If you race or ride in a race like manner, then indexed shifting on a modern fly weight bike is an advantage. We can't agree on how much, but it's an advantage. And if you climb a lot, that magnifies the advantages of indexing and a lighter bike. Of course there's nothing that says you're modern flyweight wonder can't be made of steel and have the handlebars up high either. You can even get that steel frame with lugs, if you want to pay for it.
If, on the other hand, your riding is at a leisurely pace with little sprinting for city limit signs, then friction shifting is no great handicap, a heavier bike doesn't hold you back significantly and the simple maintenance and philosophical purity that goes with old equipment can be a compensating virtue. Does it matter if that leisurely 30 mile ride around the park takes two minutes longer? And if you have to carry significant loads, then the utility of the modern road bike declines rapidly.
I think the advent of tighter and tighter rear clusters has magnified the importance of indexing, especially if you're using a vintage derailleur that chronically overshifts and requires trimming. Manually shifting a Campy NR on a 7 or 8 speed cluster can be an annoying experience. I'm also currently friction shifting an 8 speed cluster on our tandem, and am considering going to indexed shifting to try to clean up the rear shifting (it's hard to hear when the chain is rubbing from that far ahead). But it was a revelation when I switched back to my single bike with it's nice and wide cogged five speed freewheel with the Suntour Cyclone rear mech, barcons and no-flex indexed cable housings. The chain snaps right into the next cog with no hesitation, and there's almost never a need for trimming unless I make a real ham handed shift. In that context, and at my customary leisurely pace in flattish New Jersey terrain, I don't feel in the least deprived by my lack of either indexed gears or 8, 9 or 10 rear cogs. And that is 75% of my riding.
I think maybe we are barking up the wrong tree when we try to debate whether there's any absolute functional advantage of riding modern or vintage equipment, and whether one way is "better" than the other. All bikes are good, and there's too much subjectivity that's personal to the rider in deciding these issues. To paraphrase Harvey Penick, if you ride a bike, you are my friend. But don't forget that, aside from functional issues, there's nothing wrong with someone riding vintage because she or he enjoys riding "primitive" style, either as a philosophical statement against an increasingly complex world or just from the pure satisfaction of being more intimately in control of their machine. If there's a good or a bad shift on my friction bike, then the credit or the blame belongs to me, whereas everything on the indexed bike falls to the mechanisms. To me, that's a significant issue. To my friend riding his 20 speed Dura Ace Cervelo, I''ve got rocks in my head.
There are still healthy markets for bamboo fly rods, recurve bows, black powder rifles and manual transmission convertible cars, all of which are evidence of others enjoying doing things the old fashioned way. To drop one more quote, John Gierach says that trout taste better when caught on bamboo. I appreciate the sentiment.
Tom Adams, wishing my digital camera worked just like my Olympus manual SLR, in Shrewsbury NJ
Nick Zatezalo <nickzz@mindspring.com> wrote: Seems to me there are two parts to this equation. The rider and the equipment.
The equipment needs to fit the rider correctly for ultimate proformance. {Marginal gains on short rides...possible significant gains on long rides}
The rider must be fit enough to gain ultimate results from the equipment. {Huge variable based on rider condition and bicycle riding skills}
The miracle cure is a better conditioned rider with good bicycle riding skills NOT a better bicycle[whatever that IS}.
Nick Zatezalo Atlanta,Ga
>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.
Do you have an explanation why that might be the case? I can see a speed difference if your old bike does not fit you, if the bearings are totally worn out, if there is no air in the tires... but otherwise, the speed difference for a commute is negligible, if there is any.
Faster shifting? Better brakes, allowing you to brake deeper into turns? Stiffer (or less stiff) frame? Clipless pedals? Bolder graphics? What causes the extra performance? Even if we accept that some of the above improve the power transfer or speed in some way, the effect will not be noticeable on a normal ride.
_______________________________________________
---------------------------------
Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday!
Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web