i have had alot of my own bicycles over the years. fwiw, the
'numbers' pertaining to design, layout, fit, etcetera haven't
changed by more than a millemeter in over 20 years. that is,
the position, reach, setback, and saddle height all have remained
constant for a long, long time.
now-it's hard to correct for the fact that my older frames weren't
of the quality of my newer frames, but i THINK the quality of the
construction has improved. the alignment tolerances are better.
and i arrive at solutions with greater ease. so-in essence-the frames
i've used through the years have all been the same, position wise.
obviously, different era would have seen different parts on these
various frames. fwiw, i always liked the newer stuff better than the
stuff getting 'replaced'. i say thay because the build, with components
and their periodic upgrades, are part of the equation.
all the frames, these similarlaly designed frames from over the years,
were made from only one material-steel-but from a wide degree of
types and guages and diameters; 531, 653, SL, SLX, KL...
more recently, i've used reynolds cro-mo and Dedaccai, seperately
as well as in a mix.
my conclusion: none rode any differently than any of the others.
i attribute this to the fact that they were all the same frame design.
none seemed stiffer, stronger, more reponsive, or livelier than the
rest. the only difference that i can make certain of is that
THE NEWER ONES ARE LIGHTER WITHOUT ANY
PENALTIES ASSOCIATED WITH REMOVING MATERIAL
JUST FOR THE SAKE OF IT. but, unless i lift the bicycle
over my head, even that difference doesn't matter that much.
maker, user, collector