Does this count as an explanation?
By 1965 the length of the pavé sections had fallen to only 22 kilometres.[11] This led Peter Post to win the 1964 race averaging a record speed of 45.120 kilometers per hour. This forced Paris-Roubaix race director Jacques Goddet to dispatch Albert Bouvet to find more sections of cobblestones for the 1968 edition.
Rob Dayton Charlotte,NC USA -----Original Message----- From: classicrendezvous-bounces@bikelist.org [mailto:classicrendezvous-bounces@bikelist.org] On Behalf Of John Wood Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 12:07 AM To: Julian Shapiro Cc: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org Subject: [SPAM]Re: [CR]Vintage Bikes, Vintage Skis, why the difference?
On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 8:17 PM, Julian Shapiro
<julianshapiro@gmail.com>
wrote:
> John Wood wrote:
>
> "And finally, if modern bikes are so clearly superior in every way,
why
> does
> Peter Post's record for average speed still stand for Paris-Roubiax?"
>
> I wasn't aware Paris-Roubaix was a time trial. This is an old saw that
> vintage weenies like to cling to. What were the team tactics that day?
> Which
> way was the wind blowing? What was the speed of the peloton before the
> break?
No, you see you're supposed to explain it to me - take your time, I'll
wait. Just find it curious that with all the "modern advances", not to
mention improvements in training, nutrition, wind tunnel testing, etc.,
that
that record still stands after 44 years. I guess it must be a
motivation
thing. And, as I understand it, Peter Post rode it like a time trial
(wasn't there obviously, just read about it), kinda like Fabian
Cancellara
did a couple years ago. But even with being the world tt champ on a
high
tech modern bike, he didn't top Post. What with all that carbon fiber,
he
shoulda been able to ride it faster one legged.
>
>
> The classic equipment is another one. iBob-ers love to point to the
older
> style equipment still in use at P-R. But P-R and the few remaining
> northern
> classics are the exception. Most racing is done on smooth modern roads
> with,
> appropriately, smooth modern equipment.
Exactly my point. I live in Montana. If I rode TdF quality roads on a
daily basis, my opinion might be different.
>
>
> and while I'm ranting..............if you want to exclaim about
failures
> of
> CF bikes please limit it to first hand experience. Everything else is
> hearsay. Likewise if you would like to deride the modern CF bike
compared
> to your on topic steel please tell us which of these CF pro bikes you
have
> ridden - more than around the parking lot:
>
> Colnago C-50
> Trek Madone
yep
>
> Giant TCR
yep
>
> Time VXR
> Look 585
> Specialized Tarmac
yep
>
> Cervelo Soloist
> Ridley Damocles
> Lapierre HM
> Orbea Orca
> BMC Pro
Plus I'll add a few - Cannondane Six13 - yep, Cannondale Synapse - yep, Cannondale System 6 - yep, Le Mond Zurich - yep. Nice try, but you're talking to a dealer. And don't tell anyone, but I even have some carbon fiber bits on my new custom steel bike. If you re-read my original post, you'll find that I wasn't dumping on new, just merely making the statement that the new ultralight stuff is not as durable. I think it's telling that many pro riders and pro mechanics refuse to use carbon bars. I saw a 7 pound bike on Velo News the other day - would you trust that hurtling down a heavily frost-heaved mountain pass at 50+ mph?
John Wood
Red Lodge, Montana, USA
>
>
>
> none of the above? Hmmm....
>
> Dumping on the new stuff is no better than some lycra-clad weenie
dumping
> on
> (our beloved) old stuff.
>
>
> Julian Shapiro
> warmer but not warm enough in
> Sag Harbor, NY