Re: [CR]using classic bicycles, well?


Example: Component Manufacturers:Chater-Lea

To: questor@cinci.rr.com
Cc: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 18:50:06 -0400
Subject: Re: [CR]using classic bicycles, well?
From: Richard M Sachs <richardsachs@juno.com>


"Steve Neago" <questor@cinci.rr.com> writes: <However, these modern lightweight ideas pale in comparison to the personal motivation of the cyclist - the driving factor in any race.> Regards, Steve Neago Cincinnati, OH

again... no one is debating that the engine and the mind are important. what <I> am saying is that no amount of training or positive thinking will make up for the fact that a seasoned rider using a 70s frame and 70s parts is going to be at a disadvantage if everyone around him is using modern parts. the average speeds don't matter. the terrain doesn't matter. nothing matters. buy if the playing field is tilted, that matters. i could be mistaken, but there was a time in the 70s that the now-vintage parts were new and innovative. i suspect all the racers from the 50s and 60s glommed onto the new stuff and consumed it passionately. there may have been a few holdouts that thought derailleurs were newfangled and high tech, and "what's wrong with dismounting and flipping around the rear wheel to use the_other_cog to get up the hill." (remember those????). it's been noted here, also, that rominger set a record using a basic colnago track frame. unlike road frames, track frames of that or any era have not changed to the point that they're not compatible with parts from another era. the track frame 'simply' holds the parts, few as they are. rominger's feat was accomplished because the wheels were better, he had the aero position nailed, and he had good fitness. i defy anyone racing to break a current record on the road using 30 year old parts. the hour record and track parts represent a different animal. this thread has taken too many turns for me to remain interested. i contended this a.m. that, essentially, a 70s bicycle would be a liability in a racing situation in today's world. my opinion is not based on that i love old bikes or that i hoard, i mean 'collect' old parts. it's based on first hand experience from racing and being involved in the sport at all levels. it'd be interesting to know how many opinions voiced today were formed by people whose careers took place on the sidelines. e-RICHIE


> It seems to me that the CR list is being overwhelmed with "technology
> talk"
> about why newer bikes are supposedly better than older ones. These
> discussions about the viability of parts in winning cycling races
> ignore the
> most important component to any race - the cyclist himself!
>
> I seriously wonder how well Exadrive or indexed shifting compares to
> older
> freewheels for competitive cycling. The fact remains that while
> cadence may
> be more constant with Exadrive, a experienced and skilled cyclist
> using a
> vintage freewheel system will be able to detect candence changes and
> should
> be able to match most Exadrive ratios. Besides, for a 8 or 9 speed
> cassette, how many people actually use all 16 or 18 speeds and isn't
> that
> more confusing when trying to decide the proper gear ratios to use
> because
> they are intermixed?
>
> For all the weight savings of newer bikes the main fact remains that
> bike
> races are won by the endurance and strength of the rider. The
> psyche and
> competitiveness of the cyclist greatly exceeds the importance of how
> light
> or modern the frame and its components are.
>
> I am reminded of an interview article about Lance Armstrong and how
> he was
> nudged from his sponsored Team because of cancer. With his cancer
> treatment
> successfully treated, Armstrong said *** he didnt care what
> components were
> on the bike nor what frame was used*** - just that he deeply wanted
> to start
> riding again. That drive and determination led him to a successful
> season
> that year.
>
> Admittedly, using superlight frames and components may 'psych up' a
> cyclist
> in personal self-confidence for a race and there are physics
> formulas that
> equate weight savings with greater distance for extended races.
> However,
> these modern lightweight ideas pale in comparison to the personal
> motivation
> f the cyclist - the driving factor in any race. I respectfully stand
> to
> differ in opinion with e-Ritchie!
>
> Regards, Steve Neago
> Cincinnati, OH
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mark Poore" <rauler47@hotmail.com>
> To: <mark@bulgier.net>; <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
> Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 4:44 PM
> Subject: RE: [CR]using classic bicycles, well?
>
>
> > >e-RICHIE wrote:
> > >
> > > > the next race you're in that has an attack on a climb,
> > > > or a hilltop group finish, i hope you're on some
> > > > good juice. there is NO WAY to be competitive on
> > > > an ascent when all around you are standing and shifting
> > > > as you decide to shift gears and realize that you must
> sit
> > > > first to activate the gear levers. ergopower and sti
> rule.
> >
> >
> > I am with Richie on this one and as I have stated in the past
> something to
> > this effect. It is one thing to compete at a regional level
> (depending on
> > the region) and a whole different thing competing at a National
> or
> > International level. Richie is one of the very few on this list
> that has
> > that kind of experience and it goes a long way in giving his words
> and
> > opinion validity as opposed to someone with a subjective opinion.
> >
> > Mark, hate to sit to shift, Poore
> > Sunny Florida