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

(Example: Racing:Beryl Burton)

From: "jerrymoos" <jerrymoos@sbcglobal.net>
To: <chuckschmidt@earthlink.net>, <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
References: <63340-220045110152318862@M2W062.mail2web.com> <409FE69B.274F2E91@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: [CR]Winning Today's Races With Yesterday's Technology
Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 19:16:39 -0500


I think this thread did raise a valid question, namely if "modern technology" is really a significant contributer to the outcome. Personally, I have my doubts. I think it has been argued persuasively many times that total bike weight has little effect on performance and that probably only the weight of rims and tires, because thet act with a large momemt arm, are critical. And I'm not sure modern rims are lighter than the lightest ones of the 70's as they have to be stronger because of increased wheel dish. And are 20 speeds, with a lot of duplicated ratios, really better than 12 speeds, with less duplication? I doubt that any modern rider uses close to all 20 of the gears in a stage. And while indexed shifting is easier for a beginner to use, I think the pros could shift just fine without it. And the narrower chains needed for 10 speed cassettes seem to be thrown with a greater frequency than the older, thicker, more rigid ones. Maybe modern dual pivot brakes are better, but you don't win races with frequent braking anyway, and the riders seldom use their brakes except to avoid a crash, and the crashes seem as frequent as ever. About the only modern development which seems to significantly enhance performance is clipless pedals, which do seem to increase pedaling efficiency. So I think it is entirely possible that Lance Armstrong on a top quality lugged steel bike from the early 80's might still have won the last few TdF, as long as you allowed him to use clipless pedals. And I feel absolutely certain that Armstrong on such a bike, with the same team around him, would at least still trounce the guys that finished out of the top 10. The rider is still much more important in the outcome than the bike, and I think that if there is a huge edge in modern "technology" it is more related to diet and training methods than to bike construction. And even that is somewhat offset by the fact that in the old days the riders could do a lot more doping without getting caught.

Regards,

Jerry Moos
Houston, TX


----- Original Message -----
From: Chuck Schmidt
To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
Sent: Monday, May 10, 2004 3:31 PM
Subject: Re: [CR]Winning Today's Races With Yesterday's Technology



> "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.
>
> Chuck Schmidt
> South Pasadena, Southern California

>

> .