i'm sorry, but modern wins

[Climb01742]

this week i've had a chance to ride two interesting bikes back to back: a mid-90s merckx MX Leader and an '03 pegoretti fina estampa. i think a good case can be made that each bike was built for the same purpose, just ten years apart. each was built, i think, as a serious machine upon which to go fast. and each in its own time is/was a state-of-the-art creation. built by very knowledgeable builders.

i dig the merckx. i can't see myself ever parting with it. but ridden back-to-back, dario's bike is simply, IMO, better. it accelerates faster. it rides over rough roads better. its carbon fork soaks up broken roads better, so at speed i don't feel as jostled, so feel in better control.

i bring this up because there have been a number of posts lately that seem to argue that much of what passes for progress in the bike industry actually isn't. which to some extent is true. but not everything that was is better than what is. progress does exist in bikes.

i'm not at all saying that the only yardstick is progress. nor am i saying that ride quality and performance are the be all and end all. no, far from it. douglas' robin's egg blue herse federal is a frame to die for. and everyone of us would, i think given the chance, love to own such a bike. but progress in bikes isn't all marketing hype. shimano 10-speed simply shifts better than simplex friction shifters do. and a modern dario simply performs better than a 10 year old eddy. i'm glad there is a place in our collective basements for the old and the new. but the old isn't always better. just like the new isn't either. but progress does exist. and i'm glad builders keep chasing it. except of course in the case of dario and his BLE. that, my friends, is just madness. :D :D :D

[Roy E. Munson]

Sometimes I wonder if when people age and get fatter, all that good stuff, and simply aren't that fit or fast anymore, do they simply cling to"the good old days" because that's all they have left?

[vaxn8r]

Climb, I agree 100%!

Very well stated.

I have a soft spot in my heart for a beautiful lugged steel bike like my Atlanta. It's fun just looking at it not to mention it rides very nicely. But, if you're talking racing bike, it's not as fast as a light weight, stiff, efficient CF bike, like my Tetra Pro. Or, like many of your Ottrotts I'm sure. I still like riding the Atlanta (substitute a bunch of Steel or Ti bikes here) but if I'm out for speed I know exactly what I'll be riding.

The same could be said of comparing my '86 Merkx 753 with the ~'97 Atlanta. These bikes weigh within 1/4 lb of each other. But the Atlanta is a more efficient frame than the Merkx. Way better out of the saddle and in climbing and sprinting efforts. Tooling around they're both cool. Both beautiful. The Serotta's better though, at least by my criteria.

Here's for progress....and new bikes!

[SPOKE]

what i find interesting and enjoyable is comparing my older lugged steel bikes to the new ones that i added last year. the different qualities are easily noticed when you get to ride a mid 80's top shelf steel bike then hop on a 2003 model lugged steel bike. i don't find one any better than the other but they are quite different. newer steel alloys, different tubing diameters and other smaller details do influence the ride characterstics. heck! my 25th anniversary rides quite a bit different from my CSi and they both were delivered last year. different builders, different steel but the geometry is almost identicle

[dbrk]

Older, yes. Fatter, no. Slower, probably. But I think that comment is just nonsense about how we sentimentalize or live nostalgically when we talk about lugged steel. Did I get dumber because I got older? Uhhh...I think not. Is lugged steel somehow less "competitive"? Tell that to RS or any of the great lugged steel builders.

If you crash that Fina it's just a pile of tubes. I love my Fina but I'd pick the Luigino. If you crash that MX Leader chances are the bike comes out the better.

Older is not better. Newer is _certainly_ not better. But they are indeed different, very different. Obviously, I much prefer "older" and think it is far and away better. If I had to sell, everything alloy, non-lugged, and titanium would go before the lugged steel. This wouldn't even be a close call. To each his own.

dbrk
dinosaurs r'us

[BigMac]

I tend to agree with dbrk on this, no surprise there eh? My contention however is with the original and subsequent users' terminology. Describing the latest beer can/milk jug frame du jour as "modern" leaves one to discern that perhaps a lugged steel frame is old fashioned, out dated technology. Could not be further from the truth. Steel construction, lugged or filet brazed, is simply "traditional" for cycling industry but every bit as raceworthy and fast as any competing material.

Suggesting an aluminum frame accelerates faster? Do you really believe this? Ok, perhaps if I'm riding with Gord Fraser on my lugged steel while he's riding his Look plastic/alloy, yes the "modern" frame to borrow the original posters phrasing is faster. Conversely, put me very reluctantly on the latest plastic, alloy, etc whiz bang cycling toy while Gord is on a vintage anything luuged steel and guess what...the steel is faster accelerating..no kidding! Same rider, same fit, similar wheels; the bikes basically accelerate at same rate given similar rider effort.

This is not to suggest 2 similar bikes do not feel dissimilar. As one responadant suggested his Calfee feels faster...with that front end geometry and the inherent 'feel' or lack thereof of cf in general, Calfee's feel fast. Folks such as I refer to Calfee's as squirelly, unstable American-crit geo frames but one man's grape juice is anothers Chianti, as it were.

Ok, ok so I'm a crotchety old cuss not particularly open to the latest whiz-bang, gee whiz frame offerings from the land of recycled beer cans and milk jugs. The fact that someone prefers a Pegoretti, aluminum no-less, to one of Eddy's legendary creations does bring more than a little sadness to my cycling heart, but its just one riders opinion and perogative. The fact that said rider is out on a 2 wheeler instead of clogging byways behind the wheel of the latest 4 wheeled behomoth among the bevy of box jockeys makes he/she a friend in my book. Free will brother...just please don't dismiss a lugged steel frame, particularly one bearing the famous Merckx name on the DT, from any year as outdated, slow and/or not race worthy.

Ride on!

[vaxn8r]

Actually Big Mac, I hate to disagree with you because I think you've probably forgot more than I'll ever know about anything cycling related....and DBRK, I think you and I are talking apples and oranges. I'm talking speed with accelerating, sprinting and climbing. I know you value lots of other ride qualities.

Having said that, I guess I do believe that my Calfee, and my Cannondale, and my Serotta for that matter are all stiffer and quicker accelerating than my old Merkx. Maybe that 753 was sweet at the time but it's noodlier (word?). No way does it feel as fast accelerating or climbing. I know when I ride it I'm towards the back 1/3 on the climbs of my Saturday ride. On the Calfee I'm up towards the front on the climbs. All in my head?

Hey, if these new larger diameter tubed, stiffer frames don't make you get going faster than why does every Legend owner on this forum claim that only Ben knows how to make a ti bike as stiff as it ought to be. Why do you guys like that Big Legged Emma? I think because the new stuff works better than the old stuff.

If you think a Calfee is squirrley, well, it isn't. What do you mean by that because it isn't my experience at all? At a full 4 pounds under the weight of the Atlanta it accelerates quicker and climbs better. And I'm not a weight weenie. But it's lighter, equally stiff and arguably more comfortable over the rough stuff. What is not to like?

Retro grouches....

[froze]

I agree with DBRK as well. Comparing anything against Simplex derailleurs is going to be better. I use to have a bike with Simplex and they were a joke-slow sloppy shifting was their thing. I also had the older Campy friction and that was better but they (nor Shimano friction) could hold a candle to Suntour. Suntour friction derailleurs even in their low end models was faster and smoother than anyone elses high end units at the time.

Fatter and slower? no. I still ride my old (1984) friction shifting lugged race bike with all Suntour Superbe components not because I can't afford a newer bike but because this stuff has never broken or failed me with over 140,000 miles, so why buy something newer? Bragging rights? How many of these newer STI and ERGO components are going to last as long as my Suntour? I can tell you that my mtb with STI (XTR) has had nothing but problems and it has less than 12,000 miles. I have friends who ride on newer STI and ERGO and most have had to replace their DuraAce bottom bracket 2 times in roughly 13,000 miles (never replaced mine), their chains every 3,000 miles (mine average 14,000), their cassettes every 5,000 (my first freewheel lasted 130,000, my new one has 13,000).

Just before I got out of racing this bike (about 15 years ago) I was racing against the first breed of lighter carbon bikes and STI shifting units and I still beat most of them and I was older than most of the guys. Even today when I ride with friends and these friends have rode my bike and they can't believe how fast the Superbe derailleurs shift, it will shift as many gears you want in one throw and you can shift without taking any pressure off the pedals. Since I have been doing it this way for years I rarely miss a shift.

I do believe that the newer frames are better than my old Trek 660 is, but will they last as long? Only time will tell. I happen to like lugged steel frames for no other reason then they look nicer not so industrial looking. But I do believe the older friction stuff and components were better made and a heck of a lot better reliablity.

I am in the market for a newer bike and will probably settle for the Colnago MXL and it will probably be mostly equipped with Chorus with Record hubs. But the only reason for MXL is that I aways wanted a lugged Italin bike-NO OTHER REASON!!

[vaxn8r]

You're "froze" in time....

Actually I agree with a lot you said too.

I also agree Suntour SP was better than Record of the time.

I also think the original ti bikes, and probably the original CF bikes were not very good. While steel has been around so long it's hard to improve on near perfection. But the new aluminum and CF is better and better. Who knows if it'll last the test of time.

140,000 miles? Uh, I'm about half that, maybe a little more in the last 20 years. Impressive!

Trek 660. I remember that bike. That wasn't the orange one was it?

[Too Tall]

Which is precisely why I got my wife a CSI for racing this yr. The bike is rock solid in all situations and can take a (g-d forbid) few hits and come away unscathed. She can save her Legend for training and recreation.

[Redturbo]

Big Mac,

What about the Calfees geometry makes it a modern crit frame? Its not real obvious by looking at their geo chart. I will say the front end of my tetra feels quicker than my other bikes.

thanks turbo

[dbrk]

Too Tall, interesting strategy. Leaving aside the too frequent occurence of broken carbon forks (I have a slew of pictures that people have sent me in the last two years of nasty breaks...), there is nothing "safer" about riding a steel bike in races. Alloy and carbon bikes don't break too often in dangerous ways (well, maybe not) but they are a dime a dozen, and that's reason enough to use one. In fact, when I go road racing (okay, so that is rarer these days but I went to a few last year), I always take an alloy bike (usually my Fina, the only alloy bike I have ever had that is not just plain terrible for the ride). The reason is that if I crash and the bike is dented tubes then I'm okay with that. It's just TIGd tubes!! Nuthin' special about that!! Sure, it's nice enough, but since racing almost always involves crashes I would rather wreck some generic forked, off the peg racerboy whizbanger than something that will endure the slings, arrows, and opprobrium of those who think it's "dated technology."

Of course, I overstate all of this because I think the vast majority of trends in cycling are pathetic, not just the typical unhappy consequences of a shrinking industry desperate to survive capitalism on scale.

Riders are passionate about their bikes, no matter what they like. I have a few really "nice" carbon frames (a C40 and Hampsten/Parlee Z1 custom). I use them on days when I want to zip around with my head down, though the fit on the Hampsten is much less aggressive (to say the least). Crashing these would be expensive but it wouldn't leave me weeping. If I wrecked a Sachs, Rivendell, Mariposa, Singer, Herse, or even a get-another-one-tomorrow CSi (sorry folks, but it's a production bike... with custom input), _then_ I'd get reallllly upset. Some bikes are rare and beautiful. NOT ONE carbon or alloy bike is in that category. The former is a value judgment and so subjective but the latter ("rare") is not even remotely in question.

Most modern bikes, especially those from the BigGuys and some not-really-custom builders like Calfee (why not really? you get input, not custom...), Klein, etc., the chainstays are too short, the bb's are too high, and the trail is too little: sure the bikes "accelerate great" and are point and shoot up front but, ilke BigMac (whose more measured tones than mine are a lesson I should emulate) I find these rides all too squirrely. These are the basic reasons I think he observed the Calfee to be squirrely (apologies to squirrels). Serotta largely avoids these issues, but then again Ben and Co. lowered its bb, shortened it's top tubes, compensated for the loss of stack height that the (ridiculously foolish, ed.note) threadless hs introduced when they followed industry trends by going with limited option carbon forks and threadlessness, and has never had particularly shortish chainstays---maybe because their riders better fit this profile, maybe because great designers like RS and Rivendell have had a slight influence (one can hope folks look at other great designers), and MAYBE because these slight changes, all of which make a bike more comfortable and easier to handle, are just as race worthy.


Sorry for my haste here. I'm off for Maryland for a weekend of yoga. See'ya'll Mondayish.

Happy weekend to those who get a ride in!

dbrk

[victoryfactory]

I agree with Climb that "modern wins" and although I respect what DBRK and BIGMAC said. I think what people should remember when criticising the latest gear is that we will always have a percentage of the new stuff that is mearely style or market driven and not a real advancement. That's the nature of the game, guys.
They just keep chucking stuff at the wall to see what sticks.
If you step back and look at the big picture, you will see that occasionally, a real advancement happens.
Does anyone really question the validity of clipless pedals, STI/ERGO shifing, CARBON, Ti, bike computers?

None of those things were around when I started riding, and a high end road bike had canti brakes and weighed 22 lbs!

VictoryFactory , who also likes his modern car vs a 1970 Chevy

[froze]

Originally posted by vaxn8r
You're "froze" in time....

Trek 660. I remember that bike. That wasn't the orange one was it?

Actually the touch up paint that I buy from Testers is Ferrari red, the decals are yellow. Now you know exactly why my handle is "froze"!!!

[Matt Barkley]

dbrk,
Nicely put - I would offer this question out there, "What bikes do you own that have inherent value?" I think most of us would be able to look at this question and do a little bit of culling to our collection. Dbrk and dnovo certainly have some stuff I wouldn't mind inheriting! I pose this question because I have lost most of my sentimentality / attachment to many of the bikes and bike related consumables I've owned/own. It is all so replaceable now - at least that is was marketing has sneaked by the masses!!

vicortyfactory - nicely put as well....

[Climb01742]

douglas and bigmac--

please understand something. insulting you guys was never my intent. nor do i think i did. (the post about old and fat wasn't mine,)

as i think van said, both of you have forgotten more than i will know in 10 cycling lifetimes. but here is my point:

too often, i think, retro grouchness comes across as too strident, too absolute. that "only" old stuff is good stuff. that there is no good new stuff. by the same token, modern grouchness also comes across as too strident, too absolute. that we all must have the newest, zootest stuff.

i believe both absolutes are wrong. there is good in both old and new. that is my one and only point. and bigmac, as i very carefully said in my original post, it was TOTALLY my personal experience that, for me, the fina accelerates faster than the eddy, and that it absorbed bad pavement better. i made no blanket claims. and douglas, i wasn't making a case for tin-can frames. nor for their crash-worthiness. just that i found merit in how the fina rode. and please take note that i said i would never sell my eddy. i appreciate both frames, find sweetness in both.

i simply don't think that all modern "improvements" are bogus. or that all old frames should be revered. good exists in many forms. and bogus exists in many forms. i liken it to something else that bugs me: when a politician claims that his or her political party has a lock on virtue. there are good and bad republicans, and there are good and bad democrats. same goes for bikes.

climb. :D

ps: bigmac, if you can find anywhere in my original post where i said the merckx wasn't race worthy, i'll buy you a case of your favorite brew. setting up your own strawmen just to knock them down isn't debating fairly.

[Johny]

Old stuff would not make you slower nor would the new stuff make you faster.
We wannabee's just try to get a good feeling (and health) out of our passion (obviously I am talking about cycling and bikes here). :)

[froze]

Originally posted by Johny
Old stuff would not make you slower nor would the new stuff make you faster.
We wannabee's just try to get a good feeling (and health) out of our passion (obviously I am talking about cycling and bikes here). :)

And the same is could be true with better equipment won't make you faster nor would necessarly worse equipment make you slower. If I put Lance Armstrong on a Walmart bike and put me on his Trek he would still beat me...and probably everyone on this forum!!! It's the engine that makes one faster.

[BigMac]

Climb and others:

I certainly did not intend to offend, my comments were not intended as a personal afront in any way, I was merely attempting to clarify what I felt were misleading phrases. There is nothing wrong with non-ferrous bicycles, some folks prefer their feel/response and that is indeed their perogative. I simply do not feel anyone should dismiss steel frames, particularly those of lugged and/or filet brazed construction as being somehow outdated technology.

There is a large contingent of riders that believe a stiffer frame is somehow a faster frame. I would suggest this is an inaccurate assumption, primarily promoted by vendors of non-ferrous frames. Ask Andy Hampsten, arguably the greatest American pure climber, who won the L'Alpe D'Huez stage in '88 TdF aboard perhaps the least stiff frame ever produced, the French TVT -- an alloy lugged cf frame no-less. There is nothing wrong with a stiff frame if that is what you prefer, I'd much rather descend on my Legend or an Eddy MXL than a TVT. Folks such as I who lack the smooth spinning skills of Lance or really any reasonably skilled rider often find a bike with a stiffer BB area to run quieter and smoother. Big frames feel more stable with a stiffer front end that is less prone to speed wobble issues. On the other hand, I personally never buy bikes that use OS round stays because a prefer a frame with a bit of rear compliance. The point being, a stiffer frame offers a different feel but this notion of "more efficient power transfer" is frankly a a misnoamer perpetuated by makers of stiff non-ferrous frames.

FWIW: if you really want a super-stiff frame, steel is the answer. The modulus for steel is 2-3 times that of aluminum and Ti, it would be very easy to build an OS TIG'd steel that a 500lb sumo wrestler could ride w/o a hint of flex. The frame would likely weigh 8 lbs or more and the ride would be bone shatteringly stiff but if you really believe a stiffer frame is faster, this would be the fastest frame available, no?...well maybe not.

Eddy's famous MXL has a wonderful competitive track record, however most of those frames differ significantly from the units sold to public. The race support bikes were all custom, often very thinly drawn tubes that did flex a bit as intended. The stock MXL is frankly a bit too stiff for most riders in smaller frame sizes. Dbrk has noted this in past so I'll simply restate his response; the Corsa in its various incarnations over the years is the Merckx lugged steel frame of choice for <58cm frame sizes and sub 190lb riders. The MXL is a 'big boy' frame in its stock form. No problem for the little guys to try'em, ride'em but if you're really after a performance machine with a proper feel and response the Corsa is a better choice -- less $$ as well.

Take a look at Calfee geos, unless they've changed'em in last couple years: high BB, steep HT/short trail and short stays. The intent here appears to be a short wheelbase, high pedal clearence design. These numbers harken back to the mid-80's when street circuit crit racing became very popular in US and a few builders conjured up these geos. I suppose this may have seemed appropriate under very limited conditions at said time. For most general purpose riding they feel like using a track geo bike as a road fixie...not a good idea, imo.

Ride on!

[Climb01742]

bigmac,
i totally agree with you about frame flex. i'm a little squirt and i both love and need some frame flex. onboard my fina, i always ride seated. that puppy is so stiff, that out of the saddle, with my very unsmooth climbing style, my body bends/breaks before that frame bends even a bit. and yes, the MXL is really too much of a big boy bike for me, but i 1) wanted a classic eddy, 2) think its a great winter training bike, and 3) got a great deal on it.

i think we agree on most things, especially that my two favorite frame materials are steel and ti. i definitely have my eyes open for a used corsa.

again, my post wasn't to pick a fight. just to say, bikes can progress. and in ten years i hope/think that bikes will be better than they are today.

peace. climb.
:banana:

[shinomaster]

My big red Cannondale is just faster than my older style atlanta. Quite a bit faster actually.

[soulspinner]

I remember being in a bike shop and the guy looking at my bike saying that it had a lot of miles on-20000 or so in three years and I told him I never replaced anything from the group. I dont think he believed me. Sorry I sold the stuff on my old Cannondale. Some of the old Campyphiles laughed at my Japanese parts until they saw how durable they were. That and the fact my bike was a full pound lighter than their Super Record equipped bikes.
Id still covet an old lugged Ciocc from their golden era.

[froze]

Originally posted by soulspinner
Some of the old Campyphiles laughed at my Japanese parts until they saw how durable they were. That and the fact my bike was a full pound lighter than their Super Record equipped bikes.
Id still covet an old lugged Ciocc from their golden era.

When I decided on buying the Suntour Superbe group it was because they were lighter than the Campy counterparts and I knew from others that used Suntour that they were more reliable...I had no idea how reliable they would be. To be quite frank with all of you, I thought those components would have failed a long time ago because they were cheaper than Campy. In fact my concern for the Suntour Superbe holding up led to me to buy a front, rear derailleurs and pedals (these parts were mostly likely to break) when I heard they were bankrupt, so I could replace them when they broke. I still have those new in their orginal boxes!! But before anyone asks...I'm keeping them!

I also remember the CIOCC lugged bikes as well, and I also always wanted one because they were so artistic. Too bad Ciocc doesn't make lugged steel bikes anymore.

[jerk]

the jerk thinks as long as the bicycles geometry is correct the thing could be made out of just about any material and be fine. the jerk would rather ride a bike built to my specs out of high tensile steel than one with slightly different specs built out of the latest wonder material. the fact is geometry is far more important than tubing....the jerk would go so far as to say handling geometry (bb drop, chainstay length, front center, trail (rake AND head angle)) takes precedence over fit measurements and tubing choice.....bigmac is right there are many an mx leader out there...it is a big guy bike and the jerk knows many a big guy who eddy actually prescribed corsas too because he felt the mx would be overkill.....now all that being said.....

if the jerk can have the best geometry the next thing he wants is the best tires after that he wants the best wheels after that he wants the best parts only after all that does the jerk care what his frame is made out of but care he does....if an alloy frame will give the jerk the same rigidity torsionally and be a bit lighter in most instances the jerk will take the alloy frame....most proffessionals either don't give a shi*t about equipment or agree with the jerk. trust me on this one kids, if lance, jan, paolo or johan really wanted to ride lugged steel frames they would.
jerk

[e-RICHIE]

jerk wrote:
"the jerk would go so far as to say handling geometry (bb drop, chainstay length, front center, trail (rake AND head angle)) takes precedence over fit measurements and tubing choice....."



jerk
your stock just rose in chester, ct.
e-RICHIE

ps

:banana: :banana: :banana:
:banana: :banana: :banana:
:banana: :banana: :banana:

[Climb01742]

would someone be kind enough to give we less knowledgeable folks (or is it just me?) a quick primer in how these handling specs effect ride? thanks. signed, clueless in boston.

[Larry]

Beautifully- painted steel with lugs gets sweeter with age.
Without a question, my 5-year old CSi looks sweeter than my ride partners
4-year old Legend. It is not even close, and it will last darn-near forever.
Hooray for THE STEEL FOLKS.
Carbon, Ti, and Aluminum are still trying to discover the ultimate ride.
Steel is real forever.

Larry:banana: :banana: :banana: :cool:

[Dr. Doofus]

The Divided Doc Says:

The Doc really likes steel pretty much for the same reason he likes Telecasters and no-reverb amps. We likes things as basic as they can get because if you give him too much to think about then he and I start to think too much.


Also, lugs look cool.

All that said, when me, the Doc, and I were working at the ol shop last summer and taking a break from being a bifurcating pedagogue, we gets our mits on yummy bits like a Team SC and Prince and we and I were the droolygigglemugtincanman and one of us took much longer than we should have for the "around the black and check the shifting". Those bikes rock. However, neither of us have any idea what we and he and I would do with something like that. Its sorta like if you tooks away our Al Borland wardrobe and put me in Armani and the Doc in something slick. Just weird, man.

Where its at?

You are all quite correct. Please pick your flavor and get on with it, thank you very much.

[froze]

Sure play the old telecaster through a non-verb amp, but it better be a tube amp.

[BigMac]

If I have to play electric, make mine a Les Paul -- never been a Fender man, sorry. I prefer acoustics personally, definitely mahogany dreadnaughts. If new, the Santa Cruz are really beautiful with wonderful action. Of course sound is what's paramount so I'll stick with my 25 year old Taylor 510. A Martin from the 60's would be pretty nice as well but somehow the new Martins sound bright and fret board action is not as smooth. Vintage mahogany dreadnaughts, vintage Islay single-malt and vintage lugged steel -- ok I really love my "modern" Legend but the balance of alloy, plastic and ti are just not worth my time and offer zero aesthetic appeal.

The Curmudgeon