Thanks Chuck for old vs. new comparison of the Duquesne and Trek. It never ceases to amaze me, particularly with bikes, what might seem new and innovative had been thought of long ago. Of course there are usually different materials used for the manufacturing for said piece or item.
Someone here said, > The contrast between old bikes and modern ones is more
than just the
>technological one; it's a fundamental difference in style and
>purpose. Today's bicycles and components are designed around a
>"coolness" standard, intended to appeal to guys in their mid-20s who are
>unperturbed by big credit-card balances. Old bikes get their value from
>true beauty, elegant design, and their lessons about our history and Ø place in society., now maybe I look at things a bit differently, or so I have been told on a occasion or two in a bit different language, but many of the innovations that we see are race inspired and once proven in that arena they find their way down the lineup, whether it be parts or frames. True, in some cases there is the coolness factor, but generally under that veil I believe you will find a product that was designed to be a lighter, faster, more responsive and a better performing product. Lets face it, in racing if a top ranked rider wants something they will get it whether it is a De Rose built frame with their sponsors paint and decals on it or Lance and some of the other boys with friction shifters on the left side of the downtube for the big climbing stages. And if a rider wanted a friction or indexed DT shifter on the right side, because he felt it was an advantage or preformed better he would be riding with it.
And not all bikes fall into to the coolness standard. After 17 years on a mountain bike injuries from a car accident put me back on a road bike. The bike I purchased was a new 2000 Jamis Quest. It had the Shimano 105 grouppo, 32 hole 3 cross wheelset and a Reynolds 631 tig wielded frame. I had no interest in a aluminum or carbon fiber frame nor the fancy new wheelsets. When on the top of the bars one would be hard pressed to tell this bike wasnt a classic for it was a wonderful riding bike that felt very much like the Mercian Super Light that I owned. In fact the only time you would know you werent on a modern bike was when you were in the drops, had ergo bars, on the brake hoods or shifting or braking other than that it was a classic riding bike. The tig wielded frame was about as esthetically appealing as a tig wielded frame could be, but from a distance you could see the classic geometry that made this bike such a nice rider. The frame is no longer with me and has been replaced by a classic, not really a better riding bike, just has a lot more eye appeal.
Mark, it is going into the 40s today, Poore
>From: Chuck Schmidt <email@example.com>
>Subject: [CR]Re: Old & new
>Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 20:59:11 -0700
>For last year's Velo Rendezvous I put together a little exhibit of Old &
>Old Exhibit: An 1897 Duquesne (Pittsburgh) fixed gear road bike
>(freewheels hadn't been invented yet). It was in Bicycling magazine a
>few years ago in The Way Back Machine column that Jim Langley did.
>Here's a verbal description of the bike in lieu of photos. Constructed
>of oversize, thin wall tubing with internal lugs (tubes braze over
>outside, instead of inside lugs), unicrown aero fork, wishbone seat
>stay, steel aero crank with spider made of five thin, aero sectioned
>spokes (fifth one bolts to back of crank arm).
>New Exhibit: A 1995 Trek (Waterloo) 5500 OCLV carbon road bike. Here's
>a verbal description of the bike (you probably saw one under Lance in
>the last few TdFs). Oversize thin wall tubing with internal lugs (tubes
>bonded over outside, instead of inside lugs), unicrown aero fork,
>wishbone seat stay, alloy aero crank with spider made of five thick,
>aero sectioned spokes (fifth one bolts to back of crank arm).
>Style, purpose, craftsmanship? You tell me.