Re: [CR]Winning Today's Races With Yesterday's Technology

(Example: Framebuilding:Technology)

To: Grant.McLean@SportingLife.ca
Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 17:31:54 -0400
Subject: Re: [CR]Winning Today's Races With Yesterday's Technology
From: "Richard M Sachs" <richardsachs@juno.com>
cc: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
cc: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org

snipped: "...BUT, I think modern technology is better in every way, so I'm no retro-grouch. I'm not talking about quality, or craftsmanship, I'm talking technology."

(i write this with the utmost love for my northern pal and client, but -) that's almost oxymoronic! technolgy <is> modern. you wouldn't man- ufacture to tolerances from a prior era. even if you chose old parts, using "today's" knowledge base adds and enhances a period re-creation. i'm sure there were 60s & 70s geezers that lamented all the dang nuovo record crap: "real men ride fixed", i can imagine was said often. you are right; the dudes are down with the booty for aesthetic reasons. the new stuff is fine. the old stuff is pretty. e-RICHIE.......And the gangstas!!! aka Richard M Sachs formerly Dorking-upon-Thistle and Clarion R.C. Chester, Connect-the-dots

On Mon, 10 May 2004 17:21:59 -0400 Grant McLean <Grant.McLean@SportingLife.ca> writes:
> Chuck, (and others not snoozing yet...)
>
> If you get down to it, a lot retro dudes are in it for the
> aesthetic reasons, not the technology.(thus all the photos being
> taken at the Cirque) If people on this list didn't care about
> how stuff looked, what collector would go to a "show" and LOOK
> at all the stuff on display? The only reason to own somthing
> would be to ride it, and we all know how much the fancy bikes
> really get ridden ;-)
>
> I still think that lots of 50's to 70's stuff is
> just a lot better looking than 99% of modern stuff. There's
> no better looking bikes than those 70's Gios, Pinarello, Bianchi,
> Masi, De Rosa and all those other pro racing bikes of that era.
> (and I am "in the prime of life") BUT, I think modern technology
> is better in every way, so I'm no retro-grouch. I'm not talking
> about quality, or craftsmanship, I'm talking technology.
>
> There's some nice black carbon fiber stuff out there, but it's
> the exception, IMHO, not the rule. I find most modern graphics
> waaaay over the top, cluttered and unbalanced looking.
> So Chuck, you're a graphics guy, go set the guys at TREK straight!!
>
> I like your term "obsolete"! I also enjoy riding stuff that is
> technologically inferior today, it's no big deal. Bikes are great
> to ride, and a great riding bike will always be a great riding
> bike.
>
> Grant McLean
> toronto, canada
>
>
>
> Chuck Schmidt wrote:
> (sniped)
> If Lance were on my 1948 Thrumsley Hornet Experto he would still
> win
> his sixth Tour!" or something along these lines.
>
> Seems to be a reoccurring dream of mankind (or a certain sector of
> the
> bike riding public), along with the search for eternal youth and
> enlarging one's "luv muscle."
>
> Maybe Maynard was onto something when he wrote the following:
> "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
>
> I enjoy riding obsolete racing bikes and I enjoy riding current
> racing
> bikes and have never had a problem telling one from the other.
> While
> the former clearly have a undeniable charm, let's not let this cloud
> our
> vision of current bike racing conducted at the highest levels.