Jerry, I don't want to get to into this battle that already been fought too many times but.....all the bikes you mention, although made of carbon, titanium, and aluminum, have nothing to do with the modern versions of bikes of similar materials. And, I think you know it. Edward Albert Chappaqua, New York, U.S.A.
On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 4:20 PM, Jerome & Elizabeth Moos <
jerrymoos@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Well, I have Ti and carbon and Al bikes, but nearly all are from before
> 1982. An Exxon Graftek, Teledyne Titan, and a couple of ALANs, the newest
> 1981. I find these interesting and to various degrees enjoyable to ride.
> These were interesting developements, but none of them is superior in any
> significant way to a top steel frame. And even then they generally lacked
> eyelets and sometime reasonable clearance, and are really good only for
> racing or for training/recreational riding with no loads. These were all
> commendable attempts to make a better bike and they all failed - made some
> pretty good race bikes mind you but not better in any real way and clearly
> worse in others. I once had an engineering professor comment that if alloy
> steel were suddenly discovered for the first time today, it would be hailed
> as a miracle material. A lot of truth in that, I think. Human beings,
> particularly young human beings, have the inherent desire to do something
> different and better than has ever been done before, which on balance is
> healthy. And different is good, but it doesn't always turn out to be
> better. And I think bicycle frame materials is only one of many examples of
> this.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jerry Moos
>
>
>
>
> --- On Sat, 2/7/09, John Betmanis <johnb@oxford.net> wrote:
>
> > From: John Betmanis <johnb@oxford.net>
> > Subject: Re: [CR] are you a real CR rider?
> > To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
> > Date: Saturday, February 7, 2009, 2:46 PM
> > At 02:21 PM 07/02/2009 -0600, Dickey wrote:
> > >All the talk about CF, Alum, and TI bikes, being as
> > good, better, or old
> > >fashioned or who ever else, got me thinking( look-out).
> >
> > >I'm 62 yrs and still ride, always do every bit of
> > my own work on bikes.
> > >I love to get my hands greasy as much or more then
> > riding.
> > >So here's the catch! I have never swung a leg over
> > anything but standard
> > >size real steel. When I see a CF bike it's like I
> > glanced at a 1997
> > >Nissian! No reaction what so ever. When I see lugs
> > it's like seeing a 32
> > >Ford coupe with a chromed out 350.
> > > Is there anyone else who has been totally faithful to
> > steel?
> >
> > I wouldn't go so far as comparing lugged steel to a
> > Deuce Coupe, but maybe
> > a car with no computer. No, I've never owned a bike
> > other than lugged
> > steel, no clip-on pedals, no index shifting and no aero
> > brakes. I haven't
> > even owned an aluminum bike. Not that I really have
> > anything against those
> > features; it's just that the last new bike I bought was
> > in 1982 and I've
> > never needed to replace it, partly because I slacked off
> > cycling from the
> > late eighties to the late nineties. Why fix what ain't
> > broke? Then I
> > discovered all the classic/vintage bike stuff on the
> > Internet, which
> > validated my opinion. Maybe it's also partly to do with
> > my conception of
> > the value of material things. I bought my last new car in
> > 1973 because
> > after that it seemed that new car prices were inflating at
> > a fasteer rate
> > than my income. Today my "good" car is a 1985
> > Camaro and I'm driving a 1992
> > Volvo wagon in the winter.
> >
> > John Betmanis
> > Woodstock, Ontario
> > Canada