I don't agree that riding a "modern" bike is significantly easier on the legs. One must remember that the weight of the frame is relatively insignificant. When riding at constant speed on flat terrain, the only contribution of the frame's weight to the energy required is that the total bike mass does increase the friction between the tire and the road. But rolling fricition is trivial, as nearly all the energy of sustaining a steady pace goes to overcome wind resistance, which is not affected by frame weight in any way. In fact, a little extra friction is beneficial when cornering. Now, a greater mass does require more energy when accelerating, but on a bicycle, accereration involves bringling the wheels up to the necessary RPM. In this situation, the energy required is a function of the mass and its distance from the center of rotation, i.e. the hub axle. But the frame weight acts through the center of rotation and therefore has no real effect on the energy necessary to reach a given RPM. The rim and tire weights are important, but modern wheels are often heavier than classic ones because the rims must withstand the increased spoke tension associated with the greater dish of a 10-speed rear cluster.
So the only time the lower weight is of real benefit is when climbing, when the additional mass of classic frames must be raised against the force of gravity. But every climb has a descent, and the extra mass helps there, although the increased wind drag on high speed descents assures that the net effect of added mass in a climb followed by a descent is negative, even if one is brave enough not to dissipate energy by using the brakes.
Other than this very limited advantage of lower weight when climbing, indexed shifting is more convenient, but if one is able to select the prpoer gear with a classic derailleur, I don't see how the indexed shifting is actually easier on the legs.
Regards,
Jerry Moos Houston, TX
r garni <crispyflotilla@yahoo.com> wrote: Hello All,
Here's what I knowwell, here's what I feel:
If I am going to ride more than 10 miles, I am probably going to take a modern bicycle (i.e. off topic post 1983.) It's just physically easier, really, I think most of us who have both (pre and post '83) would agree on that. The on-topic bikes are wonderful for the sensation, the aesthetics, the pure pleasure of 'dining' or, I admit, when I have to stop in at a place like PERFORMANCE in order to buy a bicycle tube (I am not a preferred customer there) for the Where Did You Get That questions. Still, my commute is about 30-40 miles a day, and as much as I would like to take something like my dearly departed PX 10, it is just plain easier on my legs to take, well, something else.
That being said, it is AWFULLY nice to see a bike like the aforementioned Urago on Ebay for a 'Buy It Now' price of $700.
To me, herein lies the good and the bad news.
I was in the wine industry for years, and I used to weep (not literally) when I would drink an old bottle of Batard Montrachet or Margaux (I bought the '83 for $30) knowing that, in all likelihood, I would not drink these wines again (since these wines have escalated to a just released price of $200 or more, sometimes, much more.) The weeping thing is because I realized that an entire taste sensation was now no longer available to the average working joe (me) and certainly not for my children (unless they aspire to beyond their A.W.J. dad's status.) And frankly, it's criminal to drink something that is basically $80-$100 a glass, I feel, although for having done so you will not go to jail. Still, there is nothin' like the taste of a Daniel & Patrice Rion Vosne-Romanee, baby! However, there is now nothing like having to actually pay for it with large dollars, also.
I just had a look at the new Bicycling Magazine new release issue, and had that old wine experience all over again.The prices are a little boggling, and yes, there aren't that many bikes that are very appealing, really. Still, the ones that are cannot be happily purchased for a few weeks salary from an average person, as BP suggested might have been possible twenty years ago.
So my lament is that the experience of a brand new shiny best of class vehicle is no longer the provence of every man. Once upon a time, it was. And once upon a time, people like myself gravitated (in part) to bicycles because it wasfor a reasonable price, you could buy close to the most wonderful rendition of a vehicle on the planet, and delight in the experience for many years.
So for us, unlike many who pursue other interests, one door has opened while another has closed. A new release wine like Screaming Eagle or Harlin Estate might fetch $300 or more right out of the gate, but you can't take refuge in an older vintage of the same: it's going to cost you, and when I say 'cost you,' I mean cost you MORE.
With the exception of the Confentes and such, Thank Heaven that it is still possible to do some sweatin' to the oldies on a bicycle for a price set for those of us who like to say things like Workers Unite, even if it is only partially in fun.
All the best,
Ricky
Carrboro, NC
>
>
> SNIP:---- "On the road, we've shaved 6 lbs, or 25%
> of the weight,
> from bikes at all levels of, the price
> curve"-----------
>
> Perhaps this is true about the cheapest bikes, or
> entry level bikes
> that during the 70's sold for a smidgen over $100.
> If memory serves me
> in 1971 the average job for a fellow just starting
> out as an adult was
> about a smidge over $100... so a guy could buy a
> decent entry level
> bike with one weeks salary. (Maybe this is
> inherently just). Fast
> foward to 2005 where the average out of high school
> Joe will earn about
> $320 a week and from what I see for about $500 you
> can buy a half
> decent road machine with STI shifters. Now the $500
> bike will be
> superior in many ways to the old Peugeout U08 in
> terms of weight and
> shifting ease. Just guessing: Peogeout U08: 27 lbs,
> and Beercan 18
> speed STI bike: 21 lbs. So in this case 6 lbs or 25%
> off is just
> exactly right.
>
> However in the category that most interests me, the
> mid level upscale
> raceable road bike this is not so true. Example; 21
> lb road bikes were
> available in the 70's for three weeks salary ($400
> -$500) but now for
> three weeks plus entry level salary you get a $1200
> to $1500 Trek. In
> both cases you got an admiral machine. Back then,
> when bikes were
> weighed with pedals and typically weighed 21 pounds
> and were functional
> and reliable in every way. Now the $1300 or so Trek
> machine is weighed
> and quoted frequently without pedals but with pedals
> weighs about 19
> pounds (from what I see, I might be a bit off but
> hopefully not by
> much). The modern Trek or Cannondale is also a fine
> machine but only
> weighs 2 pounds or 10% less than its classic
> counterpart not 25%. When
> I pick up one of these modern machines I can barely
> detect any weight
> difference with my arm, and when I ride it I can't
> detect any
> difference in weight at all....Nor can I detect any
> real improvement
> in acceleration or climbability or responsiveness. I
> would hope that
> for all the penalties in aesthetics and durability
> there would at least
> be that one major advantage, since if I recall
> weight was as much an
> obsession back in the 70's as it is today. But the
> reality is the
> modern bike in this affordable category weighs only
> a bit less, gives a
> real benefit in terms of number of speeds (also of
> interest back in the
> days of Nixon, Carter and Reagan), but offers less
> in so many other
> areas that to me they seem like a rip-off.
>
> In conclusion in the area of mid to high price
> curve, road bikes are
> not delivering on promise of 25% weight loss. The
> seventies saw a
> practical weight minimum for a road bike at about 19
> pounds and in 2005
> a practical weight minimum I believe is something
> like 17 pounds. I am
> going to be honest here and say that I haven't even
> riden one classic
> Teledyne or Speedwell even when ones were offered to
> me last month and
> then again last year, and I haven't ridden even one
> Carbon Fiber Trek.
> To be honest I have little interest in the first and
> absolutely no
> interest in the second.
>
> All this being said, I am sure that there are people
> on this list who
> will correct me on some or all of my numbers, and
> perhaps I deserve it,
> not being an expert in near minimum wage jobs (then
> or now), nor modern
> bikes in any flavor.
> Garth Libre in Miami Florida
>
> _______________________________________________
> Classicrendezvous mailing list
> Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
>
http://www.bikelist.org/
>
__________________________________
Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday!
Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web
http://birthday.yahoo.com/
_______________________________________________
Classicrendezvous mailing list
Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
http://www.bikelist.org/