I didn't necessarily mean newer is better. Everything functions in it's timeline/frame. Most of the new stuff performs more efficiently but has a durability shorter life along with its lighter weight bonus. Give up one for the other. Just like in the bicycle balloon field, younger people collect Stingray banana seat bikes and aren't too interested in the full size wheels because they didn't ride them as kids. The newer development items of every era was used and either enjoyed or deep sixed. Much of it lives on somewhere, and collectors depending on breadth of interest or historical pleasure will limit or be more eclectic. Looking at all of our areas of interest is what makes it fun. Our basic timeline is pre-clik. But, there will be many younger people coming along who will honor and revere these items as it's their timeline and maybe go further back into our timeline to be more complete - or not -. I suspect there will be plenty guys to hold up our banner and keep all of it going for generations to come. Bikes aren't going away for a long time. Ted Ernst Palos Verdes Estates CA USA ----- Original Message ----- From: Jerome & Elizabeth Moos To: Edward Albert ; Dale Brown ; ternst Cc: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org Sent: Friday, September 12, 2008 6:31 PM Subject: Re: [CR]Was: Ray Dobbin's pictures. Now: interesting comment inVeloSniper.com
Well, I don't know Ted. Newer is not always better. And while progress is not impossible, neither is it inevitable. Most bicycle manufacturers, like most manufacturers of anything, are not primarily interested in making the best possible product, but in making the most possible money. I believe that in the last 10 to 15 years, bikes have been increasingly driven towards designs that are cheap to produce rather than designs that maximize rider benefit. Carbon fibre frames and even aluminum ones are basically throwaway items, impractical to repair, and compact frames compromise fit to reduce the number of sizes that must be produced. I think the renewed interest in lugged steel bikes recently is not just nostalgia, but a recognition, often by younger people raised in the carbon fibre age, that lugged steel frames and traditional components really did perform better the functions that most people need a bike to perform than the newer designs that just cut manufacturers costs and try to delude the public that everyone can ride just like Lance Armstrong and should have the same type of bike.
Kind of like the fascination with polyester and synthetic fibre clothing in general a couple of decades ago has given way to renewed demand for cotton, wool and other natural fibres, particularly in quality clothing. Sometimes progress consists of deemphasizing recent inovations and reviving those things that worked well in the past.
BTW, not to beat up on Lance Armstrong, I really like his recent ads for Trek, emphasizing bicycling as an important social factor for all sorts of people, not just racers or poseurs. Trek after all started out making lugged steel frames and useful gear for the average cyclist. Perhaps they have not yet forgotten their roots.
Regards,
Jerry Moos Big Spring, Texas, USA
--- On Fri, 9/12/08, ternst <ternst1@cox.net> wrote:
From: ternst <ternst1@cox.net> Subject: Re: [CR]Was: Ray Dobbin's pictures. Now: interesting comment inVeloSniper.com To: "Edward Albert" <ealbert01@gmail.com>, "Dale Brown" <oroboyz@aol.com> Cc: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org Date: Friday, September 12, 2008, 6:26 PM
I submit that Eddie has it right. We may like bikes of a certain era, but every generation or so the new stuff eats it's predecessor and a whole new classic theme begins for someone. High-wheelers gave way to safeties. Hard tires gave way to Pneumatics. Fixed gears started giving way to multi-speed. Wood rims to alloy. Track bikes gave way to road bikes. Steel frames to alloy, alloy to titanium, titanium to carbon fiber. Then the new era clik stuff and all the other nouvelle riche design and
function equipment Etc., etc. Each genre of change is a classic in waiting for some seniority to give it credence and provenance. So don't mock. Enjoy and keep/collect your heart's desire, stay in the "golden age" of your pleasure and have fun. Ted Ernst Palos Verdes Estates CA USA
inVeloSniper.com
> Dale,
> As I am sure you know I respect both you and your "living room"
but the
> notion that the "golden" era of anything, be it bikes, art,
cameras,
> furniture, cars, etc, begins and ends at some arbitrary date is
simply,
> sorry for this, absurd. Life and the world change. For better and
for
> worse. But, that's life. What Bicycling Magazine said it in July
1982
> means nada, nilch, niente, zero. They also told us to grow sprouts on
our
> racks as we ride and have run the same how do do this or that for the
last
> 25 years.
> Always yours in the Vintage Bike Life, and riding my Cervelo R3 SL
> Edward Albert
> Chappaqua, New York, U.S.A.
> On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 6:41 PM, Dale Brown <oroboyz@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> ? While looking at the coverage in http://velosniper.blogspot.com/
>> Ray
>> Dobbin's wonderful photography, I see?the author reminiscing while
>> looking
>> at a July 1982 issue of Bicycling magazine:,
>>
>> "1982 now seems like the end of
>> the golden era of classic racing bikes. No click shifting, no funny
>> bikes. Brake cables looped upward in the open breeze. Colors and
>> graphics were pure and simple. Wool jerseys, crochet gloves and
leather
>> hairnets proudly appear on the cover of the country's biggest
cycling
>> magazine. Within just a year or so, all of this would be hopelessly
>> passe."
>>
>> Hmm, sound familiar??? :)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Dale Brown
>> Greensboro, North Carolina USA
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----