Re: [CR]Off topic: Steel is Real! - CR 2003 bike ratings...

On Thursday, May 08, 2003, at 10:54AM, Steve Neago <questor@cinci.rr.com> wrote:
>CR Member Aldo (Bianchi prefered) will like the Consumer Reports June 2003 road bike ratings that just came out... At these prices, I will stay with my vintage collection...

Whenever I hear people complain about the "prices of bikes these days" I head right over to The Inflation Calculator http://www.westegg.com/inflation/ Now the average price of these 9 bikes are $928 which is $535 in '84 , $238 in '74, and $164 in '64. Using these calculations the bikes these days are a real deal. I'm sure someone can give us a breakdown of the $238 bikes of the mid-70s, so what were they so we can have a real comparison? enjoy, Brandon"monkeyman"Ives SB, CA
>1.) Bianchi Eros - 23 lbs - $1050 - Steel frame
>2.) Klein Q-Carbon - 20 lbs - $1400 - Aluminium - Carbon frame
>3.) Lemond Tourmalet - 23lbs - $1100 - steel frame
>4.) Trek 1200 - 22 lbs - $1000 - Aluminium Frame - Carbon fork
>5.) Giant OCR1 - 22 lbs - $1050 - - Aluminium Frame - Carbon fork
>6.) Raleigh Grand Prix (A CR Best Buy) -23 lbs - $900 - - Aluminium Frame - Carbon fork
>7.) Specialized Sequoia - 22 lbs - $1100 - - Aluminium Frame - Carbon fork
>8.) Fuji Newest - 21 lbs - $825 - - Aluminium Frame
>9.) Cannondale R400 Sport - 23 lbs - $850 - - Aluminium Frame - Carbon fork
>
>Consumer Reports seemed to prefer steel frames over carbon. I am surprised there is only about a 1 lbs difference in bike weights between steel and Aluminium Frame /Carbon fork complete bikes. I still fail to see the need for current 27 speed bikes when a trusty vintage 18 speed will do me just as well...
>
>Regards, Steve Neago
>Cincinnati, OH
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>

++++++++++++++++++++
Nobody can do everything,
but if everybody did something
everything would get done.
--Gil Scott-Heron--
++++++++++++++++++++