Chuck Schmidt wrote:
I guess what I find to be most interesting about this thread is that over the years people have gotten the weight of bikes down to amazingly low numbers (certifiably low numbers in fact) but it turns out this marvels of lightness handle like crap and don't last longer that an event.
What I remember from the days of drillium in the 1970s (drillium = you just go nuts on your bike with the trusty ol' Black & Decker) was friends that had custom bikes made out of really light weight tube sets (these would be their ultimate cost is no object dream bikes) and after they got them they were disappointed. Same refrain... "handles like crap, speed wobbles, scary descending, wet noodle in a sprint." Then they would go back to their 21 lb. racer with renewed respect.
Of course the whole drill would be repeated with each new Junior racer that showed up in the club... "Gotta have a light bike!" pant, pant!
This was true year after year, decade after decade until the current picture emerged; truely light racing bikes that are stiff and handle.
The May 2002 issue of Cycle Sport Magazine has some (relevant?) stuff in it. There are some vintage pieces about racing in the '70's. But the really interesting article is the materials comparison pitting a new Merckx Corsa 01 (lugged steel) against the new Trek 2300 (zr9000 aluminum). Interesting in that the steel bike seems to "win" in all subjective comparisons including ride quality, stability on descents etc.., but in the end is deemed sort of irrelevant in the racing world due to its 2 lb. weight penalty. Also, the aluminum bike seems to win in that ever important "feeling of immediate power transmission" category that seems to be the standard line in any review of a modern racing bike. BTW, and backing up e-richies comment about really good bikes being readily available.., the Trek frame weighs 2.7 lbs. & retails for $875.00!! Ugly as sin though, IMHO. Richard Rose (Toledo, Ohio)