# Can a vintage steel ride match a modern ride?



## armstrong

Hi folks

So I got a 1980s steel bike about 6 weeks ago. Was thrilled - virtually NOS - very fulfilling to ride. I wanted to be on it all day. But recently as I've been a bit more objective about it, the ride just doesn't give what my modern 19 lb alum bike gives. What I'm saying is that for that "kick", acceleration, going up hills, etc., if I want a bike for the ride/fitness/speed it gives, the modern bike takes it by a mile.

I've read on some forum somewhere about someone's same experience - vintage bike slow, modern bike fast - but he then transferred his modern (lighter) wheels to his vintage bike, then the vintage bike basically performed as well as his modern bike did. So his conclusion was, the extra weight in the frame only gave no discernible difference, to him anyway.

For me to modernize my wheels, I'd have to modernize the groupset. I'm willing to do that, if I know there's a light at the end of the tunnel, and that I can get a zippy ride with the old frame. If not, then I'm seriously considering just letting go of these two steel bikes I acquired recently.

I'm not a racer and just use my bikes for fitness, but I enjoy the aspect of speed and acceleration that goes with cycling. I'm not saying a steel bike can equal a modern bike (you won't see steel on the TDF) but is it possible to get the rides close enough that my amateur skills won't notice the difference? Is it just a matter of matching all the parts (wheels, groupset), or is this task futile?

Thanks in advance.


----------



## CliffordK

You didn't mention what type of "steel" bike you have as there is a huge amount of variation. A good Columbus Tubing or Reynolds 531 frame should still be good though.

I've been riding my Colnago Super which I bought in the 80's, but it turns out it may actually be a 60's bike. Unfortunately I don't have anything to compare it to. 

Perhaps this summer I'll tear it down the frame for restoration. However, I'm expecting the frame&fork to be between 5 and 6 lbs, and most of the weight of the bike to be in the components.

So, the frame may be a pound or so heavier than your aluminum frame, and a couple of pounds heavier than your carbon frame. 

Anyway, I'm not the fastest person on the block. Perhaps I can blame it on my bike being a bit "tired". 

So, my vote is that the older (quality) steel bikes make excellent commuters and touring bikes, and perhaps a bit of basic road riding. It is all up to you as far as what you like and your bicycling style. If you own both a $10,000 carbon frame bike, and a $300 steel bike, you may not ever be satisfied with riding the steel bike around. I suppose one advantage of the older steel bike is that I've now got so many paint chips and wear spots that I just don't stress about the little things.


----------



## headloss

Chainstay length and tubing gauge are going to be bigger factors than wheels, I would think? What bottom bracket/crank are you using? It would probably be cheaper to just buy an intro level aluminum race bike than making a bunch of modifications to a steel bike in hopes that it will feel right.


----------



## armstrong

Frame is the (infamous?) Columbus Tretubi. Bianchi Campione D'Italia, so mid-range, with vintage 105 downtube shifters. 

>Chainstay length and tubing gauge are going to be bigger factors than wheels

I've never heard anyone suggest this before. Wheels are original 36 H Ambrosio Elite 19, so in other words, heavy. My modern bike is running Mavic Cosmos 24/28 H (in a way, vintage itself, and an underrated wheelset IMO). Ultegra 6600 drivetrain.

The modern bike just accelerates faster. I feel it has less inertia. I was always pretty skeptical of the differences between bike materials (if that is the issue here) until I had both these bikes side by side ready to ride. On flats its not as big a deal (although still noticeable) as going uphill (for instance, there's a small hill on my route that I frequently pass - I can do it sitting pretty comfortably all the way to the top on the modern bike, but I stand up on the steel bike every time, and start pretty close to the bottom of the hill).

I'd "really" like for my steel bike to approach the modern one. I can "afford" any reasonable changes required including getting carbon wheels if needed. I just want to know this isn't a lose cause.


----------



## SantaCruz

Which would you prefer to ride on one of your longer distance rides?
The newer Al frame will likely be much stiffer, which explains the snappier acceleration.
Maybe there is no practical reason to keep the vintage ride.
My 25 yo DeRosa is one of the last I would sell, if it came to that.


----------



## CliffordK

Your hill climb seems like an interesting comparison.

Do you drop down to 1[SUP]st[/SUP] gear?

Have you compared the actual gearing between the two bikes, front & rear? Does the Bianchi have the typical 52/42 chain rings? You can compensate well with a larger cluster or cassette to the gearing of your choice. And, it is fairly cheap.

Also, on a causal ride, have you compared your hill climb times between the bikes?

What about the weights between the bikes? I get lost comparing steel frames, and Bianchi made a variety of qualities. 

Anyway, my guess is that you're running at a little higher gearing on the Bianchi than you otherwise expect. If the bikes are 5-7 lbs different in weight, that wouldn't be a huge difference, but it is probably noticeable on a hill climb, or starts at a traffic light.


----------



## armstrong

A lot of good thougths here. I'll try and investigate a bit deeper. 

Otherwise - if there is a steel 80s Celeste Bianchi that anyone knows to be very "light", let me know the model and I'll try to track one down in my size.


----------



## Peter P.

1980's era steel frames had what was called the "one inch" standard tubing i.e., 25.4mm top tube, 28.6mm seat and down tubes.

Small increases in tubing diameter equal significant increases in stiffness. While in practical terms the differences in speed and acceleration may be very small between your Bianchi and your large diameter tubing aluminum frame, what you feel is what's swaying your opinions.

Newer steel frames can use larger diameter tubes, closing the gap in that stiffness you are perceiving as that "kick". Again, in real world terms, you're likely not appreciably faster on your aluminum bike; it just feels more responsive to your effort.


----------



## paredown

Funny--there was a thread over on Paceline recently where someone built a retro-modern, and was surprised at how flexy old school handlebar/quill stems felt--probably slightly exacerbated by the fact that he had to set the quill stem fairly high to get a fit... And this was on a top shelf 80s frame.

It's the kind of thing that we oldtimers never thought much about--with no standards of comparison, it was what it was. As clumsy as I find the modern ahead set, and as annoying as I find the difficulty with adjustments compared to a quill, you have to say that a modern bar and stem combo with a 1 1/8" fork (another annoying innovation) is a tremendous improvement in providing a positive non-flexy connection between rider and front wheel.

Same's true of frames, although lots of things were tried to stiffen steel frames, especially for tall riders, eg Columbus SP tubing instead of SL/SLX, the dropped top tube (Freuler-style frames). 

Shaped tubing, extra/stout brace between the stays (the secret sauce for the early Colnago Supers)--lots of different things were tried, but the big breakthrough was with larger tube cross-sections as Peter P says. That and better metallurgy meant the tubing could be drawn thinner as well meant a lighter frame.

(Wheels will make a big difference--and any head to head comparison that doesn't use the same wheel/tire combination is suspect.)

Still, it may be that the Bianchi is not a frame that makes your heart sing--and you need to try some other retro frames. 

OTOH, speaking as an old-timer, maybe they were just not as good as we remembered, although that's a bit of a bitter pill. 

I half remember the story of someone meeting up with a respected frame builder who he hadn't see for years, and was stunned to see him on a CF frame. When queried the old frame builder just flatly said that the new frames were simply better...


----------



## Camilo

THere's no way a "modern" bike will outperform a vintage bike in any meaningful way except if the design, fit and componentry are meaningfully better. It's not the era of the technology that actually makes a bike "faster". It might be more pleasant to ride and operate, but not actually faster jsut because of it's age.

My guess is that whichever bike is faster is designed better for its and/or fits or just works better, or is hugely lighter. And a good quality old steel bike will only weigh a similar quality new bike by 4-5 lbs.


----------



## Easyup

I think you will notice the difference, whether that is material to your decision making is up to you. I ride a rotation of (3) '80s customs (Reynolds 753R, Columbus SL and Tange Prestige) which have modern components/wheelsets and sometimes a stock '98 LeMond Zurich. Starting with a '93 Trek 5500 I have tried carbon bikes, a new one every 2 or 3 years and each was slightly faster and a pleasant ride on my usual routes, even though I am a least a decade past flexing a frame. There was one Al in there also, a CADD 8. Only the steels frames and the newer components( which I prefer) remain, but that's just my tastes.


----------



## CliffordK

I can remember going into the Bianchi store in the mid 80's, and seeing a bewildering collection of bikes from some top of the line bikes down to some cheap junk, all your celeste blue.

I suppose at that time I had troubles understanding some of the subtle differences between the different models. 

Ahh, here's the Bianchi Catalog from 1987.

It seems to indicate that the top of the line Bianchi was the Bianchi X4, closely followed by the Moldiale, Giro, and Superleggera, which may all have shared the Specialissima frame, possibly with different colors and components. Also search for Bianchi SLX (or SL).

What is your ultimate goal with all of this? You certainly can keep an eye open for an X4 frame, but I'd play around with what you have until then. The difference is probably minimal. Especially take a close look at your gearing.

You will run into differences like a 126mm rear dropout spacing (I think), and, of course the standard fork design.


----------



## busdriver1959

Lighter wheels make a huge difference in how "fast" a bike feels. The weight of the total package is determined by the component group as much as the frame weight. If you put a high end modern group on a vintage frame, you can end up with a good number on the scale. Having said that, don't forget that a bike doesn't go very far without a rider. While you talk about an aluminum bike that weighs 19 pounds, it really weighs 19 plus your weight. If you drop two pounds off the bike what percentage change is that for the bike and rider? 2 or 3%?. Can you really feel that?


----------



## colnagoG60

armstrong said:


> ...Wheels are original 36 H Ambrosio Elite 19, so in other words, heavy. My modern bike is running Mavic Cosmos 24/28 H (in a way, vintage itself, and an underrated wheelset IMO). Ultegra 6600 drivetrain.
> 
> The modern bike just accelerates faster. I feel it has less inertia. I was always pretty skeptical of the differences between bike materials (if that is the issue here) until I had both these bikes side by side ready to ride. On flats its not as big a deal (although still noticeable) as going uphill (for instance, there's a small hill on my route that I frequently pass - I can do it sitting pretty comfortably all the way to the top on the modern bike, but I stand up on the steel bike every time, and start pretty close to the bottom of the hill).
> 
> I'd "really" like for my steel bike to approach the modern one. I can "afford" any reasonable changes required including getting carbon wheels if needed. I just want to know this isn't a lose cause.


When was the last time you had the hubs serviced? If the the bearings are worn, and lubrication is gone, it will make it a lot harder to pedal. I just had my Colnago's hubs done...bike purchased in '98, but had a long multi-year sabbatical from riding in between. I couldn't understand why it took soo much more effort to pedal the same gear ratio than my newer carbon bike, doing back to back rides in the parking lot. Even with the rest of the drive train well lubricated. Turned out the ceramic bearings were shot. Quick shakedown ride had me smiling about the old steelie again.

Just a thought.


----------



## Cinelli 82220

armstrong said:


> I just want to know this isn't a lose cause.


It is a lost cause. 

I keep my super-duper steel bike for sentimental reasons. My carbon bikes exceed it in every way.

If you want to keep the frame get a 6800 group and some RS81 wheels. Those Mavic Cosmics are anchors. It will be as good as you can get it. 

Seriously if you want a good bike buy a new one.


----------



## paredown

Cinelli 82220 said:


> It is a lost cause.
> 
> I keep my super-duper steel bike for sentimental reasons. My carbon bikes exceed it in every way.
> 
> If you want to keep the frame get a 6800 group and some RS81 wheels. Those Mavic Cosmics are anchors. It will be as good as you can get it.
> 
> Seriously if you want a good bike buy a new one.


Modern steel may get you closer--I remember TooManyBikes unloading his stockpile of Merckx's--and when I asked he said it was because he had finally found the perfect frame (for him)--can't remember if it was a Kirk or a Strong (still mix those guys up since they are both in Montana).

I have yet to try a full carbon--but will do so when the right one comes along.


----------



## Gregory Taylor

Ya know....sell the bikes. 

Here's how I see it: can you get close to "modern" feel and performance from a vintage steel bike? Yes.

Are you going to get that from a mid-1980's Bianchi Campione d' Italia in a way that makes any sort of sense? Probably not.

Don't get me wrong: your Bianchi Campione d' Italia is a good, solid bike. Middle of the range when new. But it was never, ever a world beater and, more to the point, it probably won't serve as a great foundation for what you are trying to accomplish - a high performance road bike to match the feel and snappiness of a modern bike.

The question that you have to ask yourself is what would it take to morph the bike into what you are looking for? New wheels? Check. New goupset? Probably Check. If you go this route, when the dust clears you will be well north of $1,500 or so in new parts (Campy Veloce/Shimano 105 and the carbon wheels that you are interested in) that will be hung on what was from the very beginning a good but not top end steel frame. 

At this point you should ask youself am I better off spending that money elsewhere? Stated another way, if you want a car that drives like a Ferrari, sometimes it is better to simply pull up your socks and buy a Ferrari rather than to spend a lot of money trying to turn a vintage Alfa Romeo Spider (an admittedly cool car in its own right) into a Ferrari. You might be happier in the long run with a modern steel frame - if steel is what you really want - that evokes a lot of the vintage look but benefits from newer tubsets and processes. Tom Kellogg's Spectrum bikes come to mind. 

I think that the real value of the bike that you scored lies in the fact that it is so cherry and unmolested. The Bianchi is a rolling time capsule that should be enjoyed as it is or modified sympathetically (i.e. with equipment that isn't out of step with the vintage of the bike). If you decide to keep the frame, you might feel a real improvement with a 32 spoke wheelset. Find a nice set of older eight/nine speed hubs, and lace them to a pair of Mavic Open Pros. Set your shifters to friction, and run an 8 speed cassette out back (or you can slap on a 7 speed cassette and a spacer). You will feel a difference.

Finally, you have to ask yourself "do I like farting around with old bikes?" Based on some of your questions as this project has evolved, it sounds like this might be a first toe in the water when it comes to handling the mechanical end of things. That's great! The observation that I can offer is that vintage bikes require a willingness to constantly tinker and frequently track down hard-to-find parts. Half the fun is working on them. I'm never happier than when I am in my shop, grease on my hands, and the guts of some bike out on my workbench (except, of course, when I'm out riding). 

Good luck - 

Greg


----------



## armstrong

Thanks for all the replies. I was wondering how the thread would play out when I made the initial post. I thought it would either generate a lot of discussion, or none at all.

Thanks to the person who posted the link to the 1987 Bianchi catalog. Very cool. Was surprised to see the CDI is ranked lower than the Brava. I've seen the Brava and I thought it was lower than the CDI. Anyhoos.

To Greg:

I know exactly what you mean. I realize I could easily put north of 1500 into this. Thing is, I've almost decided that despite the cost, I'm willing to _try_. Like, say I buy a groupset and wheels, it costs $1500. Even if it doesn't work, I still have that equipment, which I can put on another bike (or resell). So even if I take a hit of a couple hundred bucks (on resale, on labour, on unnecessary parts), I'm willing to _try_ to see if I can make things work, even if that means potentially losing some money, cause I said in an earlier post, I really really want this to work. Hence, the ultimate question above, "Is this a lost cause" (to which someone replied, yes).

The thought now, is that I'm still leaning towards the build, because I really like the look of a steel frame with 50 mm aero wheels. I want to build the bike in celeste, and take "the photo", that (hopefully, if it's cool enough), becomes sort of a pinup bianchi photo in the bianchi forum. I've downloaded images of cool bikes I've seen online, and I guess I want to own one myself. It'll be my bike for Sunday rides at the beach. If I succeed in my task, it becomes my only bike. And if not, I'll keep a modern bike in the stall as well (maybe a modern carbon bianchi that could share the carbon clinchers with celeste lettering) for the days I want punch in the ride. Fortunately, I can afford this, and the wife seems to be tolerating my bike building plans (for now at least). Basically, I'm hoping my dream bike in terms of looks can also be the dream bike in terms of ride. If not, I guess those will just have to be separate bikes.


----------



## Gregory Taylor

Wanting to have a cool bike is one of those things that is hard-wired into anyone who gets a kick out of cycling. And that shade of blue known as "Celeste" has been known to cloud even the most lucid and rational of minds. Sort of like the Sirens' Song in Greek mythology. Except that it's a color and not beautiful naked women on a rock out in the middle of the ocean.

Have fun with it, and post "the photo" when you are done.


----------



## Cinelli 82220

paredown said:


> I have yet to try a full carbon--but will do so when the right one comes along.


Yeah...I never tried it. Rode my Cinellis and pitied those fools with their overpriced plastic junk.

Now, two Dogmas later I admit I was the fool.


----------



## armstrong

Gregory Taylor said:


> Have fun with it, and post "the photo" when you are done.


:thumbsup:


----------



## froze

Look at this way, since 1963 the TDF has seen the average speed go up by 1.3 mph over the entire race, and during that same time period the total miles have shrank by around 300 miles which I'm sure accounts for the average speed going up a tad. Now you tell me how much of a difference does a modern bike have over an older vintage bike?

So if modern bikes are supposedly faster than the average speed at the TDF is indicative that the riders are getting slower. hmm, is it the bikes or the riders?

In fact last year, or the year before, the Furnace 508 was won by a guy on an older vintage bike.


----------



## CliffordK

froze said:


> Look at this way, since 1963 the TDF has seen the average speed go up by 1.3 mph over the entire race


That is impressive. However, Looking at Marathon Record Times, the record in 1908 was 2:55:18. By 1963, it had dropped down to 2:15:16, and down do 2:03:23 by 2013. 

Some of the changes in Marathon times could be associated with better shoes, but I would have to think there are also better training regimens, and overall stronger runners.


----------



## Trek_5200

With the possible exceception of climbing steep grades a well made Steel bike built for racing can certainly hold its own. It might even have an advantage on longer rides due to steel's natural shock absorption qualities. But on a steep ascent you will probably notice the three pound weight penalty to some extent, not that many of us are carrying three extra pounds of body fat if not more.


----------



## froze

CliffordK said:


> That is impressive. However, Looking at Marathon Record Times, the record in 1908 was 2:55:18. By 1963, it had dropped down to 2:15:16, and down do 2:03:23 by 2013.
> 
> Some of the changes in Marathon times could be associated with better shoes, but I would have to think there are also better training regimens, and overall stronger runners.


Here is the average speed )in km per hr so just calculate for mph) data for the winner of each TDF since the beginning: Tour de France Statistics
The steepest grade in 2013 was 10.01% with a climb of 2001m elevation, while in 1963 they had a section that was 25% that was even unpaved! and a max elevation climb of 2100m In 1963 the average grade was 7% but in 2013 it was just 4%. HOWEVER, the records for grades and climb distance etc is very limited in the early years including in 63 so not sure how accurate my finding are. Here's another site showing average speeds, again in km per hour which you need to convert to mph, but 63 is missing but anothe part of Wiki showed it to be just a tad over 37kph: Tour de France records and statistics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Even on that site the difference between the 1960 and the 2013 was only 2 mph. I read once, though can't seem to find it now, that the average difficulty of all stages have slowly decreased over the years.

Also the rules in the early days was a rider could NOT change to a different bike unless there was a mechanical issue...however that didn't prevent riders from purposely disabling their bikes to get a different bike! 

Tour de France Statistics

This is why I think the TDF (and other such races) should be held on the same course for every stage year in and year out so people could see if there were improvements made in training and equipment and end arguments about which TDF was the most difficult thus that winner was the best, but that's just me. I understand in the early 1900's that wasn't possible as the road kept changing, some got washed away, others were bypassed later due to being converted to pavement from gravel etc so more paved roads were starting to get used, but in the last 40 years that hasn't happened.


----------



## Trek_5200

Interesting, makes me wonder if cycling has sucumbed to the same fores plaguing baseball, but instead of makin the stadium smaller to encourage more home runs, they make the courses flatter to promote faster rides. So with such flat courses why do the pros need to ride compact?


----------



## CliffordK

It might be interesting for statisticians to have a fixed course. However I think like the Tour de France, and Giro d'italia were designed to actually tour the country. I'm sure various cities and towns like the race to come through their towns. I was in Parma when the Giro d'italia came through town. I'm not sure I ever saw the actual riders, but it was a big event.

Many marathons and running events have generally fixed course, and I assume there are some road races that also use generally the same course year after year.


----------



## armstrong

Trek_5200 said:


> With the possible exceception of climbing steep grades a well made Steel bike


Is a "well made steel bike" well made despite its age? Like, are "good" steel bikes from years past better/worse/equivalent to "good" steel modern bikes?


----------



## froze

armstrong said:


> Is a "well made steel bike" well made despite its age? Like, are "good" steel bikes from years past better/worse/equivalent to "good" steel modern bikes?


Just like today there were high, medium, and low quality frames. Some of the high quality frames were made a bit too light and tended to flex and sometimes fail which is why those frames had a rider weight limit of around 175 pounds (if I remember correctly) depending on manufacture. I test rode those lighter frames and had to pass because I lived in California and climbed mountains and I could get the bike to flex so much that the rear wheel would rub both sides of the brake blocks, and the chain on the ring gear would rub both sides for the front derailleur cage, and they felt noodly which they were! So when I bought my first racing bike I opted for a Trek 660 with Reynolds 531cs tubing instead of a Trek 760 with Reynolds 531p in 1984 on my own intuition and on the advice of the bike shop I got it from. In contrast low end steel bikes back then were junk just like they are today!

As far as whether or not past steel is better or worse than present steel...I would say there is more technology since then that has produced lighter and stronger steel, though some of the steel today may be more brittle. The old 531 tubing was a workhorse tubeset that was used from touring to racing bikes, even today in the touring arena the old 531 is still thought of as the most comfortable tubeset ever made and vintage touring bikes with 531 is still very sought after. I also think that there tube sets that are close to the 531 made today, any tubeset not heat treated will be close but the real close one is the 4130 and the Reynolds 520, this tubeset if unheated and unhardened will be the best choice for loaded touring. There is also the 631, this is also very similar to the 531 but considered an upgrade with great strength, some argue it's not as comfortable as 531 others can't tell, I don't have any first hand experience even though I own both! Reason for that is because I have 531cs in a racing geometry and I have 631 in a touring geometry so I can't compare mostly due to geometry differences and secondarily due to one being a racing tubeset and the other a touring tubeset. For racing the newer heat treated or air hardened tubeset will be superior to the 531. But the current ultimate racing tubeset would be the 931.

Don't think steel is heavy. Back even in the 70's there were attempts to make bikes lighter, I knew people who resorted to drilling out crank arms, seat posts, handlebars, stems, even the frame (this was in addition to using drillium components which were drilled out by the manufacture), and I knew a guy who got his down to 16 pounds but in a race his drilled out fork gave out and he had a pretty nasty crash. Today there is a bike company that does make a complete steel frame bike (except for the carbon fork) that weighs in at 13.5 pounds; see: The lightest custom racing bicycles | Lighter than carbon fiber | The Steel Rodriguez Outlaw I can't find what tubeset they use for this bike. I would love to own one of those Outlaw bikes but the price puts it out of my logical thinking reach!!


----------



## colnagoG60

Trek_5200 said:


> Interesting, makes me wonder if cycling has sucumbed to the same fores plaguing baseball, but instead of makin the stadium smaller to encourage more home runs, they make the courses flatter to promote faster rides. So with such flat courses why do the pros need to ride compact?



10km climbs averaging 15%-20% are not exactly flat (stages of the Giro/Vuelta). From what I've heard, the compacts may only get used on the "harder" stages, and an "as-needed" basis, and not the duration of a "tour".


----------



## busdriver1959

I've got a modern polished stainless lugged frame with double oversized tubes that came in at 18 pounds without pedals. It's equipped with turn of the century Campy Record. It's not at all flexy and I think it may be the longer chain stays that give it a nice ride over rough road surfaces like chipseal. In addition, it fits me. I didn't have to choose from small, medium or large and then hope I could make me fit the bike. Steel doesn't have to be heavy and it doesn't have to be flexy. Just don't tell the marketing department at Gitrekalized bicycles.


----------



## tailgunn

Last year I built up an early 90s Diamond Back Tange quad-butted steel frame with a mix of old and new components. I loved riding it and immediately wished I hadn't wasted years on an AL framed bike. I crammed 10 gears on the back, modern wheels, a quill stem converted to take modern neck/bars, crank, brakes and FR from an old all-white Suntour gruppo, Sram RD and shifters...It was just under 20 lbs and I had to work a little harder than some people on their CG bikes, but I got a good workout that way...and it was comfy. I was going to switch to a modern CF fork and I think it would have been perfect. I now have a Tarmac that my girlfriend bought... gave the DB away as partial trade for a Seadoo. The Tarmac is great, but I miss the DB. It was fun to pass guys on that frankenbike, and it got a lot of comments.


----------



## CliffordK

colnagoG60 said:


> 10km climbs averaging 15%-20% are not exactly flat (stages of the Giro/Vuelta). From what I've heard, the compacts may only get used on the "harder" stages, and an "as-needed" basis, and not the duration of a "tour".


If one wants a "compact" and a not-so-compact, then perhaps a triple would be the way to go.

Of course, if one can afford Three, $10K bikes, and someone to sherpa them around for you, then that is the best of both worlds.


----------



## armstrong

I saw a guy last year who had what he told me was a quad-butted Bianchi. It was celeste, and he told me it was their highest-end steel bike. It was crazy nice. Not sure how old it was. Seemed pretty recent, but can't find any info on it.

How is the quill converter? My friend bike mechanic suggested it if I wanted to use modern handlebars/stem.


----------



## colnagoG60

CliffordK said:


> If one wants a "compact" and a not-so-compact, then perhaps a triple would be the way to go.
> 
> Of course, if one can afford Three, $10K bikes, and someone to sherpa them around for you, then that is the best of both worlds.



I doubt that the pros would switch to "triples"...but who knows? The short time I had a compact (came with a 50/34, and I switched it to a 50/36), the 34 seemed like a whole lot of pedaling for no reason...and I'm slow up hills. Wound up selling the compact and keeping the standard (bought 2 of the same bike since they were 1/2 off )...thought I was going to keep the compact for "recovery days".


----------



## headloss

armstrong said:


> I saw a guy last year who had what he told me was a quad-butted Bianchi. It was celeste, and he told me it was their highest-end steel bike. It was crazy nice. Not sure how old it was. Seemed pretty recent, but can't find any info on it.
> 
> How is the quill converter? My friend bike mechanic suggested it if I wanted to use modern handlebars/stem.


There are plenty of 26mm bars that are modern... the only major advantage of a modern stem over quill is that you can replace the handlebars easily without stripping them first; even then, there are some quills with a faceplate to allow for easy removal.

If you want a modern stem, you might as well replace the fork for a threadless one and gain all the advantages of a modern setup.

I don't see the point of a quill adapter, it just adds weight... unless it's a temporary move while you figure out what size stem and bars you like and need the ease of swapping out parts on a fairly regular basis.

I plan to use a quill adapter on my Paramount until I dial in fit, for example. After that, I'll either get a traditional quill of the proper length or if budget allows, another fork in order to do a proper threadless setup. fwiw, the Nitto made quill adapters are way more polished and have a nice look to them. They also have an extra long one which I like the concept of... as I could keep it fully inserted and minimize the look of a skinny quill between the headtube and where the stem clamps to it.


----------



## froze

armstrong said:


> I saw a guy last year who had what he told me was a quad-butted Bianchi. It was celeste, and he told me it was their highest-end steel bike. It was crazy nice. Not sure how old it was. Seemed pretty recent, but can't find any info on it.
> 
> How is the quill converter? My friend bike mechanic suggested it if I wanted to use modern handlebars/stem.


not sure why you would want to use a quill converter just so you could use modern stem and bars, those converters look ugly and it takes away from the classic vintage look. A nice high quality quill stem looks so much more nicer than the modern stuff in my opinion of course, and their easier to maintain then the modern stuff. Again I said in my opinion.


----------



## CliffordK

My bike had the traditional handlebar stem... and that worked fine for most of its life. I don't go out adjusting the handlebars every day. And, as long as the stem is inserted below the "insert to" line, then it should be just fine. 

I recently installed winged handlebars, and needed a new stem. I found a stem that allowed the two bolt plate for the handlebar install. It changed my angles slightly, but works fine. I suppose a quill adapter would have also worked. 

Anyway, if what you have works, then I wouldn't go through a big effort to change it out unless you have a specific need that causes the old parts to not suffice such as the addition of winged handlebars.


----------



## Camilo

Just as a fwiw to add some real life experience to the discussion.

I have a fairly light modern CF bike (Felt Z = ~1050 grams frame, ~350 grams fork) with full Sram Red and all lightweight components, including tires and tubes. This is not super weight weenie stuff, but light (top of the line Ritchey and Easton stuff). The only thing that isn't considered "lightweight" are the wheels which are ~1600 grams bare nekkid.

Anyway, the bike as is, with pedals and bottle cages is around 16 pounds.

My 1986 Sannino steel (Columbus SL) frame and fork weighs a little less than 2.5 pounds more than the CF frame and fork. That means that with the same components on it, it would weigh about 18.5 pounds. 

I have it set up with Dura Ace a couple generations old (mostly 7700), but the seat post, stem and handlebars are pretty heavy. and could be weigh-weenied down quite a bit even keeping with the alloy theme. But it does have light wheels, tires and tubes. As-is, with the cages and pedals, it's about 21 lbs. Not an anchor, but worth about "one low gear" when going uphill compared to the 16 lb bike.

The frame is as solid as a rock. I won't call it harsh, but it's certainly not any more"compliant" or "flexy" than the modern frame but I'm not a monster engine.

So in terms of weight, all things equal, a good quality vintage steel frame will weigh only a couple pounds more than a good modern CF frame (maybe not state of the art weight wise, but darn good). It will probably climb as well and run fast as well. Fit will be the main determining factor of which one you like best. Wheels and components will make as much difference in weight and function as will the frame and fork. Some day when I have nothing better to do, I might do a complete swap between the two just for grins.

As for someone's question about alloy handlebars in 26.0 I found at least two in 26.0 diameter with the modern compact curve and short reach and drop- similar in shape and dimensions to any modern compact CF or alloy bar. The two I have are Soma Hwy One and Civia Emerson in silver and 26.0. I also have an unbranded bar (probably Giant) I bought at the local Giant dealer, that again, is totally similar in shape and dimensions and is 26.0 - but in black. The ones pictured are the Hwy One, but you really couldn't tell the difference except side-by-side, and even then, it's not much difference.


----------



## strathconaman

I have two main road bikes: 1996 Colnago Technos and a 2011 Cervelo R3 Mud. The Technos is made of oversized steel, and has a record group on it. The Cervelo is made of some plastic substance and has Athena. Much to my chagrin, they ride and perform within a hairs breath of each other. Maybe a pro tour rider could coax a meaningful difference between the two, but I can't.


----------



## Trek_5200

Difference between a Carbon and Steel frame should be about two pounds. With the exception of climbing, there shouldn't be much difference in speed. On longer rides, the steel bike might even be an advantage with the steel bike taking more of the bumps out of the road and keeping the rider feeling more fresh. We're talking about the weight of two filled water bottles.


----------



## froze

Camilo said:


> Just as a fwiw to add some real life experience to the discussion.
> 
> So in terms of weight, all things equal, a good quality vintage steel frame will weigh only a couple pounds more than a good modern CF frame (maybe not state of the art weight wise, but darn good). It will probably climb as well and run fast as well. Fit will be the main determining factor of which one you like best. Wheels and components will make as much difference in weight and function as will the frame and fork. Some day when I have nothing better to do, I might do a complete swap between the two just for grins.


This is a good and interesting point that falls on deaf ears in todays world. I have a friend who has a 8 or 9 year old CF Trek and it weighs 18 pounds with Ultegra, my all steel Fuji Club weighs 20.8 pounds with Suntour ARx components. The funny thing is if I was to put modern Ultegra on it (which I would never do to that bike) and put on a CF fork, that bike would lose at least 2 pounds. Another way to do it is to replace the seat, seat post, stem, handlebars, fork, pedals with all CF parts and I bet I would still be close to a 2 pound loss. The weight difference like you said is not all that much when you look at the average consumer purchased CF bike, go to the pro level bikes and then there is about a 6 pound difference over a stock steel bike.


----------



## armstrong

OK - good thoughts here. Few Qs.

1. Browsing through the Bianchi catalog from 1987 (it's occurred to me that bikes sold in 1987 must have been manufactured in 1986 cause my stamped 1987 Bianchi has different font on the side of the tubes, so that must've been their "1988" model), the specs page lists the various bike weights. Q. What is the major source of difference in weight between the high-end bikes and the mid-range bikes? The high end ones are listed at 21 pounds, whereas the one I have is listed at 23.5 pounds. How much of this is due to components and how much due to the frame? As for the subjective question, am I likely to notice the difference between a high end and mid range frame given the same rest-of-bike?

2. I got my groupset ready for the build - a full 6600 set stripped off my other bike. But everytime I've spoken to my bike mechanic friend, he's always made the effort to mention that old frames work best up to 8 speeds. Above 8, things don't work as well. He said because of the geometry of older frames (relatives position of BB to the rear in terms of left/right positioning), they aren't as well suited to larger cassettes. He said there'll be a lot of chain rub with the large chain ring when the chain is in the small chain ring when accessing the lower rear gears (hope that made sense). How much of a concern is this? I'm assuming this isn't a contraindication to building with 6600, but is it enough of a problem that I should try to find 600 tricolor?


----------



## Gregory Taylor

armstrong said:


> OK - good thoughts here. Few Qs.
> 
> 1. Browsing through the Bianchi catalog from 1987 (it's occurred to me that bikes sold in 1987 must have been manufactured in 1986 cause my stamped 1987 Bianchi has different font on the side of the tubes, so that must've been their "1988" model), the specs page lists the various bike weights. Q. What is the major source of difference in weight between the high-end bikes and the mid-range bikes? The high end ones are listed at 21 pounds, whereas the one I have is listed at 23.5 pounds. How much of this is due to components and how much due to the frame? As for the subjective question, am I likely to notice the difference between a high end and mid range frame given the same rest-of-bike?


As for the difference in the weights, it's all of the above, sort of. Look at the catalog: Bianchi would hang different parts on the same frame to hit different price points. Different tiers of frames, different tiers of equipment on the different frames. You end up with different weights.

And, yes, you will probably notice the difference between a high-end Bianchi frame and a mid-ish level frame, if comparably equipped. 



armstrong said:


> 2. I got my groupset ready for the build - a full 6600 set stripped off my other bike. But everytime I've spoken to my bike mechanic friend, he's always made the effort to mention that old frames work best up to 8 speeds. Above 8, things don't work as well. He said because of the geometry of older frames (relatives position of BB to the rear in terms of left/right positioning), they aren't as well suited to larger cassettes. He said there'll be a lot of chain rub with the large chain ring when the chain is in the small chain ring when accessing the lower rear gears (hope that made sense). How much of a concern is this? I'm assuming this isn't a contraindication to building with 6600, but is it enough of a problem that I should try to find 600 tricolor?


With all due respect, this is wrong. "Relative position of BB to the rear in terms of left/right positioning" is gibberish. There is no offset: the "relative position" is that the bottom bracket shell is centered. Properly set up (i.e. correct match with crank/bottom bracket spindle length) so the chainline is correct, there should not be a problem.


----------



## Camilo

armstrong said:


> ...everytime I've spoken to my bike mechanic friend, he's always made the effort to mention that old frames work best up to 8 speeds. Above 8, things don't work as well. He said because of the geometry of older frames (relatives position of BB to the rear in terms of left/right positioning), they aren't as well suited to larger cassettes. He said there'll be a lot of chain rub with the large chain ring when the chain is in the small chain ring when accessing the lower rear gears (hope that made sense). How much of a concern is this? I'm assuming this isn't a contraindication to building with 6600, but is it enough of a problem that I should try to find 600 tricolor?


It's nonsense. There is nothing inherent about an older frame, other than needing to spread the rear triangle about 5 mm, that is incompatible with 9, 10, or 11 speeds. I have no idea where he would come up with that. Goes to show you that just because someone gets paid to work in the cycling business, does not mean he/she knows what he/she is talking about. It's really too bad this person is confusing you with flat out wrong info.

I run a 9 speed system on my 86 Sannino, and it works perfectly. I've also ran a 10 speed rear wheel on it (with the shifters in friction mode) and although the friction shifting was too fussy to work well with such tight gear spacing, there was nothing in the geometry that caused a problem. If/when I decide to convert all my bikes to 10 speed, I'll just buy some 10 speed indexed shifters and it will work perfectly.


----------



## headloss

Call it a _wider_ cassette, not a _larger_ cassette... to avoid confusion. When you say "larger" I think we are referring to the size of the largest cog or something.

8 is arbitrary... why not 9, or 10? Make your mechanic justify his number, I don't think that he will be able to in any meaningful way.

Funny choice, 8, considering that what I consider an "older frame" would be 126mm hub spacing or less, which maxed out at 7 speeds. Regardless, the issues with chain line in respect to hub spacing and the number of gears isn't an old-vs-new bike problem... it's an all-bike problem. There is nothing inherently different between an old and new frame in regards to spacing that can't easily be rectified, as Camilo just suggested. In fact the opposite, older bikes tend to have longer chainstays relative to modern bikes which have little room for wider tires... and longer chainstays result in less finicky shifting (with a tradeoff being frame stiffness that shorter chainstays give).

As for the relative position of the BB, that's more of a road bike vs mountain bike issue than it is a new vs old bike issue. If you change the rear hub spacing from 130mm to 135mm then it makes sense to extend the bottom bracket shell a few millimeters out as well. Considering that hub spacing hasn't been an issue for road bikes going from 8 to 10 speeds, I'd say that your mechanic has no justification in his number choice. I didn't include 11 speed because the 11 speed hub for Shimano is technically 131mm and thus has changed although that's really irrelevant to the topic at hand since an older bike could be just as easily made to fit a 131mm hub as it could a 130mm hub.

In regards to question 1... I think it has more to do with tubing choices than anything else... heat treated steel, oversized tubing, and butting would all result in a frame losing a pound or two. Hard to say with certainty without looking at the brochure. Probably a mix of all the above, a pound off of the frame, a pound off of components, lighter wheels... who knows. A top of the line frame would have benefits in all of those areas.


----------



## armstrong

Ok - that's good news. I was thinking my 6600 would thus work sub-optimally on the old frame.

Quick Q. I need a front derailleur clamp. I generally see 2 sizes available, 28.6 and 31.8. I'm assuming I need 28.6?


----------



## froze

I read this on my mail but now I don't see it. Anyway on older vintage bikes DO NOT go with an 8 speed rear freewheel, they did make them but it put too much stress on the hub and there were quite a few broken hubs. I do have one of my older bikes upgraded to a 7 speed which has been like that for many years and no issues. I did have to have the rear wheel dished and a washer used as a spacer but I did not have to spread the rear stays, if I had to spread the stays I would have never done it. Steel bikes will take spreading if the LBS knows how to do it and the frame would be fine but I don't want to take away from the vintage aspect of the bike so that's why I did the 7 speed.


----------



## Gregory Taylor

Actually, the rap on 8 Speed freewheel hubs is bent axles. The position of the bearings necessary to make a freewheel that width work (the are closer together than on a 5 - 6 or 7 speed hub, and offset) puts a lot of stress on the drive side of the axle. They bend where they go into the bearing. Changing the freewheel to a 7 speed on an 8 speed freewheel hub actually won't fix the basic design problem. Cheating the hub over a bit (like you apparently did) will help. Sounds like you are getting away with it.

[Mr. Armstrong - this discussion of freewheels has nothing to do with what you are contempating. Modern Shimano/Campagnolo wheels use a freehub and a cassette - totally different deal. All is explained here: 

Traditional Thread-on Freewheels ]


----------



## paredown

armstrong said:


> Ok - that's good news. I was thinking my 6600 would thus work sub-optimally on the old frame.
> 
> Quick Q. I need a front derailleur clamp. I generally see 2 sizes available, 28.6 and 31.8. I'm assuming I need 28.6?


Worth a check but most older frames with 1" tubing will use a 28.6 front...


----------



## armstrong

Just wanted to mention about the quill stem.

My bike mechanic friend (he makes a living doing this) basically said quill stems were of "poorer design/technology", and he didn't like them. I asked if I went to modern threadless, would that mean I would have to change the headset? He said no, I could use an adaptor. That's about as far as the conversation went since that wasn't the focus of the conversation. I could ask a bit more in order to clarify what he meant, but I presume he's talking about the hassles of not having a removable faceplate (my guess only). That said, we know there are quills with removeable faceplates. So I don't know what his reasoning was. Given the context of the discussion, I don't think we can assume he meant that using an adaptor was better than quill, just that it was possible.

In any case, I'm going to stick with quill because I like the look of it. I've also decided I'll use this thread for my questions and any discussion related to modernizing an old bike. Should be helpful for more than just me.


----------



## paredown

armstrong said:


> My bike mechanic friend (he makes a living doing this) basically said quill stems were of "poorer design/technology", and he didn't like them.


Is he under 30? (Easy to think new is better if you have not experienced the old technology).

As I said above, the combination of the 1 1/8" standard, 31.8 bars and the new threadless probably stiffened up the front end of new bikes--but I don't think that I would say that the quill stem was of poorer design.

In some ways it is superior, give that handlebar height can be changed much easier. Bar changes--well that's another story as you've figured out. Since I have been building a few and tearing them down again, I have used quills with removable face plates. I like the hinged design of the 3TTT Evol stem, although they are not easy to find. I tried the TTT Motus with the removable bottom plate, but the plate cracked--this seems to be a problem with that stem. Salsa makes one--it does not look retro, and I think Nitto does as well, but is pricey.



armstrong said:


> Given the context of the discussion, I don't think we can assume he meant that using an adaptor was better than quill, just that it was possible.


What the quill adapter does allow is the use of easier to find new standard 31.8 bars, if you have trouble sourcing older 26.0 bars--this becomes more critical if you want the double grooves for running brifters in a retro-standard shape (not anatomic). Deda does make one that I think is not ugly. If the travel bike I build has an old school fork (very likely) I will use the adapter and new stem, just to make it easier to remove the bars & stem for packing.


----------



## headloss

I'll buy the argument that a quill stem is a poorer design (from a racing point of view) than the modern threadless setup, or else why would we have adopted the later standard? Quill looks nice, but threadless is more rigid, lighter, a more solid connection (*edit* until the stem and fork end up chemically welding to one another at least, then a quill is SOLID!  ). It's also more universal and more parts are available. These are worthwhile plusses if you can find a good fork for presumably a 1" headset. Personally, I like both... 

Where he looses me is suggesting an adapter as an alternative to the quill stem without justifying such a move. Really? That's BS. An adapter is no better than a quill stem itself. This is OK if you don't mind the kluge-factor, the weight penalty, and the fact that it's no better than a quill. The one advantage to such a set up is that you have a wider variety of stems and handlebars to choose from... but if your goal is performance oriented, than a new headset (just a few parts, not the whole thing if a Chris King) and a new fork is the way to go... short of that, just stick with what the bike was designed for unless using your favorite bars is an issue.


----------



## paredown

headloss said:


> I'll buy the argument that a quill stem is a poorer design (from a racing point of view) than the modern threadless setup, or else why would we have adopted the later standard? Quill looks nice, but threadless is more rigid, lighter, a more solid connection (*edit* until the stem and fork end up chemically welding to one another at least, then a quill is SOLID!  ). It's also more universal and more parts are available. These are worthwhile plusses if you can find a good fork for presumably a 1" headset. Personally, I like both...
> 
> Where he looses me is suggesting an adapter as an alternative to the quill stem without justifying such a move. Really? That's BS. An adapter is no better than a quill stem itself. This is OK if you don't mind the kluge-factor, the weight penalty, and the fact that it's no better than a quill. The one advantage to such a set up is that you have a wider variety of stems and handlebars to choose from... but if your goal is performance oriented, than a new headset (just a few parts, not the whole thing if a Chris King) and a new fork is the way to go... short of that, just stick with what the bike was designed for unless using your favorite bars is an issue.


I think some of the pressure to adopt the threadless standard, the 1 1/8" fork and the larger bars came from the explosion of mountain bikes that saved the bike industry--and the manufacturers and users who wanted the same standards for both. Mountain bikers (especially off trail) put extraordinary stresses on bars and stems, and they had a real need for a stiffer and stronger set up. But aside from some notable failures (some early French stems), in all my years I have yet to see an old-style quill fail on a road bike. 

Whether we needed them or not, though, we now have mountain bike standard front ends on road bikes.

I think threadless ended up being a better system (more rigid) and is now more universal (the war's been won), but at least part of the pressure for the change was its relative simplicity, cheapness and speed of assembly--not least, the headset set-up is no longer a separate step. Drop-forging and polishing those well crafted quills also was not a cheap process by any means. A side benefit is the ease of changing bars--watch some old video of the Tour de France mechanics wrapping and unwrapping bars to get them out of the quills, and you know their jobs got a lot easier.

One of the manufacturers who resisted the 1 1/8" standard for a long time was Ernesto Colnago--he poo-pooed the idea that we needed larger forks for road bikes, and only recently (?early 2000s) started offering the 1 1/8" standard. He was also apoplectic at the dropped top tube (also a cross over from the mountain bike side), but eventually adopted that as well.


----------



## aptivaboy

Let's say a modern carbon frame is one pound heavier than a nice, high quality retro steel frame. Okay, fine. That means that if built up with identical components and wheels, the finished bikes will only be one pound apart in weight, too. That may not be perfectly possible (quill stems, bars, etc,), but close enough for government work. Now, where do you shave that pound to get them equal? The rider and his gear. 

Check out pictures of riders from the seventies and eighties and compare them to riders today. I'm always struck by how "chunky" the retro riders were compared to today's top flight racers. Not fat, of course, but solid. It's as if modern riders have taken their conditioning one notch higher, and they're even leaner nowadays. Lose a pound of body fat or mass, get some lighter shoes, cages and bottles, replace some spacers with titanium or composite parts, and you're just about there. I saw a buildup on the net someplace where a guy built up a top flight modern Waterford steel frame and made it as light as possible. He got within a half pound of a TDF-level Trek or Specialized. 

I'd say there really is no appreciable difference between the two, especially if you swap out the steel fork for a lighter carbon one. One thing that I would be interested in knowing is if the aerodynamics of a modern carbon frame is significantly better than those of a traditional retro steel frame. Those super wide carbon tubes and blocky bottom brackets make me wonder...

Bob


----------



## froze

armstrong said:


> Just wanted to mention about the quill stem.
> 
> My bike mechanic friend (he makes a living doing this) basically said quill stems were of "poorer design/technology", and he didn't like them. I asked if I went to modern threadless, would that mean I would have to change the headset? He said no, I could use an adaptor. That's about as far as the conversation went since that wasn't the focus of the conversation. I could ask a bit more in order to clarify what he meant, but I presume he's talking about the hassles of not having a removable faceplate (my guess only). That said, we know there are quills with removeable faceplates. So I don't know what his reasoning was. Given the context of the discussion, I don't think we can assume he meant that using an adaptor was better than quill, just that it was possible.
> 
> In any case, I'm going to stick with quill because I like the look of it. I've also decided I'll use this thread for my questions and any discussion related to modernizing an old bike. Should be helpful for more than just me.


Your friend is young as Paredown mentioned, I've used quill stems for years and never had any problems, in fact I'm having more issues with my one and only threadless design bicycle then I've ever had with all my quill stems combined for the last 30 plus years!! The preload stuff is a bit more complex than the old quill stem, there was no preload with those! I'm sorry but I disagree, quill stems were a lot less hassle and very durable (never had one break going all the way back to my racing days even) then threadless design.

The only advantage of the threadless is the fact you can change your handlebars without having to snake it through the stem, but later someone did come out with a way of doing the same thing with a quill, so that could have been a working solution. 

A quill stem can easily be fixed (which they rarely have a problem) by any mechanic world wide, but a threadless design can only be fixed with OEM parts or replaced as a whole, and a lot of mechanics in other countries don't have a clue about threadless design.

The reason the industry went with threadless design is because carbon fiber head tubes are not strong enough to take the pressure of a quill stem! But they sold it as weighing less.

BUT, this is just my opinion after dealing with one kind for many years and now have the new kind. So far I haven't found any advantage for the threadless design.


----------



## froze

aptivaboy said:


> Let's say a modern carbon frame is one pound heavier than a nice, high quality retro steel frame. Okay, fine. That means that if built up with identical components and wheels, the finished bikes will only be one pound apart in weight, too. That may not be perfectly possible (quill stems, bars, etc,), but close enough for government work. Now, where do you shave that pound to get them equal? The rider and his gear.
> 
> Check out pictures of riders from the seventies and eighties and compare them to riders today. I'm always struck by how "chunky" the retro riders were compared to today's top flight racers. Not fat, of course, but solid. It's as if modern riders have taken their conditioning one notch higher, and they're even leaner nowadays. Lose a pound of body fat or mass, get some lighter shoes, cages and bottles, replace some spacers with titanium or composite parts, and you're just about there. I saw a buildup on the net someplace where a guy built up a top flight modern Waterford steel frame and made it as light as possible. He got within a half pound of a TDF-level Trek or Specialized.
> 
> I'd say there really is no appreciable difference between the two, especially if you swap out the steel fork for a lighter carbon one. One thing that I would be interested in knowing is if the aerodynamics of a modern carbon frame is significantly better than those of a traditional retro steel frame. Those super wide carbon tubes and blocky bottom brackets make me wonder...
> 
> Bob



Actually I disagree with the fitness of modern vs riders from the 70's and 80, or for that matter 60's! Why's that you scream, because since 1963 the TDF has only seen a 1.3 mph average gain over the entire race...1.3 mph with lighter bikes, lighter gear, modern technology, modern training etc etc etc. And during that same time period the race has gone with slightly less percentage of grades to climb. So where is all that ability gone? why isn't there a greater gain in average speeds? Personally I think the riders of old worked a lot harder at their profession then they do today. I also think that if Jacques Anquetil could race in todays TDF in the condition he was in when he won it in 1963 he would smear the second place finisher by a huge margin. Obviously there is no way to prove such a scenario but if look at average speeds they haven't gone up much at all and that alone could be clue as to what Anquetil could do today.


----------



## Duane Behrens

CliffordK said:


> That is impressive. However, Looking at Marathon Record Times, the record in 1908 was 2:55:18. By 1963, it had dropped down to 2:15:16, and down do 2:03:23 by 2013.
> 
> Some of the changes in Marathon times could be associated with better shoes, but I would have to think there are also better training regimens, and overall stronger runners.


And don't forget better, performance-enhancing, um, seminars.


----------



## Duane Behrens

paredown said:


> Modern steel may get you closer--I remember TooManyBikes unloading his stockpile of Merckx's--and when I asked he said it was because he had finally found the perfect frame (for him)--can't remember if it was a Kirk or a Strong (still mix those guys up since they are both in Montana).
> 
> I have yet to try a full carbon--but will do so when the right one comes along.



I have one full-carbon Tarmac and two steel classics. Observations:

1. Overall, the expensive carbon bike tells me how far technology has come. This bike catapults forward when pedaling pressure is applied. The brakes are linear and strong. The derailleurs and chain work silently. Gear changes are incrementally small, and the integrated shifters (brifters) allow the rider to use those increments to full advantage.

2. The steel bikes - both of them - are heavier and thus slower in comparison. The downtube-mounted shifters, mated to 6-speed freewheel hubs, require a bit of practice but reward that practice with the same (potentially) seamless shifts as an indexed brifter. The steel frames on both the base Nishiki and the higher-end Raleigh simply provide a smoother, more-pleasant ride on medium- to high-speed flats. Stock bars are narrower than on the newer carbon bikes . . . but I've come to prefer them. And every bike I've saved from fixie hell is an act of kindness, IMO.

Summary: It's difficult to compare apples with oranges. But you CAN prefer one over the other for normal consumption. Personally, I prefer working on and riding the old steel bikes . . . and when I occasionally ride the carbon, I'm again reminded how beautifully efficient it is. 

It's not about "right" or "wrong," since personal preference never needs justification. It just is, and we're lucky to be here.

Duane Behrens


----------



## aptivaboy

They don't have to ride faster overall in the TDF, just in the high mountains where it counts. Look at Pantani and Armstrong (chemically aided, I grant you) - they just ran away from the other guys and hid. That's where they shined, and where modern conditioning and pharmacology made all of the difference.

Anyway, I was looking at some '80s CBS cycling vids, like the 1988 Paris Roubaix. Its on Youtube. Check out Guys like Kelly and Bontempi. They are definitely, to my eyes, more "solid" than most of today's riders, even big burly sprinters. Eliminate some of that mass and there is your weight differential between steel frames and carbon ones. 

Bob


----------



## froze

aptivaboy said:


> They don't have to ride faster overall in the TDF, just in the high mountains where it counts. Look at Pantani and Armstrong (chemically aided, I grant you) - they just ran away from the other guys and hid. That's where they shined, and where modern conditioning and pharmacology made all of the difference.
> 
> Anyway, I was looking at some '80s CBS cycling vids, like the 1988 Paris Roubaix. Its on Youtube. Check out Guys like Kelly and Bontempi. They are definitely, to my eyes, more "solid" than most of today's riders, even big burly sprinters. Eliminate some of that mass and there is your weight differential between steel frames and carbon ones.
> 
> Bob


I agree, those "old" guys were indeed more solid.

The drug thing I'm kind of pissed at UCI about it all. UCI knew that crap was going on and had been going on for a long time, heck Sean Kelly was busted twice. There were vans parked at strategic places along the TDF courses where riders would dodge into and get their dope and leave with renewed power, what UCI didn't know those vans were there? LOL Give me a break. And most, when I say most I'm will to bet at least 75% of the race participants all were using illegal performance enhancements. I can almost guarantee you the reason Lance got busted by the UCI was because the UCI is a European founded organization and they hate it whenever an American wins, and especially an American who dominates for 7 tours. I guarantee it that if no one, even Armstrong, ever doped in any of the 7 tours Armstrong won Armstrong would have still won because the playing field would have been the same just lower average speeds.

I hate to sidetrack this more but personally I think UCI should be dismantled and new organization put in it's place where bicycle innovation would be allowed to breath more freely, and all riders would have to submit to a dope test before and after each race, and the money to pay for the testing would come from the teams. 

Again all the above is just an opinion.


----------



## BradH

armstrong said:


> I've read on some forum somewhere about someone's same experience - vintage bike slow, modern bike fast - but he then transferred his modern (lighter) wheels to his vintage bike, then the vintage bike basically performed as well as his modern bike did. So his conclusion was, the extra weight in the frame only gave no discernible difference, to him anyway.


I didn't read the whole thread but, yes, the weight of the rotating mass (wheels) have a HUGE effect on acceleration and climbing.

I use Mapmyride to keep track of my rides. I noticed my 23.5 pound 1990 Specialized Sirrus Triple steel bike would climb as well, maybe even better than my 18.5 pound 2005 Lemond Tourmalet on the uphill courses I ride. Upon weighing the wheelsets on both bikes I found out why. I had built a nice set of wheels for the Sirrus and they were lighter than the Lemond’s wheels despite having more spokes.

Since then I built a set of 24/28 wheels on Kinlin XR 200 rims, lightweight tubes and Vittoria Diamante Pro Light tires. All I can say is wheeeeeee!


----------



## headloss

BradH said:


> I didn't read the whole thread but, yes, the weight of the rotating mass (wheels) have a HUGE effect on acceleration and climbing.


How huge is huge?


----------



## BradH

headloss said:


> How huge is huge?


Averaging a number of climbs over the same course, to account for wind and other variables, a 4.6% reduction in time from a 17% reduction in rotating mass on the same bike.


----------



## laffeaux

froze said:


> The reason the industry went with threadless design is because carbon fiber head tubes are not strong enough to take the pressure of a quill stem! But they sold it as weighing less.


I think the big driver for threadless wasn't the head tube, but the fork's steerer tube.

Threadless originally was popularized on mountain bikes in about 1990. At that time to stiffen front ends builders were experimenting with larger diameter head tubes. Originally mountain bikes used 1" forks. In 1989/1990 two new standards were offered: 1-1/8" and 1-1/4". Soon after that the suspension fork became popular which created a large demand for after-market forks. Threaded headsets require that smaller frames use a different forks from larger frames due to head tube lengths, so to support the after-market, manufacturers had to make forks with different steerer tube lengths - and since there were three diameter that meant ever more sizes. Shops rarely could carry forks in every size. However, by switching to threadless, shops and manufactures could make one fork for each steerer tube diameter (a really long steerer) and cut it to the correct length for each frame. The switch to threadless meant that a shop needed to stock three after-market forks and not 20 forks. It saved everyone money.

The second thing that drove the switch to threadless was alternative materials. Originally steerers were steel which is easily threaded and plenty strong in a 1" diameter tube. To save weight fork tubes (particularly on suspension forks) were switched to aluminum. Aluminum is not a particularly stiff material, and in a 1" diameter needed to be made with very thick walls in order to be strong enough to be used. However, by increasing the diameter, aluminum was stiff enough to use. Thus the 1-1/8" steer tube became the "default" standard in order to allow aluminum to be used on suspension forks. Similarly, road bikes wanted lighter forks - for roadies carbon steerer tubes were part of "getting lighter." Creating a threaded carbon steerer is an engineering feat. Creating a carbon steerer tube for a threadless system is much easier and cheaper - it dictated the change.

For a "modern" road bike, if it is designed to be used with a steel fork, it's lighter to opt for a 1" fork and it is plenty strong. However, if you plan on using a carbon fork, a 1-1/8" steerer will be a better option - it's lighter and stronger.

As far as quill vs. threadless, I use both and can't tell any difference in performance. The advantage of threadless is that you can run the stem upside down or upside right - giving two options for bar height (even more when combined with spacers. Threadless stays adjusted better - I've never had a threadless system become "loose" during a ride (I have with a threaded stem multiple times). Some threadless systems are incredibly easy to adjust for pre-load and some are not - I avoid buying buying the headsets that are a pain to adjust. Threadless can generally be serviced or adjusted with a single tool - a 5mm allen wrench (some stems require a 4mm allen wrench too). Overall I'd say that it's easier to maintain on the side of the road compared to a threaded setup.

I don't dislike threaded headsets, but they are more work (IMO). They are more apt to come loose. They require tools that I normally do not carry with me on a ride to be adjusted. The bar height can be adjusted more quickly with a quill stem - it required one bolt to be loosened instead of three (like on a threadless set-up) however, other than t e number of bolts the actually bar height adjustment takes about the same effort.


----------



## froze

^^ I can buy what you said. I just don't see the reasoning to have a stiffer front end on a road bike, a MTB yes, a road bike no, but quite frankly I can't tell the difference in the stiffness of my new road bikes front end vs my older quill road bikes. I use to race years ago when all there was was quill stems and I never had an issue with flex in the front end.


----------



## xoldi

This is the Tourmalet Jersey, nice retro:

cucu barcelona.


----------



## BacDoc

froze said:


> ^^ I can buy what you said. I just don't see the reasoning to have a stiffer front end on a road bike, a MTB yes, a road bike no, but quite frankly I can't tell the difference in the stiffness of my new road bikes front end vs my older quill road bikes. I use to race years ago when all there was was quill stems and I never had an issue with flex in the front end.


I agree with Froze. Plus on most retro bikes the quill stem is one of the most beautiful components of bicycle design.

As far as ride is concerned, there are many variables in both rider as well as frame and components. A certain "magic" can be felt in some well designed steel frames, i.e., my 70's Bottecchia with downtube shifters and campy drive train and wheels rides a lot faster and smoother than all my other vintage steel bikes and I have a few nice ones. My ride for competitive group rides, a carbon/Ultegra acellerates and rides faster but not by much and doesn't have that "magic" feel.

Most of my Strava PR's are on the carbon but I do have a PR on the Bottecchia and that was the most rewarding. Vintage steel Bicycles have a lot in common with custom surfboards, every once in a while you come across a magic ride and unless you search and ride many bikes you may never understand.


----------



## paredown

BacDoc said:


> ...every once in a while you come across a magic ride and unless you search and ride many bikes you may never understand.


The word 'ineffable' comes to mind--I was trying to describe why the Peter Mooney custom I sold was just such a bike--but it *is* hard, if not impossible to put into words...


----------

