John, I'll tell you what I'll do...I don't have access to either the $5000 Cinelli or the $600 Giant, but here's what I will do. If you will take your Cinelli (you select the most competitive gearing, etc.) and race it over a course of your choosing (as long as it is not Cyclocross or Mountain or something like that) and then you borrow a $600 Giant and race the same course, if you do not make better time on the Cinelli I'll buy you a steak dinner at the next Cirque and here's the kicker...YOU get to ride both bikes and make your best effort and even time the event if you choose. I have complete confidence in your honesty...If not in your evaluation of the $600 Giant... If that's not giving you every advantage in this bet, I don't know what would be! Are we on? Tom Sanders Lansing, Mi USA
_____
From: John Barron [mailto:jb@velostuf.com] Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 10:25 AM To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org Cc: tsan7759142@sbcglobal.net Subject: Subject: [CR]Significantly faster on a newer bike?...only in some perspectives
But Tom, you wouldn't really have an old bike anymore, would you?
I want to repeat my main point: Old bikes are cool. God knows I love them. I've been obsessed with them for 14+ years. BUT, to the extent that we are talking about RACING bikes, the old bikes don't compare performance-wise to the modern bikes. By performance, I mean first one to the finish line in a RACE. Previously, someone talked about how a Ferrari was faster in a straight line than a Camry. Ferrari's WERE NOT designed and built to race in a straight line. You can't cherry-pick attributes about a car or a bike and then claim that they're superior based on only those attributes. In racing, it's who finishes first. For the Ferrari and Camry, it will take left turns, right turns, straight-aways, off-camber stuff, and pit-stops for refueling. Don't forget driver comfort, machine reliability, etc., etc., etc. In order to win an endurance road race, (which is what vintage Ferraris were built to compete in) it takes all of these things. This is what I mean by performance when I refer to racing machines, both motorized and non-motorized.
I stand by my contention that a Camry will beat a Ferrari, and a $600 Giant will beat a $5,000 Cinelli.
John Barron
Minneapolis
Tom Sanders wrote:
However, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that if I were to put modern components like I have on my Sachs 25th Ann bike on, say, my older Mooney, Masi 3V or the Paramounts, I would achieve much the same results, time wise.
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 06:00:17 -0400
From: "Tom Sanders" <tsan7759142@sbcglobal.net>
To: <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
Subject: [CR]Significantly faster on a newer bike?...only in some perspectives
Message-ID: <000001c7d5b5$19e9d460$28f5d045@ts>
Content-Type: text/plain;charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
Message: 6
I would have to agree with John Barron's post when he recently said he was significantly faster on a new bike. However, I doubt it is purely the bike.
It is only common sense to say that if it is a few pounds lighter that it takes less effort to propel it. But, it is not all that much lighter in most cases...if you carry two water bottles on it instead of one, for instance, the weight difference is largely gone. I do feel that I get around on my longer rides a bit quicker on modern bikes than my older ones.
I also feel that the difference is a lot more related to having modern indexing and ergo set ups on these bikes. It keeps me in the right gears more easily, especially in heavy wind. I am a tiny bit more likely to be in the right gears on hills.
However, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that if I were to put modern components like I have on my Sachs 25th Ann bike on, say, my older Mooney, Masi 3V or the Paramounts, I would achieve much the same results, time wise. The bikes themselves are still bikes that require a good set of legs to make good time on...there is nothing magical about Carbon or Ti...they are just a bit lighter. A bit. They gain little in the way of better geometry, the tires are negligible in difference...you can put great tires on just about any older bike...and many folks do...classic riders often are running tubulars or some really decent clinchers. A more modern bike may have something like Zipp wheels, here again this is a decent weight savings...they are butt ugly, and other than this, they could be put on a classic bike, with a little planning.
I think there are two things going with these modern bikes besides the obvious weight savings, one is the psychological ...the person feels like he is really spending money and effort on as fast a bike as they can get and this makes them feel a bit like King Kong. The other more significant benefit is in components...and these could be put onto a more classic bike, it is an aesthetic choice to keep the older or original stuff on them. Some of us do hot rod our bikes up a bit...It is my old legs that keep me from passing these college kids on my rides, not my old bikes. There is a lot of grey in the beards of most of us classic bike riders, it has been noted.
I am glad that next year Campagnolo Record will be available again in a silver finish instead of black only...I just might put some of it on a vintage bike for the fun of it (especially those sexy skeleton brakes!)...I am much more impressed by modern components than I am by modern styles of bikes.
Tom Sanders
Lansing, Mi USA