Why ride classics? (random musings) (WAS [CR]To ride or not/very short...)

(Example: Racing)

From: "Thomas R. Adams, Jr." <KCTOMMY@msn.com>
To: "Classicrendezvous_1" <Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
Subject: Why ride classics? (random musings) (WAS [CR]To ride or not/very short...)
Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2002 21:12:43 -0500

Could we quantify this a bit? Where do the 4 pounds that eRichie mentioned come from? Is it the frame or the parts that save the weight? Could I take a modern frame, slap on a NR grouppo and have an 18-19 pound bike?

Then there's the issue of cost that other's have been chewing on. If a respectable but not pristine lugged steel classic with high end classic parts runs 22lbs and costs about $800 dollars (I've done it several times),and a 18 pound modern ultimate quality Sachs costs $3200, how much would a modern road bike that cost $800 weigh? Assuming the frame has to be made from aluminum how would the frame ride? And what level of quality could you expect from the parts? Sora? Mirage? Do those parts save any significant weight over classic stuff?

Then there is the issue of whether the new components work "better". That all depends on the criteria for "better". I want to be able to hop on my bike and ride with minimum time for tinkering and maintenance. So my experience with indexed shifting was unhappy, as every few rides I'd have to retension shifter cables or otherwise fiddle with adjusters to prevent chattering. (A 230lb rider flexes frames a lot and stretches cables.) And with triple front cranks I always seemed to run into shifters that couldn't shift accurately and then had no provisions for trimming the front cage. I've come to the conclusion that Barcons with modern no stretch shifter housings, modern chains and a 7 speed freewheel shift fast enough for me.

If we're trying to make the lightest bike possible (or even if we limit it to reasonable lightness) then 3 ounces in the frame for lugs would be significant but not crucial. (Sidenote:Is there a benefit to the lugs beyond aesthetics? Stronger joints than TIG? Easier repairs? Can you replace tubes on modern wonder steels like Nivacrom and 853?) But what's the difference in weight of a current Sachs frame as composed to an early 80's Sachs? More than a pound? If I can buy 4 classic bikes for the cost of one 18 pound Ulti-Sachs, I'd probably take the 4 classics. It would be more "fun". All I need now is some little old lady with her son's abandoned classic Sachs that I can cheat her out of. Then I'll be happy.

So for now, I'll stick to classics. They're not just "good enough", they're the "best" for my situation. Just as the Ulti-Sachs is perfect for bunches of other folks. Buy soon and buy often, so Richard will still be in business when I win the lottery.

Tom Adams, Kansas City (Should I raise the issue now that K-Swiss sneaks with platform pedals and clips are superior to clipless pedals?)


----- Original Message -----
From: "Chuck Schmidt"
Sent: Sunday, September 08, 2002 6:59 PM
To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
Subject: Re: [CR]To ride or not/very short...


Richard M Sachs wrote:
> (cut)
> i'm just not all that keen on using something i had used for tens
> of thousands of miles back in the day that the goods were new,
> not classic.

I just was reminded of my favorite Maynard "if I never see another Molteni orange bike it would be too soon" Hershon:

"Cycling retro looks wacko to me...I don't get it. What's with guys in their 20s and 30s, in the prime of life, lost in nostalgia?" --Maynard Hershon

Chuck Schmidt SoPas, SoCal

.