I think your comments bring up some interesting points. It is difficult to compare current prices on things like bikes made in 1980 and bikes made today. Which bikes constitute a fair comparison? Should you compare two bikes that are both top of the line, as you do? I suppose these are comparable bikes, considering that the approximate fifteen hundred 1980 dollars for a 1980 bike in 1980 is probably not much less than the approximate four thousand 2002 dollars for a 2002 bike. So, if we assume that the condition of comparable inflation-adjusted price makes the bikes comparable, and we further consider that an NOS 1980 race bike would only cost a little more today than it's original price, it seems like a great value. Then there are the quality adjustments, which is the contentious area. Since newer bikes are lighter, have more gears, and other improvements (hey, I said contentious!) we should really be comparing a mid-level bike of today with the top end bike of yesterday. Modern bikes that are as stiff and light as top-end 1980 bikes cost far less than $4000. In some respects a current $1500 mid-level racing bike is comparable to a top end bike that cost $1500 in 1980 and somewhere in that range today (as NOS). As for comparing NOS NR and 2002 Record component prices, I will conceed that current Campy components are a joke. Groups are what, $1500? Christ, that's as much as an NOS NR group ($400 cranks, $300 brakes, $100 headset....). Of course, you could have the superior-to-Campy Dura Ace 9 for about $1000. Seriously, when I consider the high cost of vintage parts, the astronomical costs of spares (hoods, shoes, rings...) and the time costs of searching the stuff out, I think the new stuff is a good bit cheaper. Tom Dalton Bethlehem. PA GPVB1@cs.com wrote:Tom:
I hear you to some extent, and please ride whatever you wish, as everyone should, but the "vintage stuff costs more" argument is a fallacy. A new Ti-framed STI- or Ergomatic-deluxe-equipped bike costs, what, close to $4K? A beautiful vintage Colnago (just to pick an example, your actual preferences may vary) costs maybe $1500, and will appreciate over time if reasonably well maintained (which is quite easy to do). An NOS Campy NR rear der. costs about $125, whereas a new Record-Ti one costs maybe $225? Let's not even talk brake/shift lever prices - $300 "new" versus $100 NOS "vintage."
The old stuff works just fine - it just doesn't click as much!
Cheers,
Greg Parker A2 MI USA
P.S. You should probably think about upgrading to a 10-speed bike soon. 9-speed is out-of-date and doesn't work as well, I've heard! ;-)
> Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 10:24:23 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Tom Dalton
> Subject: Re: [CR] To ride or not
> To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
>
>
> It's sad but true Greg. I actually believe that my new 9-spped STI
> equipped bike is more enjoyable to ride than my 6-speed friction equipped
> bikes. The gears are both more closely spaced and of wider range. I can
> select any one of them while seated or standing and never miss a shift.
> The clincher wheels are not as sweet riding as hand made sliks, but they
> are about as nice as the budget tubulars I used to ride, and much more
> reliable. My Time pedals and shoes are far more comfortable on my feet
> than my Duegi or Addidas with SLs. I consider myself to be conservative
> when it comes to bike equipment, I didn't make the clipless or the index
> change until 1992. I just went to STI. But the stuff simply works better,
> at least with the maniacal level care I give my bikes.
> ...then why would you want to be a CR list member?
>
> Because I like old bikes. I like the stuff that I used to ride. I think
> the racing gear that's older than late 70's is really interesting, but
> things like pre-war track bikes don't resonate with me, at least not enough
> to bring me to collect them. What I really don't get is "BOB" types, some
> of whom are just getting into riding, but who long to buy and use retro
> gear that they never even knew about when it was current. I don't accept
> the whole servicability/durabilty/versatility thing. Why pay more, and
> spend all that time searching for stuff that doesn't work as well as the
> new stuff. Yeah It's not all interchangable, but the old stuff had its
> limitations, it's just that expectations were lower.
>
>
_______________________________________________
---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes