[CR]modern vs. old (Duncan Granger) (much shorter this time)

(Example: Humor)

From: <dgranger@comcast.net>
To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 18:22:23 +0000
Subject: [CR]modern vs. old (Duncan Granger) (much shorter this time)

In regard to Marcus Helman's question about whether we ever settle the debate of vintage versus new bikes, to me it's a bit like nature v. nurture: the answer is "some of both."

I find this conversation interesting not from the point of "which is better?" but rather from the point of "has technology really improved, and if so how much?"

As a case in point, while reading through "The Dancing Chain" (I am delighted to have the second, updated edition!), I was shocked to read that in the 1880s it was possible to buy a highwheel for track racing that weighed 16 lbs! So as far as light weight goes, have we really improved? I would submit that techology improves, but weight does not. Thus, as technology improves, lighter bikes get less expensive.

For those who poo-poo STI/Ergo or even indexed downtube shifting as "unnecessarily advanced" consider that it's almost universally agreed that a front derailleur that shifts from the down tube is better than one which shifts from the seat tube (suicide lever). I doubt many people were decrying the "new" technology of downtube-shifting front derailleurs as an "unnecessary advancement."

Duncan Granger
leaving for my lunchtime ride now in
York, PA (where I work, but don't live)