snipped: "In almost all regards modern bike componentry is better than what was available in 1952, for any condition."
morgan u r my hero 2. e-RICHIE aka Richard M Sachs Chester, Connection
On Wed, 19 May 2004 09:32:03 -0700 Morgan Fletcher <morgan@hahaha.org>
writes:
> wheelman@nac.net writes:
> > How many stone hits can the CF frame take? How long before the
> dirt/dust
> > clogs that narrow 10 speed chain. What about being behind someone
> for a
> > long distance throwing up all sorts of stuff into your fine ergo
> > shifters. Perhaps I need to re-think my first impression. I guess
> we
> > could ask some cyclecross folks these questions but not so sure
> they use
> > the items that I just discussed for that type of racing.
>
>
http://www.cyclingnews.com/
>
> Click through the pictures. Nearly every rider is on 9-speed or
> 10-speed,
> running integrated brake/shift levers. I agree that carbon fiber is
> not a
> material suited for longevity, but it would certainly stand up to a
> season
> or three of just about anything you could throw at a similar steel
> frame.
>
> Not everything new is bad. Not everything old is good. I like the
> old stuff
> too. If given the option, I am sure Fausto would choose a bike from
> the
> modern peloton over his 1952 ride in a heartbeat.
>
> I agree that the technology used by the top riders in 1952 was
> probably
> well-suited to the conditions they faced, but I doubt that modern
> technology is somehow inferior for those conditions. People still
> ride and
> race modern bikes through all sorts of difficult terrain and
> adverse
> conditions. I don't remember bike or component failure stopping any
> of the
> recent Paris Roubaix winners, although Museeuw's late flat (on
> sewups) this
> year was a heartbreaker. In almost all regards modern bike
> componentry is
> better than what was available in 1952, for any condition. It's OK
> to love
> the old stuff but keep some perspective on why things has changed.
>
> Morgan Fletcher
> Oakland, CA