onlysteel

Went to visit the local bike shops this weekend to see what's new (in my case, to see what's OLD!).
Test drove some of the latest 12pound carbon jobbies with Lightweight wheels and carbon-aero-everything.
Spent most of the day test driving the latest wonders of weightlessness and composite materials.
Then I saw something I would actually CONSIDER buying. An old CIOCC in the back with Campy C-record Century group, old Shamals, big Brooks saddle, platform pedals. This bike was actually the subject of a lot of verbal abuse going on at the store, kind of the BAD CONTRAST piece to their modern orbeas, kuotas and bmcs. As I was rolling it towards the door to take it for a spin, they must have cracked 5-6 comments about it, such as "yeah, the one with the stupid friction shifters and 5 pound wheels", "the one you have to run linseed oil through otherwise it will rust and fall apart", "the one that takes those stupid 126mil rear threaded hubs", etc etc.

Yes, I felt that it was at least a 20lbs bike, but I had to try it, because it's something I would actually buy. So I take it out the same route, up the hill first, and then some flats, turn around,roll down the hill, back to the store. The CIOCC FLEW up the hill with the same effort, was 10 times as responsive, and rode quieter then everything else. Even its braking was more powerful. The seat didn't feel like sitting on a samurai sword. It was a breeze throwing it around between my legs. Some of the $10K bikes I've tried (BMC time machine in this case) felt like a TANK and would hardly move (on flats!) compared to the CIOCC. Most of the other Aero-jobies just got caught by the sidewind and were hard to pedal (?) or something, I don't know. The CIOCC flew, and with platform pedals, and regular shoes.

My assumption of this experience (and correct me if I'm wrong) that the newer, the worse. The newer, the quicker and cheaper made. The newer, the prettier. The newer the lighter, the newer the more profits to be made. The older, the more real.

StephenH

Not to worry, it's just a sign that you're an old codger. (Me too, so I can say this). But really, they're not stocking bikes for You, they're stocking bikes for The Average Bike Customer. So for road bikes, this is expensive, light, carbon fiber, etc., and if you'll get out at these bike rallies, you sure won't see many people on old cruisers. Maybe if I was younger and lighter and in better shape, I'd want the same thing as everyone else, but as it is, I'll use whatever I can that works for me, even if it's not the style of the day.

Indolent58

Let me correct you. You're wrong.

Both you and the LBS staff who made fun of the CIOCC have it wrong. You don't need to bash old stuff for the new stuff to be good, and vice verse. I have a full carbon bike and an old Columbus SLX steelie. I love them both, but for different reasons.

monk

Your "only steel" screen name kind of gives you away. I bet you're a guy that's always liked steel and loathed all the "new fangled" stuff before you even made this post. To each his own, but I've seen more than one cyclist I ride with convert from steel to carbon, titanium or even aluminum and they they picked up some speed.

ticwanos

I can't comment one way or the other about the new bikes, since I've never ridden one. I expect they are very nice machines and suit their riders well. I have just recently started group rides and have been astonished to discover that I do not embarrass myself riding with younger riders (I'm 58) who are on CF and aluminum while I'm riding 20+ year old steel. Yes, they drop me on the hills, but I eventually catch up. Today I was on an 86 Trek (my youngest bike in the stable) I found at a garage sale for $15. Replacing tires and tubes was all I did besides cleaning it up. I felt quite smug knowing how much was paid for some of the expensive modern bikes around me contrasted with how little I spent on mine. Besides, I love the look of sleek lugged steel. Since I only ride steel, I can't honestly say I know older is better, but older can still be very, very good and is still very beautiful.

onlysteel

I'm 29 years old. I don't have a bias towards old because I'm old. I became "onlysteel" after ownership of modern bikes. Not modern by today's means, but what was modern between '87 and 2005. In 2008, I'm not convinced to go back to the latest and greatest.

iab

I own two Cinellis separated by nearly 50 years. The rides are different, I like them both and it would be stupid to say one is better than the other. I can say I am typically about 10 minutes faster on my usual 40-mile loop on the modern Cinelli. YMMV.

sirpoopalot

the bmc time machine and the ciocc are radically different bikes. the bmc is built raw, for speed only, comfort is second. the ciocc sounds like more of a road bike than a raw speed tt bike. maybe try pitting two similar bikes?

onlysteel

If the BMC was a "raw speed bike", it would be able to move faster on flats than a fully loaded barrow.

robatsu

For my part, just because I like the old bikes doesn't mean I hate the new ones. For my purposes - commuting, utility, family recreational - the old friction/steel bikes do fine, and with a certain classic elegance that I appreciate. Not to mention, you can't beat the price, although this seems to be changing a bit.

However, I can say that if I were still doing tris and other competition like I was in the 80's & early 90's, I would be on the latest index shifting, Al/CF technomarvel w/out a moment's hesitation. Each tool has its job.

What really intrigues me about new bikes is the dynohub and internally geared hubs. These are finally getting seriously good and getting into the realm of affordability. I've been riding a Schmidt dynohub on my commuter for 7-8 years, and it looks like the latest generation of Shimano/SRAM is finally getting close to Schmidt in durability/efficiency at an affordable, non boutique price.

Similarly, the internally geared hubs are cool - I rode a Shimano Alfine bike the other day. Makes me want to do a build with one of these. Like with Dynohubs and Schmidt, Shimano/SRAM/Sturmey Archer, et al, are aiming at the now proven boutique manufacturer with mass produced, affordable offerings.

This is going to revolutionize a lot of bicycles in the coming few years.

All in all, just because one likes old bikes doesn't mean there isn't cool stuff in the new offerings. Sure, a lot of it is needless hype for posers - me, I always felt index shifting on the road was really only necessary for competition. But even on recreational MTB, it is pretty darn handy, since the anticipation time for shifts there is often much less (which is why internally geared hubs, with the ability to shift at a stop, are even more valuable there).

But guess what? A lot of the bikes sold in the 80's/70's had poser hype. First, they were selling "touring" bikes to everyone, the vast majority of which never even went on an overniter. Then the current roadie poser movement started, selling tons of "race" bikes (i.e, no rack eyelets) to people who didn't ever race.

So even back then, it wasn't a time of marketing sincerity, earnestness, and purity. And just like then, plenty of garbage was produced. But a lot of that got trashed over the past several decades, leaving a higher percentage of the good stuff behind, which can sort of give a false impression of the era.

cizzlak

If aliens were out there, and looked in on us rebuilding the same thing from scratch over and over, would they be confused? Some people just like old stuff. Talk to a few guys who spend all their time on old cars or old instruments, and you will find the base attitude to be remarkably similar. I don't know that any of them would argue that older is better, but that older may be different. Older may be "real." Or, older may just be, older. Hell, some of those car guys even know a thing or two about newer vs older wives (seems to come with the collector car territory for some)

Things I like:
Old car exhaust smell
Old tube amp sound
Old music

Otis

If you are comparing apples to apples, a pro level modern bike and a pro level 70's-80's bike then you are wrong. I've owned and raced both and without hesitation would say modern bikes are better in every way (except looks).

I just put together an '07 Colnago Extreme C with a Campy Chorus gruppo and a traditional style 32 hole Record/Velocity wheelset. Hands down this is the best bike I've ever ridden. It's 16.5 lbs. with no "silly light" parts. It's stiffer, more efficient, and quicker accelerating than any oversized steel or aluminum bike I've ridden and it's handling characteristics are very close to the classic Italian bikes I grew up on and still love. And on top of that it's COMFORTABLE. The area I live in is all chip-seal roads which can beat the crap out of you on a long day. This bike rides as smooth as wippy vintage small tube steel, but again without any of the downsides.

If you really love bikes you would realize this is the best of times. You can ride something as sublime as a modern Colnago, and you can pick up pro bike from the 70's and 80's to toy with for what's actually peanuts in comparative value.

Or you can be the guy who, "rides his Varsity in cut-offs and sneakers and blows by all the stupid rich ******* on their carbon bikes". But that's a different dream then your original post.

Indolent58

It can. In the right hands (presumably not yours) it can move considerably faster than the CIOCC for a whole variety of reasons - weight, aerodynamics, stiffness, etc.

Don't mistake your aesthetic perception of how a bike "feels" to how it actually performs. That is not to say that perception isn't important. If you don't like the feel of a bike it won't inspire you to ride.

John E

I applaud your choice in wheels. It is a simple engineering fact that reducing the spoke count reduces a wheel's strength-to-weight ratio where it counts most -- at the rim. I also applaud your decision to build a comfortable bike which can take the bumps and which is not so twitchy and quick on the steering as to be terrifying.

The reason I do not buy a new bike is that my current stable continues to serve me so admirably. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

Bikedued

I took a 2005 Scott Speedster and stripped it to build up a 1985 Columbus Schwinn SS frame, so you can see what I thought of the newer bike, hehe. As quick and slick looking as the Scott was, I just didn't like it. Even after, or especially after(depending on how you look at it) riding 177 miles on it. Once I got the swap done, I found out a funny thing. The SS felt as solid and nearly as speedy as the Scott, but rode twice as well. It literally soaks up bumps. So in my opinion the only thing that was vastly improved in 20 years are the frames, and mostly they're just stiffer. I can give up a little performance for comfort.,,,,,BD

sirpoopalot

the bmc bike likely weighs more than the ciocc. tt bikes are about going as fast as possible in a straight line for relatively short distances. they are pretty slow to accelerate compared to a standard road bike, and way more uncomfortable.

i bet if i compared a modern tt bike to a vintage road bike the vintage bike would handle and ride better.

SoFlaRaleigh

I have always loved the old bikes particularly from the early 1970's. In recent years I bought a Cannondale Silk Path 400 hybrid and it is like butter to ride and I could ride it forever. When I feel nostalgic, I still ride my '71 Raleigh Professional although I don't ride it far or for long like I used to.

Rabid Koala

I have only one comment.......I am glad I am riding old steel whenever I am passed by someone on a carbon fiber bike and I hear that plastic sound. While I have never ridden one, I can't say that I would be happy on a noisy bike. Other than freewheel clicking my old steel is almost silent while coasting.

I'm not saying never, but saying not too likely.

cudak888 

I've heard it, and it doesn't sound too pleasant - I can only imagine how it must feel after a long ride.

That said, one of my machines is an oversized lugged steel frame with a pair of FSA RD-80 entry-level modern rims,



and I must say that thing has the harshest, noisiest ride I've encountered in a while. Reminds me of the hollow, plasticish sound one hears when riding in a modern automobile in comparison to anything made from the late '70s and farther back from the day. For that matter, the ride is just about comparable as well.

I've tried the same machine with a traditional wheelset, and indeed - problem solved. Course, a sprint is just a tad easier with the new wheels, but the difference is minimal - once you've passed that initial push forward, all you can think about is how hellishly rough the ride is.

I get similar feedback from my silver Open Pro/105 wheelset as well (32h), don't know why though. All the anodized Mavics I have ridden (both the box section MA40 type and the semi-raised GP-4/Open Pro) seem to ride fine in comparison.

-Kurt

Bikedued

The worst riding bike I own is my black and gold CAAD 3 R600 Cannondale. The saddle literally hums on some road surfaces, and road expansion gaps feel like pot holes, lol. It does go pretty fast, and handles like a sports car though. The ride seemed to get worse when I put a carbon fiber seatpost in it. From everything I hear, it should've improved somewhat?,,,,BD

StephenH

"I'm 29 years old. I don't have a bias towards old because I'm old." Well, consider your codger status to be officially revoked.

"and have been astonished to discover that I do not embarrass myself riding with younger riders (I'm 58) who are on CF and aluminum while I'm riding 20+ year old steel."
My experience with this is that it depends on who the younger riders are. I rode my Worksman front-loading tricycle in one charity ride, and actually passed people while riding the thing an average 8 miles per hour. But what I notice in the charity rides is you get strung out so that you're riding with people of your own speed, whether that is fast or slow. So it seems like you're keeping up with "everyone", because all the faster people get in front of you and you never see them again.

Back on the original question, though, a lot of the bike customs just don't make much sense to me. To my way of thinking, those little BMX bikes are just the most pointless bikes in the world. Yet they obviously have sold a gob of them to people that don't think like me. And I think that's what you see with the new vs old, is not necessarily a change from good to bad or vice versa, but a change in what the public wants and is willing to pay for. If they had produced a few CF bikes and nobody bought 'em, they wouldn't be around now. And they probably could have switched to aluminum frames 100 years ago had there been a demand for it then.

cccorlew

I just, for the heck of it, cleaned up my neglected 70's Gitane.

I am amazed how well the darn thing shifts. Down tube, no click, Shimano Crane. Crisp, clean. No noise.

It's just weird. I may start using it as my commuter bike, despite having ignored it for the past 21 years for my aluminum and carbon bikes.

Rabid Koala

I had an early 90's Cannondale R800 for a while. It was brutal to ride. I finally gave up and sold it. None of my steel bikes hurt to ride like that Cannondale did. Too bad, as it was in near pristine condition. Maybe a CF fork and seatpost would have helped but I didn't want to spend any more money on it.

miamijim

It is faster, much faster. You need to give it the opportunity to be faster. Back in my sales days I learned how to make a K-Mart Huffy faster and more comfortable riding than the highest of the high end.

Very simply, if you were given the opportunity to win a $1,000,000 if you could turn a certain TT time, which would you ride?

Given equal gearing, if you could win a $1,000,000 to finish a climb in a certain time, which would you choose?

Longfemur

They eventually put wings on Formula 1 and other race cars, to the point where they became very low-flying aircraft more than they were cars. I suppose some day, bicycles may be fitted with an anti-gravity device, and people will camp out for days in front of stores to be first in line. As far as I'm concerned, I think the road bicycle achieved its highest level of perfection in the mid-1980's or so. I feel sorry for the younger or tech-obessed who will never experience the feel of a truly fine road bike. It's the same with cars. Current sports cars, for example, are faster and have more conveniences, but they don't give the driver the same kind of driving experience a good 1960's sports car did.