here's my take: it was about the money when thevenet and ovion rode px 10s and when ocana rode speedwells and when harris rode raleighs. when those bikes were new, there likely were geezers saying the machines of the 40s were better.
why can't we agree that bicycles are possibly better now than they were then without trying to imply that if it were not for the money, folks would still race on nuovo record equipped googlyooglys?
e-RICHIE chester, ct
<kohl57@starpower.net> writes: Original Message: ----------------- From: Feeken, Dirk dirk.feeken@sap.com Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 14:45:58 +0200 To: richardsachs@juno.com, classicrendezvous@bikelist.org Subject: RE: [CR]Yesterday's equipment in modern races
"Other way around: If there's a place where you don't have to justify the usage of the old stuff it's this list."
Well EXACTLY! I mean sometimes this debate sounds like belonging to a Bugatti discussion site and taking the position that your Escalade is a much better motor vehicle.
Raoul's original post had all the right caveats, not the least of which was MONEY. You wave enough dosh around any sport and you'd have tennis players playing with wood rackets and wearing long white flannels and cyclists more than happy to ride PX-10s and wearing wool jerseys. It may not be about the bike (which has got to be the biggest canard out there), but I suspect it's about the cash.
Finally, I frankly don't care if today's professionals like or ride our classics. My Walter Mitty fantasy isn't a Lance Armstrong competing today on a 1977 Raleigh Team Pro, but me. And I have enough Dutch blood in my veins to make it almost prototypical.
Peter Kohler
Washington DC USA