalize more and see if the true difference between frame technologies can be discerned. What we see here is that the differences in bicycle design are nearly insignificant.

It also looks like this was a one-trial test. What about the rider doing some other courses, or having results from other similarly-talented riders.

It would be interesting to see this modified into more of a frame technology comparo, as well.

bamboobike4

I like them, too.
The real question: Are they making a living doing something they enjoy?
If so, they win.

seypat

This.

bikingshearer 

I agree. Personally, I'd be interested in a test that focuses on the two frames. meaning set 'em both up with similar gearing, similar tires/wheels, and similar cockpit, i.e. remove some of the non-frame variables. But that would be a different comparison than what this test was about: top-end Colnago c.2022 vs. top-end Colnago c.1992, which is a fun lark, too. How instructive is it? Who cares, it's all in fun.

martl

i doubt there was much welding done at Colnagos in the 80ies
You are not wrong there and that is why i stay away from the products of the larger big marques like Colnago, Bianchi etc of a certain era. these are factory products sold with a lot of bla bla.
"home taught hobbyists" may be true in your corner of the world, places like italy do have "vocational training" for that kind of profession, which typically is ~3 years both in the shop and in school. getting the title " Master", which has been the prerequisite to open your own shop until not so long ago, requires 5 years experience working in the craft after that 3 year training before you can apply, then again theory training etc and a hefty exam, takes around 1-2 years for most.
this guarantees that everyone working in the trade has a good well-rounded skillset in all parts of the craft, not just the bit of it the guy who showed you the ropes was good at (or thought he was).

now some have done all that, like hundreds of their peers, *then* went on to build a reputation to be so good at what they did that good riders and big teams came to them. Some very few went even further, invented, experimented, improved. if i get a bike from one of those who stayed small enough to still touch every bike that leaves his shop, i get a bit of that. i may not notice it when i ride it, but i like to think that is because evefythinbg is just done right

jamesdak 

Sorta along the lines of the fun I had with all my bikes proving they're pretty all just as capable and it's more the rider than the bike, age, material, groupset, etc.....


https://www.bikeforums.net/classic-v...ce-game-5.html



All capable of running the 19 mph avg under me.

botty kayer

The performance differences seem minimal and I just cant help feeling the C68 is a massive waste of money at $15,000, or even $10,000 or even $7000. The Master is by far the nicer looking bike now, and I'm sure that in 20, 30, 40 and 50 years from now it will still be the nicer looking bike, and I'd wager that a good condition Master will be worth more than good condition C68 in all those future years too, so I don't now why anyone would bother with the newer one, especially considering the C68 is going to be subject to massive depreciation whereas the Master is likely to hold or even increase in value, so is a much better investment too.

Whether it be real or perceived I imagine the Master was made by a man with a beard in an oily workshop with a cigarette hanging out of his mouth, old Pirelli calendars on the wall, and him and his work colleagues bunk off work early to go for ride and sample the wares of a few local vineyards. People lap that up and want to buy into it, just look at the worldwide appeal of L'eroica events.

Whether it be real or perceived the C68 is likely designed by a computer, and like nearly all modern carbon frames I imagine is poured into a mould by a machine, or by a child worker in China doing 12 hour days, 6 days a week. The over worked and underpaid workers are likely too tired to ride much, and they will definitely never themselves be able to afford the machines they are working on, and even sadder will likely never even get the chance to ride one. There is no romance or soul in this, only heartbreak. And this definitely contributes to the fact that in 20 years or 50 years from now the C68 will be worth buttons, and people will still want a shiny Master.

vespasianus

That is pretty impressive but you need to get that Azor up to speed! (:

jamesdak 

LOL, I'll get right on that!

I actually was thinking this spring about putting toe clip equipped pedals on it and giving it a try. I figured with 8 gears it would probably let me beat the effort I did on the Guv'nor where I just couldn't find the right gear most times. And then I I came to my senses.

I am going to put the tubular setup back on the Team USA sometime and give it a go at making the "club" I see no reason it can't pull off those speeds either really.

genejockey 

Ah, yes. I remember this. I was feeling inadequate, because my best was 18.8 mph on the Canyon, then I looked and say your route has <500 feet of climbing while mine had >1200 in much the same distance. But you inspire me to try flogging the Canyon a bit harder to see if I can crack 19 mph for my route. Hopefully there's a windless afternoon next week.

EDIT: In my case, there's a 0.9 mph difference between my fastest and slowest bikes.