I'd rather have a 531 steel frame that weighs a couple of pounds now instead of a carbon frame with ton of problems later!
Regards, Steve Neago
Cincinnati, OH
> In a message dated 2/15/02 12:53:44 PM, rabbitman@mindspring.com writes:
>
> << Later in the morning, a rider and local shop owner remarks that I would
be
> so much faster with the advantages of modern technology. "Modern frames,
> gearing, brakes, shifting, wheels etc etc etc..... Blah blahblah
ablah.......
> so much better, faster, more blah for the buck..... reliability and blah
." >>
>
> If you're the last to the top of the climb on a "classic" 23 pound
bike,
> chances are you will be the last one on an 18 pound titanium wonderbike.
It's
> foolish to think that the bike will make you significantly faster.Remember
> the old P.F.Flyer sneaker ad? Same nonsense. Besides, my body weight often
> varies by almost 5 pounds over the course of a week. In my opinion, the
only
> "modern technology" that would be almost essential in modern racing is
> Ergo/STI shifting. I would feel at NO disadvantage racing a standard sized
> lugged steel frame with 36 spoke wheels (and a 130mm low dish rear that
let
> me use Ergal rims!), leather saddle, and toe clips+straps. After all, the
> guys on the Teledyne and Exxon Graftex bikes didn't always run away from
the
> field, did they (unless they happened to be John Howard)?
>
> Best Regards,
> Wes Gadd
> Unionville, CT