"modern vs. retro" cycling weekly video

[martl]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TSyGLv-evM

surprisingly positive comparison, although not completely void of the usual bs about having to change gear half a day before the climb etc, but still :)

[fignon's barber]

That was a really good, thoughtful, and well balanced comparison. I'd agree with it.

[mcteague]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CN55uGnSNEM

Another comparison of the same thing and they came to a slightly different conclusion.

Tim

[choke]

That wasn't too bad....though I did have to laugh when he said that the quill stem didn't have the adjustment of a modern one.

And those DT shifters weren't Campy, they were Simplex. :)

[tuscanyswe]

Kind of a nice report as he had an opened mind.

He claimed to have 23s on the steel bike but they were labelled 26c .) Tho that perhaps is equivalent to todays 23s..

Ive yet to c a fair comparison of a steel frame morden or retro with modern wheels and components. Anyone c an honest review of such?

[Kontact]

I like this video better than the GCN one, because GCN did nothing to prep the old bike for the rider or conditions. Or even basic maintenance.


I really wonder if there is any performance difference in the frames, other than weight (and now aerodynamics).

[mtechnica]

I really wonder if there is any performance difference in the frames, other than weight (and now aerodynamics).

Having owned a bunch of vintage steel frames, many of which had modern components and wheels, I am 100% convinced that they don't perform as well as carbon frames. The closest I've experienced is my 1982 colnago superissimo which has a pretty stiff rear end and good handling because of the geometry, but compared to the carbon frames I've owned (which are good ones mind you, look, calfee, bianchi), it is not as good. I'd say a great steel bike will perform at 90-95% of a decent carbon bike.

Here's what I think:

- Carbon frames usually handle better because the front ends and cockpits are much stiffer.

- Carbon frames climb out of the saddle better because they are usually stiffer.

- Same with sprinting.

- Carbon bikes are more comfortable, steel forks especially transmit vibrations much more, and in order to make them handle, some steel forks ride stiff because they can't be flimsy and handle. My calfee is more comfortable than any full steel bike, guaranteed.

- Steel frames are much heavier all else being equal.

[tuscanyswe]

90% what does that mean?
You think a retro steel bike with modern components be approx 10% slower on a given route?

[mtechnica]

90% what does that mean?
You think a retro steel bike with modern components be approx 10% slower on a given route?

Probably overall more like 0-3% slower depending on the route, but in a flat out sprint after a 60 mile ride you might be 10% or more slower top sprinting speed on one IMO. Over time the loss in pedaling efficiency, extra weight, and harsher ride takes a toll.

[tuscanyswe]

Its an interesting subject for me tho i dont race so one way or the other it wouldent change my type of riding in the slightest but i do wonder about it..

I would really like to see a good unbiased comparison of a retro steel racer vs modern carbon and or a modern steel frame vs a modern carbon. All with the same group wheels and kit.

Not GNC type of semi-science tho that just bugs me .)

Think its very hard as a rider to distinguish between what feels fast and what actually is fast. I myself could have sworn thinner tires were faster half a decade ago and now well.. They still feel faster and i still prefer them in some situations but they are not, i will have to cave to science on that one .)

[ceolwulf]

Really enjoyed that, got me wanting a classic again :)

[palincss]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TSyGLv-evM

surprisingly positive comparison, although not completely void of the usual bs about having to change gear half a day before the climb etc, but still :)

Their George Longstaff is similar to my 1991 Longstaff, except for different pedals, aero brake levers on mine, a totally different drivetrain (mine's an indexed 9x3 with bar end shifters) and no chrome socks on the fork. I think theirs is a racing model, while mine is an Audax frame with clearance for 28mm tires and fenders.

He's certainly right about the old bikes lasting and standing the test of time vs modern throw-away.

[etu]

thanks for the link
it was a very nicely balanced review

[spacemen3]

Thanks, I enjoyed the review, too. I certainly enjoy riding older bikes. The tech and handling quirks make the riding experience very involving.

[Clean39T]

Enjoyed the video as well - and his conclusions at the end were pretty fun - basically "I'll take the steel, just give me some good brakes and more comfortable bars" - my sentiments exactly..

[choke]

steel forks especially transmit vibrations much more, and in order to make them handle, some steel forks ride stiff because they can't be flimsy and handle.I think you may be the first person I've ever seen say that a steel fork rides worse than a carbon one.

[Kontact]

I think you may be the first person I've ever seen say that a steel fork rides worse than a carbon one.

Then you missed the '80s and '90s when people were loving that their Cannondales, Merlins, Kestrels, etc were coming with better riding aluminum and then carbon forks.

Nothing wrong with steel forks, but they are definitely less compliant on average than the alternatives.

[choke]

Then you missed the '80s and '90s when people were loving that their Cannondales, Merlins, Kestrels, etc were coming with better riding aluminum and then carbon forks.

Nothing wrong with steel forks, but they are definitely less compliant on average than the alternatives.I know lots of people who like Al or CF forks because they are lighter. I've never heard one of them say that they rode better than a steel fork, as least that I can remember.

[jamesdak]

Having owned a bunch of vintage steel frames, many of which had modern components and wheels, I am 100% convinced that they don't perform as well as carbon frames. The closest I've experienced is my 1982 colnago superissimo which has a pretty stiff rear end and good handling because of the geometry, but compared to the carbon frames I've owned (which are good ones mind you, look, calfee, bianchi), it is not as good. I'd say a great steel bike will perform at 90-95% of a decent carbon bike.

Here's what I think:

- Carbon frames usually handle better because the front ends and cockpits are much stiffer.

- Carbon frames climb out of the saddle better because they are usually stiffer.

- Same with sprinting.

- Carbon bikes are more comfortable, steel forks especially transmit vibrations much more, and in order to make them handle, some steel forks ride stiff because they can't be flimsy and handle. My calfee is more comfortable than any full steel bike, guaranteed.

- Steel frames are much heavier all else being equal.

Well, I'll be the dissenting voice here.

I'll say that I've come to my opinion over a 7 year period where I rode 5000 to 8000 miles annually and logged all my rides.

During that time I found my Carbon bikes only faster than the steel ones on very long climbs. And only pertaining to my really stiff Scott CR1 Pro. Otherwise every PR on any regular route was posted on a steel bike.

Comfort wise, steel wins hands down. The final decision for me came down to period when I did 6 centuries on both carbon bikes and 4 of my steel ones. I logged times, how I felt, etc. Fact is I was faster and more comfortable on the steel ones. The carbon bikes beat me up over the miles and wore me out making me go slower.

Forks...hmmm....here's a surprising and yes subjective observation. My good steel forks are way better on the rough, cracked, chipseal I ride. I've got a couple of the steel bikes that just lightly dance over the same roads that the carbon bikes beat me up on. The Giordana XL Super, Greg Lemond Maillot Jaune, and Schwinn Circuit all put any of my tried carbon forked bikes to shame while giving up nothing in the handling department.

Sprinting, here's another surprise that may not mean anything. Joined Strava just to have another tool to make go harder. I've got a couple KOMs with the Circuit over a large number of riders. I know for a fact that the other local top riders are on carbon. I grabbed the top times on days with no wind and riding solo. I'm in the top 5 for pretty much every segment in the valley that the Tour of Utah doesn't cover. Obviously, I'm not competing with the Pro paceline times as an old, solo rider.

My steel PDG Paramount posted some of my best climbing times ever last year. I attribute that to a very stiff frame. This is where I honestly say a lighter bike should matter. But really, a few pounds on the frame is less a factor than light wheels in my experience.

Yes, carbon is lighter but for my riding it just doesn't matter except for climbing. I do have several steel bike in the 19 lb range with pedals, cages,etc. One is 18.5 lbs. But most of my PRs are one bikes in the 21-22 lb range.

So, I guess we see things differently. Maybe our needs are different. My PR pace for rides in the 20-50 mile range is just over a 20 mph avg, done solo, with lots of small rolling hills. Maybe if I rode a pro pace I would see things differently. But for now I use around 25 different bikes and there's not any carbon ones in the house. I've only encountered two riders in the past several years that I just could not hang with on my steel bike. Usually I pass everyone just doing my normal effort.

[jamesdak]

Then you missed the '80s and '90s when people were loving that their Cannondales, Merlins, Kestrels, etc were coming with better riding aluminum and then carbon forks.

Nothing wrong with steel forks, but they are definitely less compliant on average than the alternatives.

This is soooooooooo wrong in my experience.

[Kontact]

I know lots of people who like Al or CF forks because they are lighter. I've never heard one of them say that they rode better than a steel fork, as least that I can remember.

Go read some back issues of cycling magazines from that era.

There is a reason that steel road bikes use carbon forks but the opposite isn't the case. There is no value to steel fork ride that makes anyone with a non-steel bike especially desire one. And while I certainly wouldn't expect to see steel forks on a Cervelo, doesn't it seem odd that even conservative custom Ti bikes don't even have them as an option?

Why aren't there any steel forks with lightweight carbon steerers or crowns to get the ride without the weight?

[jamesdak]

By coincidence...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4JAvQCp8ww

I have a Orbea Cabestany like in the video. Its now a mismash of parts and running a 10 speed cassette. It's also still really fast and the DT shifting on it is the best of all my bikes.

http://www.pbase.com/jhuddle/image/164433305.jpg

[beeatnik]

I know lots of people who like Al or CF forks because they are lighter. I've never heard one of them say that they rode better than a steel fork, as least that I can remember.

I'm in that camp. I prefer the ride of steel bikes with carbon forks to steel bikes with steel forks. I agree about the vibrations. But I also think 32H wheels are harsher than 24h.

[jamesdak]

I'm in that camp. I prefer the ride of steel bikes with carbon forks to steel bikes with steel forks. I agree about the vibrations. But I also think 32H wheels are harsher than 24h.

Surprisingly I've got a few all steel bikes that are much better on the front ends than my several steel framed C.F. fork bike which on their own are OK.

It is funny how the current C.F. trend is to put all those Isomere type setups to give the bike compliance. A good steel bike doesn't need that. ;)

[Kontact]

It is funny how the current C.F. trend is to put all those Isomere type setups to give the bike compliance. A good steel bike doesn't need that. ;)

I don't know if CF forks needed it either, but no one is building experimental steel forks to see if they would benefit from adding things that aren't steel to them.

Steel forks are like carburetors. They are useful and elegantly simple, but they aren't getting a lot of R&D.

[El Chaba]

If you look at the times for the big races-classics and grand tour stages- racing hasn't gotten any faster....especially when adjusted a little for the generally shorter distance of events and the doping in the modern era. I'm left to conclude that the modern wunderbikes really aren't significantly more efficient machines than the typical steel tubed racing bike over the last 50 years. If anything, when looking back at the development of the road racing bicycle, I am impressed at how early in its development it become such an amazingly efficient tool.

[velofinds]

By coincidence...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4JAvQCp8ww

I have a Orbea Cabestany like in the video. Its now a mismash of parts and running a 10 speed cassette. It's also still really fast and the DT shifting on it is the best of all my bikes.

http://www.pbase.com/jhuddle/image/164433305.jpg

Beautiful bike -- that looks better than any current Orbea :)

[velofinds]

This was discussed on this forum before (I forget which thread), but since it's topical, reposting:

https://cyclingtips.com/2017/02/the-pros-and-cons-of-restoring-a-classic-road-bike/

[jamesdak]

This was discussed on this forum before (I forget which thread), but since it's topical, reposting:

https://cyclingtips.com/2017/02/the-pros-and-cons-of-restoring-a-classic-road-bike/

His observations of how the rebuilt bike felt do not match my own experiences.

I'll put these up against anything modern.

http://www.pbase.com/jhuddle/image/166363859.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/jhuddle/image/164621709.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/jhuddle/image/166138354.jpg

[bicycletricycle]

maybe someone who had actually ridden a bike with downtube shifters could provide a better comparison?

[martl]

I know lots of people who like Al or CF forks because they are lighter. I've never heard one of them say that they rode better than a steel fork, as least that I can remember.

German bike tech guru Christian Smolik recommended swapping the factory steel fork for a Vitus around 1990.

[jamesdak]

German bike tech guru Christian Smolik recommended swapping the factory steel fork for a Vitus around 1990.

But why? If purely to save weight then it means nothing to a lot of us.

[smead]

A while back I did the same double century with 15K' of climbing in back to back years. The first year was on a 19 lb Soma Smoothie (with DT shifters of course). The next year was on a full bling 14.5 lb Bianchi 928SL. Fitness was about the same each year. The finish times were essentially identical.

[mtechnica]

Jamesdak your experiences differ from mine and I’ve actually had a Columbus tubed Schwinn not unlike yours, as well as a maillot jaune. I don’t think they were as good as the steel bikes I’ve kept let alone the carbon bikes I’ve had, but everyone is different. You say you’ve only met two riders you couldn’t keep up with on your steel bikes. You are clearly a better and faster rider than I am. I’ve ridden / raced with dozens or maybe hundreds of riders I couldn’t keep up with even on my best European carbon racing bike. Speed has much more to do with the rider than the bike, but for someone like me with a relatively low ftp, smaller differences are probably more apparent when I can only maintain 300+ watts for a couple of minutes and that’s some people’s ftp. One thing I can do though is sprint at 1100+ watts at basically any time, and I’ve found that lighter and stiffer frames seem to respond better to my riding style which typically involves rapid accelerations and changes of pace. I also stand out of the saddle, a lot, compared to most people. I too use Strava and my fastest times ever we’re all on a caad10 for what it’s worth.

What works for one person might not work for another but I will point out that nobody on my team is riding a steel bike and I’m pretty sure I’ve seen one (ever) in a race. Maybe that means nothing but I think there is a reason.

[martl]

But why? If purely to save weight then it means nothing to a lot of us.

Ups. forgot to finish the sentence: He recommended it as the most effective comfort upgrade.

[martl]

Its a bit funny about all these material discussions.

Current state of the art technology allows a better adjustment of strength/stiffness of the various sections of a bike.
Classic steel builders have that only in a very limited way by using butted/double butted tubes or mixing tube sets (and some get amazing results), Aluminum can be hydroformed, with Carbon Fiber one can almost do anything.

That doesn't mean that every CFK or Alu frame is actually better than a steel one.
Reason One: While it is technically possible, it doesn't mean it is used (even if the glossy print ad says so)
Reason Two: There isn't even a consensus what the stiffness/flex features of an ideal frame are (see countless discussions here on PF)

About Reason 1: When CFK came to the market, most manufactureers hadn't really grasped the possibilities of the material. Some just made futuristic looking frames that weren't lighter or stiffer or rode better than, say, a Klein or a Colnago. TVT, Time etc. made steel bikes out of CFK tubes. Corima made 2kg abnominations. Kestrel understood CFK, but didn't know how to put a BB shell in there so it stayed in.
Treks OCLV was the first that used CFK in a way that gave at least an actual advantage over the best Alu frames, mostly weight - A Klein was around 1400g, the OCLV was 1100. They lasted reasonably well, too, an issue with most early CFKs and to a lower extent with some oversized alloy frames as well.

One had to wait until ~2005/06 when boutique makers really used the full potential of CFK to produce 700g frames. Of those i know, only Spin actually paid attention to "what is the correct stiffness for a given rider" and would actually allow the customer to chose, for example, how stiff the BB area and the steering section should be. If i was in the market for a performance CFK frame, they would be my first and last choice but i'm not crazy enough any more to spend 6000+€ on a frame.

About the fork and comfort, let me tell you a story. Buddy of mine who rides a lot says his most comfortable bike is a Klein Quantum II. It is a 90ies model with a 1" steerer, he's using a 64cm framesize, and he fitted a carbon steerer CFK Mizuno Alpe d'Huez to it. The frame is so big he didn't have to cut the steerer tube at all. It is the shaft that does the work, not the blades. It flexes enough to make it *extremely* comfortable, "unrideably stiff" tincan alloy frame or not.

[jamesdak]

Jamesdak your experiences differ from mine and I’ve actually had a Columbus tubed Schwinn not unlike yours, as well as a maillot jaune. I don’t think they were as good as the steel bikes I’ve kept let alone the carbon bikes I’ve had, but everyone is different. You say you’ve only met two riders you couldn’t keep up with on your steel bikes. You are clearly a better and faster rider than I am. I’ve ridden / raced with dozens or maybe hundreds of riders I couldn’t keep up with even on my best European carbon racing bike. Speed has much more to do with the rider than the bike, but for someone like me with a relatively low ftp, smaller differences are probably more apparent when I can only maintain 300+ watts for a couple of minutes and that’s some people’s ftp. One thing I can do though is sprint at 1100+ watts at basically any time, and I’ve found that lighter and stiffer frames seem to respond better to my riding style which typically involves rapid accelerations and changes of pace. I also stand out of the saddle, a lot, compared to most people. I too use Strava and my fastest times ever we’re all on a caad10 for what it’s worth.

What works for one person might not work for another but I will point out that nobody on my team is riding a steel bike and I’m pretty sure I’ve seen one (ever) in a race. Maybe that means nothing but I think there is a reason.

lol, no, no no. ;)

All I'm saying is that a rec rider like me has seen no measurable benefit to the new tech. I say that because I am not riding at the upper limits of anything. My usual routes are bad roads where my C.F. bikes beat me up. Especially surprising was the Domane I tested right before deciding to stick to my vintage steel. With all the hype I expected a better ride, just didn't have it. Comfort trumps speed in my book but what I tried pointing out is that under me C.F had no real advantage. I thought i pointed out how I could not ride a pro pace above? Who knows, all hopped up on pain pills for the shoulder I separated in a crash the other day. Probably not making myself clear.

Funny thing is, I don't consider the Circuit my "best" steel bike. But the times I post on it says something else. And the Maillot Jaune throws down top speeds under me even though I'm held back on it by rear shifting issues. It just carries my meager speed so well, even when I get tired and tend to lose concentration.

I had high hopes for the De Rosa to finally show its mettle this year as well as the CSI and the custom Lemond. But now I just have to wait to see when I can even get back on a bike. Anyway, just my thoughts why retro means giving up nothing to me. ;)

[jamesdak]

Ups. forgot to finish the sentence: He recommended it as the most effective comfort upgrade.

Well I can say that the aluminum fork on my 1999 Schwinn Circuit was terrible for me. Very harsh as others who have had these have stated. But I took it on a 3 week trip to Mississippi where the pavement was like glass and it was a whole other fork. I still came home and sold it. Now the aluminum fork on my 1987 Bridgestone Mile 112 does well on my normal rough roads. But it's still not comparable to any of my good steel ones.

Love your sig by the way. As i've been home recovering from the wreck Jeremy's antics on The Grand Tour have been killing me....literally. I laugh hard and my left collar bone kills me. Wondering if I messed that up too...

[palincss]

A while back I did the same double century with 15K' of climbing in back to back years. The first year was on a 19 lb Soma Smoothie (with DT shifters of course). The next year was on a full bling 14.5 lb Bianchi 928SL. Fitness was about the same each year. The finish times were essentially identical.

The effect of 4 1/2 pounds more or less on a long ride, calculated via analyticcycling.com isn't as much as the amount of time you can lose standing in just one long queue at the portolets or the snacks table. Spread out over six or eight rest stops or controls, you could lose that much time just from inattentive wool-gathering as you're going about your business.

[SPOKE]

I'm a steel fan. I even love the ride of a nice steel fork. I have a number of bikes built by Richard Sachs, Dave Kirk, Kelly Bedford & Serotta. The newer OS tub sets help with the weight issue and still have a large degree of "brightness" I fell in love with riding Columbus SL tubed bikes in the 80's. Pick a DA, Ultegra, Campy Chorus or Record group and the bikes usually end up about 16.5-17lb range with a decent set of wheels and a light saddle. Compared to my Ottrott ST or MeiVici the steel bikes feel a bit more alive probably due to the felt vibration. The C60 that I just road for the first time on Sunday may change my opinion but if it does I'm certain that it's because of the Bora 50 tubulars that are on it.
If I was racing again I'm pretty certain I'd grab my Red Sachs. That bike just loves to be ridden fast. The faster I can make it go the better the front end feels especially when cranked over in a turn.

[smead]

The effect of 4 1/2 pounds more or less on a long ride, calculated via analyticcycling.com isn't as much as the amount of time you can lose standing in just one long queue at the portolets or the snacks table. Spread out over six or eight rest stops or controls, you could lose that much time just from inattentive wool-gathering as you're going about your business.

Off the bike times were the same (or within 2-3 mins). Agreed on a long ride, the weight doesn't much matter, but this double also included 15'K of some pretty steep climbing.

[mtechnica]

lol, no, no no. ;)

All I'm saying is that a rec rider like me has seen no measurable benefit to the new tech. I say that because I am not riding at the upper limits of anything. My usual routes are bad roads where my C.F. bikes beat me up. Especially surprising was the Domane I tested right before deciding to stick to my vintage steel. With all the hype I expected a better ride, just didn't have it. Comfort trumps speed in my book but what I tried pointing out is that under me C.F had no real advantage. I thought i pointed out how I could not ride a pro pace above? Who knows, all hopped up on pain pills for the shoulder I separated in a crash the other day. Probably not making myself clear.

Funny thing is, I don't consider the Circuit my "best" steel bike. But the times I post on it says something else. And the Maillot Jaune throws down top speeds under me even though I'm held back on it by rear shifting issues. It just carries my meager speed so well, even when I get tired and tend to lose concentration.

I had high hopes for the De Rosa to finally show its mettle this year as well as the CSI and the custom Lemond. But now I just have to wait to see when I can even get back on a bike. Anyway, just my thoughts why retro means giving up nothing to me. ;)

I think if you have a vintage frame set up the way your bikes are the difference is really small honestly, and like you say the old bikes could be better than some new carbon or aluminum bikes. If you get a chance to ride a lugged carbon bike, though, I think you might like it - especially ones with smaller diameter tubes. My calfee feels like Columbus SL on steroids. Your de rosa is awesome by the way. :beer:

[Gummee]

I know lots of people who like Al or CF forks because they are lighter. I've never heard one of them say that they rode better than a steel fork, as least that I can remember.

I can't say 'ride better' but IME steel forks transmit more 'buzz' thru to the handlebars. Big hits are still big hits regardless of material, but less weight and getting rid of some of the buzz are both good

M

[El Chaba]

The discussion is moving a little in the direction indicating that some may believe that a "steel fork" or a "carbon fork" are fungible commodities. There are HUGE differences within any category. The vast majority of steel forks are crappy. dept. store huffys have steel forks. Now, if you want to discuss a Columbus SL fork as on a classic deRosa we have moved back close to the top of the scale. Similarly, there are plenty of crap Chinese carbon forks about and plenty of good carbon forks on the opposite end. I would suggest that material is one of the more minor factors of what constitutes a great bike. Having said that, the idea that "bikes have come a long way" WRT performance is a notion that is far more driven by marketing drivel than any grounding in reality.

[El Chaba]

I have a couple more thoughts on the video...When somebody rides a bike from some time before their involvement with the sport, I wonder what they are expecting....Did the guy expect it to feel like he was dragging an anchor behind?...Certainly he would have some vague sense of the history of the sport and would know that guys like Thevenet, Anquetil, Coppi, etc. were able to MOVE down the road. If you look at the "advancements" in cycling over the past 40 or so years, very few of them represent improvements in efficiency of the machine. Two areas that immediately come to mind are lower weight, which has dropped the weight of a typical top level racing bike by about 25%. This is an advantage for both climbing and accelerating, but taken in combination with the weight of the rider, it represents a very slight advantage. Aero wheels are another advantage, but the advantage is usually wildly exaggerated and once again most of the advantage occurs during specific circumstances (higher speeds, solo, at the front, etc) and most of the advantages disappear most of the time. Other than those, most of the advancements have been for convenience not performance. Integrated shifting, clipless pedals, etc all fall into that category

[Pastashop]

I have a couple more thoughts on the video...When somebody rides a bike from some time before their involvement with the sport, I wonder what they are expecting....Did the guy expect it to feel like he was dragging an anchor behind?...Certainly he would have some vague sense of the history of the sport and would know that guys like Thevenet, Anquetil, Coppi, etc. were able to MOVE down the road. If you look at the "advancements" in cycling over the past 40 or so years, very few of them represent improvements in efficiency of the machine. Two areas that immediately come to mind are lower weight, which has dropped the weight of a typical top level racing bike by about 25%. This is an advantage for both climbing and accelerating, but taken in combination with the weight of the rider, it represents a very slight advantage. Aero wheels are another advantage, but the advantage is usually wildly exaggerated and once again most of the advantage occurs during specific circumstances (higher speeds, solo, at the front, etc) and most of the advantages disappear most of the time. Other than those, most of the advancements have been for convenience not performance. Integrated shifting, clipless pedals, etc all fall into that category



Agreed. I started riding a lot and building up bikes as a kid in the 80’s / 90’s, but spent a lot of time initially with old cast-offs, and immersed myself in the old tech — mostly as that was all I could afford at the time. Having tried new bikes, I’m rather happy with the old tech. Things that last, things that are repairable... I like.

Now, if there was some magic way to improve bike infrastructure and pop / car culture toward biking, we would be in good shape. I suspect that the relative prosperity and harshness of climate around much of the US makes it that much more difficult than other parts of the world. (Northern Europe still being a bit of a mystery on how they got this sorted out...)

Sorry about the tangent.

[oldpotatoe]

Their George Longstaff is similar to my 1991 Longstaff, except for different pedals, aero brake levers on mine, a totally different drivetrain (mine's an indexed 9x3 with bar end shifters) and no chrome socks on the fork. I think theirs is a racing model, while mine is an Audax frame with clearance for 28mm tires and fenders.

He's certainly right about the old bikes lasting and standing the test of time vs modern throw-away.

Nice piece, every test sounds better with a British accent..:)