all this is well and good. but relative to the subject header - you'll be at a disadvantage if your parts are 20 plus years old and the race is next sunday. e-RICHIE chester, ct
On Tue, 11 May 2004 10:52:35 -0700 jack b <jack_bissell@mac.com> writes: Our vintage stuff is heavier and, sniff, doesn't shift or stop as well. (Group hug?) Who brought this up again? But older stuff works *nearly* as well and for much longer with cheaper spare parts. Also our purty old junk isn't depreciating. For actual advantages I think 25+ yr old touring bikes are more robust and easier to fix, with a more comfy ride - some clear advantages in their round, small-diameter steel tubes and simple components. With racing bikes I know that 70s bikes often had lighter rims and tires: Fiamme ergals w/ Clement Criterium Setas are lighter than today's $2000 carbon wheels. Also some of the other parts from the 70s and early 80s were the lightest ever (Jubilee ders, Kronos levers, Hi-E hubs....) Old school steel frames w/ 1" top tubes -- sometimes more compliant and comfortable for long distances. What else? Toe clips - more secure for trackies. Q-factor - lower back then. Steel forks - sometimes more compliant than carbon and sometimes they track better at the limit. For retro races I say look no further than the very strict UCI hour record. Even Eddy's bike in '72 BARELY qualifies. Those obsolete spoked wheel/drop bar bikes that are eligible today clearly have at least a 5 kph disadvantage. Jack Bissell, wary of anyone in bikedom with too strong an opinion in Tucson, Az