Has the vintage steel market crashed?

[EB]

Speaking of Rivendell, Grant has some relevant words in his most recent Blahg, which seem aimed directly at some of the criticism he gets here from the vintage race bike enthusiasts:

https://www.rivbike.com/blogs/grant-...s-blog/april-2

On that note, and going back to bicycles and frames, a few times a year, maybe five, we get a direct request for frames or frame styles we no longer make. There's always the vibe that the old ones are better, we must have quit making them that way because it was too labor-intensive and we were looking for was to economize on our end. NEVER true, not even a hint. Our first frames were and still are excellent, and over the years they've gotten our version of better. The first long-chainstays elicited hoots of pain from people who'd never ridden them but were judging them based on how they theorized longer stays would affect the bicycle. Same problem when we increased the top tube upslope from 2.5-degrees to 6 degrees. Both of these changes added something good and took away nothing bad, unless you judge bicycles by their "classic" dimensions.

Classic dimensions are, for the most part, racing bike dimensions for short European racers. Make comfort any kind of a goal, and the level top tube and short-stack headset (and now, non-raisable stem) start to make less sense. All this is an ongoing issue with our bikes, and they're hard to figure out. They're steel and lugged, and in the minds of many, that makes them charming throwbacks to the good old days of riding in goggles and carrying spare tires criss-crossed over your back, and short wool shorts, and 28 year olds who looked 50 and crossed the finish line looking rabid. People associate our bikes with that era and think our 6-degree upslopes are inconsistent with it. There are lots of collecteurs who have bulging stables of bikes that are no fun to ride except maybe to show off. There's zero wrong with that, but we make bikes for all kinds of riding except racing. We've borrowed/stole/appropriated the best materials and fabrication techniques of the past, because they were better, not because they're older. Our designs are superfuturistic, but it's hard to get that if you can't see past the steel and lugs, or if you haven't ridden one.

[prototoast]

Originally Posted by EB

Speaking of Rivendell, Grant has some relevant words in his most recent Blahg, which seem aimed directly at some of the criticism he gets here from the vintage race bike enthusiasts:

https://www.rivbike.com/blogs/grant-...s-blog/april-2

On that note, and going back to bicycles and frames, a few times a year, maybe five, we get a direct request for frames or frame styles we no longer make. There's always the vibe that the old ones are better, we must have quit making them that way because it was too labor-intensive and we were looking for was to economize on our end. NEVER true, not even a hint. Our first frames were and still are excellent, and over the years they've gotten our version of better. The first long-chainstays elicited hoots of pain from people who'd never ridden them but were judging them based on how they theorized longer stays would affect the bicycle. Same problem when we increased the top tube upslope from 2.5-degrees to 6 degrees. Both of these changes added something good and took away nothing bad, unless you judge bicycles by their "classic" dimensions.

Classic dimensions are, for the most part, racing bike dimensions for short European racers. Make comfort any kind of a goal, and the level top tube and short-stack headset (and now, non-raisable stem) start to make less sense. All this is an ongoing issue with our bikes, and they're hard to figure out. They're steel and lugged, and in the minds of many, that makes them charming throwbacks to the good old days of riding in goggles and carrying spare tires criss-crossed over your back, and short wool shorts, and 28 year olds who looked 50 and crossed the finish line looking rabid. People associate our bikes with that era and think our 6-degree upslopes are inconsistent with it. There are lots of collecteurs who have bulging stables of bikes that are no fun to ride except maybe to show off. There's zero wrong with that, but we make bikes for all kinds of riding except racing. We've borrowed/stole/appropriated the best materials and fabrication techniques of the past, because they were better, not because they're older. Our designs are superfuturistic, but it's hard to get that if you can't see past the steel and lugs, or if you haven't ridden one.

[EB]

Originally Posted by prototoast

nice.

[spoonrobot]

Originally Posted by EB

...

Classic dimensions are, for the most part, racing bike dimensions for short European racers. ...

e-RICHIE has an interesting companion post to this as well:

https://forums.thepaceline.net/showp...0&postcount=44

The number of cyclists who 1) want an classic or vintage steel bike or a bike of such design AND 2) can fit such a bike - is decreasing and has been for a while. There used to be a lot more guys like jamesdak around - I rode and raced with them and bought stuff from them. Not sure where they went but there sure aren't as many.

It's interesting that the Rivendell hate had an era that mostly ended before COVID. It seems the most vocal opponents were people who were around for (or right after) the death of high end steel and after a long enough time they died/left the sport and now most of the Riv hate is from a younger crowd following Ultraromance riding style and aesthetic when Grant doesn't precisely align with their technical/cultural ideas.

[e-RICHIE]

Originally Posted by spoonrobot

e-RICHIE has an interesting companion post to this as well:

https://forums.thepaceline.net/showp...0&postcount=44.

Hey thanks.

I wasn’t sure how to access that post despite remembering writing it a while back.

ps

arrange disorder

[froze]

Originally Posted by El Chaba

This resonates for me. I will add that I really don’t care what has happened to the resale value of any of my bikes as they are all under the ownership of the person who values them the most.

One other point that I would like to make is that the “benefits” of much of the latest “technology” is SO oversold by heavy marketing. Good bikes have been really good and efficient for a very long time. Admittedly, there have been quite a few developments that have greatly benefitted the convenience and user-friendliness of the machines, but even developments like clipless pedals and integrated shifting do nothing to improve the efficiency of moving the bicycle forward by a given level of power. When I go back and forth between my older steel machines from the 1980s-1990s and my more modern machines with twice as many gears and carbon fiber everywhere, what started as disappointment at how small the performance difference was has now become skepticism or cynicism at the various claims of improved performance. In the end, it all comes down to perception, and older bikes are very much looked upon as outdated and outmoded and their value in the market reflects that perception.

The proof of what you said is in the history books!

Both the Tour de France and the Giro Italia, but the TDF history is much more detailed.

From 1958 till today the average speeds at the TDF have only gone up by 3 1/2 mph, and that's after adding a lot more gears, weight reduction, aerodynamics, better training, better nutrition, better tires, better brakes, better wind tunnel testing, and the list goes on and on, and all we have to show for it is 3 1/2 mph gain in 65 years.

While some of you will say, 3 1/2 is a lot of gain, not really, but there is a reason for that 3 1/2 mph gain that has absolutely nothing to do with the bike. That reason is that from 1958 to 1983 the total miles raced has been slowly reduced by an average of 500 miles, which means the riders are not as tired as they used to be, thus they have the energy necessary to cycle a bit faster.

All this technology they have today is simply not worth buying, especially for the non-professional racer.

[fourflys]

why would the average person ever base themselves (and thus the bikes they ride) against the Pro Tour? I think that's a major theme in this thread, that bikes have gotten way more comfortable in the years since the 70s/80s.. more relaxed geos, bigger tires, a better understanding (and acceptance) of what the average rider needs, etc.. I love me a steel bike BTW..

whether the speed of the TdF got 3.5 mph or 35 mph faster means zero to me as "that ain't me" and never will be.. for the folks that "are them", there are certainly still bikes available (Tarmac, etc).. it would be interesting to be able to put a rider from the early 80s (in their prime) on a modern bike and get their thoughts..

Originally Posted by froze

The proof of what you said is in the history books!

Both the Tour de France and the Giro Italia, but the TDF history is much more detailed.

From 1958 till today the average speeds at the TDF have only gone up by 3 1/2 mph, and that's after adding a lot more gears, weight reduction, aerodynamics, better training, better nutrition, better tires, better brakes, better wind tunnel testing, and the list goes on and on, and all we have to show for it is 3 1/2 mph gain in 65 years.

While some of you will say, 3 1/2 is a lot of gain, not really, but there is a reason for that 3 1/2 mph gain that has absolutely nothing to do with the bike. That reason is that from 1958 to 1983 the total miles raced has been slowly reduced by an average of 500 miles, which means the riders are not as tired as they used to be, thus they have the energy necessary to cycle a bit faster.

All this technology they have today is simply not worth buying, especially for the non-professional racer.

[EB]

Originally Posted by fourflys

it would be interesting to be able to put a rider from the early 80s (in their prime) on a modern bike and get their thoughts..

Only one random data point, but I sometimes see Gary Fisher riding around Marin, especially near Tiburon. He was quite the road racer in his day and I suspect is really a die-hard roadie at heart, despite his role in the creation of the mountain bike.

The only bike I've ever seen him riding is a full aero-weenie carbon Trek Madone. Yes, with disc breakz.

[KonaSS]

Originally Posted by froze

From 1958 till today the average speeds at the TDF have only gone up by 3 1/2 mph, and that's after adding a lot more gears, weight reduction, aerodynamics, better training, better nutrition, better tires, better brakes, better wind tunnel testing, and the list goes on and on, and all we have to show for it is 3 1/2 mph gain in 65 years.

While some of you will say, 3 1/2 is a lot of gain, not really, but there is a reason for that 3 1/2 mph gain that has absolutely nothing to do with the bike. That reason is that from 1958 to 1983 the total miles raced has been slowly reduced by an average of 500 miles, which means the riders are not as tired as they used to be, thus they have the energy necessary to cycle a bit faster.

Wow. That is a load of BS. First of all 3 mph over ~23mph is a huge increase. That is 13% faster. Second, your argument about equipment vs distance doesn't hold water.

Let's look at the hour record. In 1972, Eddy Merckx held the record at 49.43km. Today, Ganna holds the record 50 years later at 56.79. That is a 14.9% increase. Again, huge.

Compare to the running half marathon, which is about an hour. In 1972, it was 103:53. Today, it is 57:31. That is about a 9% improvement.

So.....do we think that Ganna is just a much better athlete than Merckx? Do we think that cycling performance has vastly outpaced running performance improvements? Or maybe equipment does matter.

Lots of self-justification in this thread. And that is fine. Technological advances in bikes/equipment may not matter to you for how you ride, but let's not pretend they don't exist.

[vespasianus]

Originally Posted by froze

The proof of what you said is in the history books!

Both the Tour de France and the Giro Italia, but the TDF history is much more detailed.

From 1958 till today the average speeds at the TDF have only gone up by 3 1/2 mph, and that's after adding a lot more gears, weight reduction, aerodynamics, better training, better nutrition, better tires, better brakes, better wind tunnel testing, and the list goes on and on, and all we have to show for it is 3 1/2 mph gain in 65 years.

While some of you will say, 3 1/2 is a lot of gain, not really, but there is a reason for that 3 1/2 mph gain that has absolutely nothing to do with the bike. That reason is that from 1958 to 1983 the total miles raced has been slowly reduced by an average of 500 miles, which means the riders are not as tired as they used to be, thus they have the energy necessary to cycle a bit faster.

All this technology they have today is simply not worth buying, especially for the non-professional racer.

I have posted in other threads the results of Kona Iron Man time trials over the last 30 years and they are shockingly similar. The logic of looking at the Kona time trial is that it does not involve a team or drafting. My conclusion is that there is only so much aero gain a bike can give you once you have an aero bar. I think the TDF times are faster because the peloton is faster, most likely because they are fitter and better athletes than in the past - not just the bike.

But the argument that I would make, against my position, is that the current aero gains, do more to help the average Joe, than the trained athlete. If we could all ride everywhere with aero bars, we would be as fast on an old steel bike as any new bike. The iron man proves that.

With that said, I think the modern bike helps the average Joe be faster and more comfortable. The faster is most likely a meaningless number but the comfort is important.

Also for the hour record, compare Ganna to Rominger (55.291 km/h). That is about a 2.7% difference. 30 years apart. 2.7%. 2.7%. I will say it again. 2.7%. 2.7% might be of great value to you, or it may not. You be the judge.

Bike riding is what it has always been. And it is not about the bike. At the same time, it is all about the bike.

[cash05458]

I have no dog in this fight...but I love steel and yes I am an old guy...ride whatever you want for sure...

But this stuff about huge differences is frankly bs...

So...fastest time trial in the Tour was in 2015 by Rohan Dennis...that was at 34.5 miles per hour and that was a 13 k race...that beat the record from Lemond in the 89 tour...which was 33.9...which was a 25 k race...

Sure, that is just time trial stuff...but even within the peloton racing en masse as a group, there are plenty of records not yet broken via how fast certain courses are raced...these bikes may faster these days but it isn't what folks are projecting upon and pretending these things are just entirely different beasts and such...if running 400 more meters over an hour of hard riding is your thing and justifies trashing the older bikes and the expenses...go for it and give yourself a pepsi...

[vespasianus]

Originally Posted by cash05458

I have no dog in this fight...but I love steel and yes I am an old guy...ride whatever you want for sure...

But this stuff about huge differences is frankly bs...

So...fastest time trial in the Tour was in 2015 by Rohan Dennis...that was at 34.5 miles per hour and that was a 13 k race...that beat the record from Lemond in the 89 tour...which was 33.9...which was a 25 k race...

.

You can't compare that because the course was different. Time trials in the TDF vary every year.

Just look at times on the same course/track. The hour record, Iron Man races, etc. Things that have been the same for many years.

But I agree with you.

[KonaSS]

Originally Posted by vespasianus

Also for the hour record, compare Ganna to Rominger (55.291 km/h). That is about a 2.7% difference. 30 years apart. 2.7%. 2.7%. I will say it again. 2.7%. 2.7% might be of great value to you, or it may not. You be the judge.

Proving my point. 2.7% is huge too. Last year in the tour Pog lost by 7:30 to Vingegaard over 82 hours of racing. That is 0.15% slower. And 7 minutes is a pretty big gap. Lots of grand tours come down to differences of seconds.

I am not saying old bikes are trash. I am saying they aren't competitive when seconds matter. Why is it always the dudes who say "I am not a racer, but I don't believe that this new tech makes a difference......"

How about this - someone chime in who is competitive at a decent level of racing who is riding an old bike with box rims and tell me how it doesn't matter.

[lorenbike]

Originally Posted by KonaSS

How about this - someone chime in who is competitive at a decent level of racing who is riding an old bike with box rims and tell me how it doesn't matter.

No one has actually done the experiment, so how would we know?

[jamesdak]

Originally Posted by lorenbike

No one has actually done the experiment, so how would we know?

https://youtu.be/hMbafPbJ9AI?si=qs7Hgbh6niKb5HUe