# high end 80s bike vs. entry level new bike



## maxw87 (Aug 24, 2010)

Preferences and loyalties aside  , given the choice of entering a race with either:

A) 1980s mid-to-high end road bike with:
Steel frame
Downtube, friction shifters

OR

B) 2010 entry level road bike, with:
Aluminum frame
Entry level integrated brake shifters
(ex. Giant Defy 3, Trek 1.1, Raleigh Sport, etc...)

Assume no other factors to consider (nostalgia, preferences, repairs, warranties, etc), bikes are in good condition and ready to rock.

Would the entry level new bikes be as good, if not better in a race, than the mid-to-high end stuff from 20-30 years ago?


----------



## wipeout (Jun 6, 2005)

What kind of race? Terry Lentz just won the Furnace Creek 508 (509.5 miles) on a 'classic 80's bike' (steel frame, downtube friction shifters, etc...) beating everyone on more modern plastic bikes.

It's the engine.


----------



## maxw87 (Aug 24, 2010)

*race type*

Let's say a one day road race, 35 miles or so, with a mix of hills and flats.


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

I'm going to go ahead and sheepishly admit that being able to shift on the bar is kind of important when you're trying to stay with a pack. If you're setting the pace, downtubes would be fine.

Overall, I'd pic the older bike for ride quality and durability of the parts. But the new cheap bike would be easier to shift and brake and its too stiff frame would be nice for a shorter race.


----------



## frpax (Feb 13, 2010)

I'd submit that it isn't about the bike, but rather the motor.

I'd still opt for the older one, though.


----------



## Kuma601 (Jan 22, 2004)

frpax said:


> I'd submit that it isn't about the bike, but rather the motor.


+1. Whatever bike you feel comfortable with, take that one. 
For group riding, I would prefer to shift from the integrated opposed to the DT.


----------



## seeborough (Feb 3, 2004)

My vote goes to the '80's steel frame. You might not win the race (which, as others have stated, will be your fault, not the bike's...), but they are a blast to ride. 
Plus, if you do have the engine, you always get style points for bringing old school to the dance.


----------



## FatTireFred (Jan 31, 2005)

if you don't expect to win, old bike... and style points only w/ wool jersey and shorts and toe clips/straps, extra if you try to use a hairnet (but they won't let you)


----------



## Oxtox (Aug 16, 2006)

a high-quality old-school lugged steel with nice gruppo trumps a modern, boring entry-level ride that will probably have some semi-cheesy parts and an ugly-ass sloping top tube.

and lots of people have raced lots of miles with DT friction shifters, so I can't see how that is a deal-killing issue.


----------



## latman (Apr 24, 2004)

Brifters and lighter weight are the only things that have improved bikes IMO( and maybe dual pivot brakes) , and lighter weight aint that important.


----------



## Creakyknees (Sep 21, 2003)

I've raced on both; I'll take the modern one.


----------



## buck-50 (Sep 20, 2005)

It's also gonna depend on which one fits better.

An old bike that fits right is gonna be a better ride than a brand new bike that doesn't, and vice versa.

Here's the real advantage of the high-end 80's bike- you can upgrade the components. A good steel frame isn't super light, but they do have qualities you don't find anymore- springy, compliant, settled. Pair a good old frame with modern components and you've got a really nice bike.


----------



## Mel Erickson (Feb 3, 2004)

maxw87 said:


> Preferences and loyalties aside  , given the choice of entering a race with either:
> 
> A) 1980s mid-to-high end road bike with:
> Steel frame
> ...


The simple answer is no, the new stuff wouldn't be better than the old stuff. Considering a 1980 Raleigh 753 http://www.43bikes.com/raleigh753.html comes in around 16.5 pounds the modern entry level bike wouldn't have a weight advantage, coming in at around 20 pounds. There would be no advantage for shifting. Anyone experienced with downtube shifters can shift just as well. You would have more gearing choices with a modern bike but overall the range would be comparable (1980 6spd would be 53/42 front and 13-23 rear). The modern bike would have a lower low (34/25 on a Defy 2 compact vs. 39/23) but almost the same high (53/13 vs. 50/12). I dare say the Raleigh would probably have a cushier ride but that's subjective. If I had a choice I'd pick the Raleigh. What I would worry about more would be crashing a high end vintage Raleigh/Colnago/Bianchi/etc. It would make me cry, but it would also be easier to repair.


----------



## skyliner1004 (May 9, 2010)

i'd drop that old bike and get a new bike in a second. Entry level in 2010 is beyond high end stuff in the 80's. + they're lighter + better looking + free service + joy of a new bike + warranty + things just work


----------



## asciibaron (Aug 11, 2006)

as a former racer on an 80's bike at the end of the 80's i would much rather have a modern bike. i had a horrible time with my brakes plus you get more gears in the rear...


----------



## buck-50 (Sep 20, 2005)

skyliner1004 said:


> i'd drop that old bike and get a new bike in a second. Entry level in 2010 is beyond high end stuff in the 80's. + they're lighter + better looking + free service + joy of a new bike + warranty + things just work


I'd have to disagree with you on a couple of those points.

First off, you are talking about entry level modern (that's around $1200), so weight isn't going to be a big factor against a high-end vintage bike.

Better looking, well, that's subjective, init?

free service? seems like a silly reason to buy a bike unless you toss them every year when yer bike shop's "free service" period ends...

Joy of a new bike, again, pretty subjective.

Warranty? The nice thing with most older steel frames is that they don't really need a warranty. It's not like they break, and they can be fixed. Crash a steel frame, slide it along the pavement for 30 feet and yer gonna need new paint, not a new frame. 

Things just work? The adjustments on a 6-speed friction system are this simple- adjust limit screws so derailleur doesn't toss chain into spokes. Adjust limit screws on front derailleur. Done. Go ride. 

I'd say that brakes, or at least brake pads, have gotten significantly better on modern bikes, so there's that. 

That said, older bikes do take a lot more finesse to ride. Friction shifting on the downtube isn't as easy as STI. The bigger jumps between gears on a 6 speed freewheel can take some getting used to. You shift a lot less. Skinny 38cm handlebars are... challenging.

One other thought- you take $1200 bucks and buy a new bike. I'll take $1200 and build up a bike from a vintage frame and used parts. I can guarantee you that I will come out with the better bike.


----------



## skyliner1004 (May 9, 2010)

buck-50 said:


> tl;dr
> 
> One other thought- you take $1200 bucks and buy a new bike. I'll take $1200 and build up a bike from a vintage frame and used parts. I can guarantee you that I will come out with the better bike.


 doubt it, my frame will be lighter, have a better paint job, have warranty. new components that work and have warranty, wheels that stay true. my bike will be more efficient, have more gears.

i bet you also buy your cars used because you can't afford the luxury of new cars.


----------



## buck-50 (Sep 20, 2005)

skyliner1004 said:


> doubt it, my frame will be lighter, have a better paint job, have warranty. new components that work and have warranty, wheels that stay true. my bike will be more efficient, have more gears.
> 
> i bet you also buy your cars used because you can't afford the luxury of new cars.


Wow, going for offensive right out of the gate... Nice job.

Golf clap.

and I mis-spoke- the trek 1.1 the op mentioned is a $650 bike. 

The OP is comparing an entry level bike with a top of the line bike from the 80s. So the frame on yer new bike won't be lighter. A trek 1.1 is a pretty beefy little aluminum frame. Guessing it's gonna run around 22-23 pounds. And a top of the line bike for the 80s was well under 20 pounds. 

As for the rest, yer entitled to your opinions. No reason to be a dick.


----------



## skyliner1004 (May 9, 2010)

buck-50 said:


> Wow, going for offensive right out of the gate... Nice job.


thanks, i try. 

have fun with your 80's bike, you and the OP. i'll stick with my new 2010 carbon fiber.


----------



## BlueMasi1 (Oct 9, 2002)

*Go New*

It will be much easier to have repaired after a crash.


----------



## kmunny19 (Aug 13, 2008)

skyliner1004 said:


> thanks, i try.
> 
> have fun with your 80's bike, you and the OP. i'll stick with my new 2010 carbon fiber.


and again, you'll miss the point entirely.

B) 2010 entry level road bike, with:
Aluminum frame
Entry level integrated brake shifters
(ex. Giant Defy 3, Trek 1.1, Raleigh Sport, etc...)

the OP does not say your new 2010 carbon fiber. 

the OP says the above. the question is not about top 80's bikes and top 2010 bikes. I don't think anyone is stating that there hasn't been advancement in bike products. We're just stating that just because its new, doesn't automatically mean its better than old. 

stick with whatever you want, but if you're going to act like an expert and a bad person, at least read the original post first.


----------



## filtersweep (Feb 4, 2004)

I ran friction shifting on a frankenbike, and could run any wheel I wanted in the rear. Granted, it might not be the greatest idea to stretch the rear like that, but I had no issue running any of my vintage wheels--- or a 9-speed wheel. Friction shifting is entirely under-rated.

My opinion--- from someone who owns three steel bikes, a carbon bike, and an AL bike--- nothing rides worse than entry-level AL. Frankly, I don't like AL frames on anything except mtn bikes.



asciibaron said:


> as a former racer on an 80's bike at the end of the 80's i would much rather have a modern bike. i had a horrible time with my brakes plus you get more gears in the rear...


----------



## raymonda (Jan 31, 2007)

latman said:


> Brifters and lighter weight are the only things that have improved bikes IMO( and maybe dual pivot brakes) , and lighter weight aint that important.



and considering that the new entry level bike he would buy would weigh the same, if not more, than the older, circa 21 pounds............there ain't no difference there.


----------



## Kuma601 (Jan 22, 2004)

To many variables in the new vs. old. I agree with many points buck-50 mentioned. My 80's steel bike isn't high end by any means but I love riding that one. The CF does many aspects well also. 

The high end and even the lower line gruppos of the 80's period, they have a classy robust build quality that came with hand finishing touches...polished. Not this throw them in a media tumbler for mass finishing or paint. 

To each his-her own though.


----------



## buck-50 (Sep 20, 2005)

wipeout said:


> What kind of race? Terry Lentz just won the Furnace Creek 508 (509.5 miles) on a 'classic 80's bike' (steel frame, downtube friction shifters, etc...) beating everyone on more modern plastic bikes.
> 
> It's the engine.


http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showthread.php?t=227734

you'd think that over the course of a 509 mile single day race, the advantages of a lighter weight carbon bike with better paint and components that have warranties would really shine...

guess not.


----------



## raymonda (Jan 31, 2007)

Instead of buying a new entry level bike or an 80's racing bike buy a decent modern used bike, circa 1994-2007. There are plenty of bikes here, craig's list and ebay that would suit your needs. For $750 or so you should be able to get a decent used frame, groupo and wheels. It might need a tune up but eventually every bike does.


----------



## skyliner1004 (May 9, 2010)

kmunny19 said:


> and again, you'll miss the point entirely.
> 
> B) 2010 entry level road bike, with:
> Aluminum frame
> ...


i already answered the OP. if you're going to post in a thread, at least read the thread first.


----------



## My Own Private Idaho (Aug 14, 2007)

I'd take the newer bike. It isn't that the older bike isn't functional, or doesn't ride well. I just perfer newer brakes, and Sora (I'd assume that's what the OP is talking about) really does work well. I like shifting on the brake levers. I like the stiffness of an aluminum bike. I like the newer brakes better, although I always change brake pads to CoolStop Salmons, and I'm assuming I could do the same with this theoretical bike.


----------



## Argentius (Aug 26, 2004)

With the choices you've given, I'll take the 80's bike. 

Presuming it's either time-travelled, or, it's well-maintained, it'll have nice wheels, maybe even some decent sewups.

The cheap modern bike will have heavy bricks of rubber and machinebuilt wheels.

STI's are a big, big advantage -- but Sora / 2300-style ones, less so for yours truly, as I cannot upshift cogs from the drops.

If I could have a modern Tiagra bike, with Tiagra-hubs that someone I know built, or even Aksiums, then I'd take that in a heartbeat.


----------



## Mel Erickson (Feb 3, 2004)

skyliner1004 said:


> doubt it, my frame will be lighter, have a better paint job, have warranty. new components that work and have warranty, wheels that stay true. my bike will be more efficient, have more gears.
> 
> i bet you also buy your cars used because you can't afford the luxury of new cars.


A new entry level bike won't be lighter than a high end bike from 1980. A 1980 high end bike was in the 17# range and even lighter. Try and find an entry level bike today that's less than 20#. A Giant Defy 2 Compact is 20#.

Better paint job? Why is that? I've got frames from the 80's with fine paint. Really it's how you take care them.

Old components work fine, what's the problem? In fact, my 1989 7spd Shimano Sante equipped bike shifts better and crisper than my 2009 10spd Ultegra. Gasp, even better than my 10spd Campy! And why would 1980's wheels stay true less than today's? I'd argue that because they tended to be more robust rims with a higher spoke count that they'd stay true longer than modern, lightweight, low spoke count wheels. Not to mention many wheels today use proprietary spokes or spokes that many bike shops don't have in stock and have to order if you need a replacement. One of the best wheels, even today, is a Mavic Open pro rim, standard hub and standard spokes (spoke count of your choice). Light, inexpensive and easy to work on/very low maintenance. Same as older wheels.

You get a warranty on a new bike but like Buck50 said, not much to warranty on an older one. Maintenance is very low and the steel frame will be easily repairable.

More efficient? Hardly. Many ways to define efficiency but a basic definition that may apply here is the ratio of the output to the input of any system. Do you think you will generate more watts with less effort on your new 20# bike compared to an old 17# bike?

I understand why people want new things. They like the bling. Heck, I've got plastic fantastic bike of my own (and a 1985 wunderbike Cannondale and a 1989 Schwinn Circuit). Some things are more convenient (combined shift/brake levers). However, the bicycle hasn't become more efficient because of the "improvements" made since 1980. Most of these improvements have been to sell more bicycles and bicycle parts or to lower manufacturing costs and make more money for bicycle and parts manufacturers, not because they've made cycling more efficient.


----------



## Mel Erickson (Feb 3, 2004)

My Own Private Idaho said:


> I'd take the newer bike. It isn't that the older bike isn't functional, or doesn't ride well. I just perfer newer brakes, and Sora (I'd assume that's what the OP is talking about) really does work well. I like shifting on the brake levers. I like the stiffness of an aluminum bike. I like the newer brakes better, although I always change brake pads to CoolStop Salmons, and I'm assuming I could do the same with this theoretical bike.


I've got an '85 Cannondale R400 and an '89 Schwinn Circuit, both with original brakes. I don't remember the brand on the Cannondale but the R400 was entry level so the brakes are too. The Schwinn has Sante, basically Dura Ace with a different finish. Both have Kool Stop pads and both work very well. Plenty of braking and modulation for anything I need to do.


----------



## Mel Erickson (Feb 3, 2004)

BlueMasi1 said:


> It will be much easier to have repaired after a crash.


You think it's easier to repair an entry level alu frame than a high end 80's steel frame? What about modern components makes them easier to repair? You can replace anything but modern Shimano components don't get repaired, they get replaced. You can replace anything, even old components. About the only bike parts made to repair these days are Campy.


----------



## iebobo (Jun 23, 2006)

The ideal bike is the one that fits you best. Geometries have changed over the years. Go test ride some of the bikes you mentioned and then try some from a CL posting if you can. If you do buy an old bike, make sure you take someone with you who knows about bikes. You may wind up spending a lot of extra money because the eyelets are popped out of the rims or you buy a bike with a cracked frame. That said, I have to admit that I love my '87 Trek 560.


----------



## maxw87 (Aug 24, 2010)

I'm changing this to a poll -- check it out!

http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showthread.php?t=227754


----------



## raymonda (Jan 31, 2007)

maxw87 said:


> I'm changing this to a poll -- check it out!
> 
> http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showthread.php?t=227754



Listen, there is another option that is the better than the two you posted. I posted it above but it appears you missed it.

Buy a used bike between 1994-2007. For the same price and a little shopping around, you can get a real decent racing bike that will blow away both of the strawman you have set up. Your options are greater than you posted.


----------



## raymonda (Jan 31, 2007)

I looked for 2 minutes and for 799 I found this. Do some research and increase your options. Now that bike with the right engine would win any race. BTW, That ois a Mongoose Ti, with 9 speed Ultegra.


----------



## buck-50 (Sep 20, 2005)

raymonda said:


> Listen, there is another option that is the better than the two you posted. I posted it above but it appears you missed it.
> 
> Buy a used bike between 1994-2007. For the same price and a little shopping around, you can get a real decent racing bike that will blow away both of the strawman you have set up. Your options are greater than you posted.


I'd agree.

I got an early 90s serotta for $150, a box of dura ace 7400 for 200 or so, got a set of gently used ultegra/open pros for another 120, "upgraded" to 9 speed DT shifters...

ended up with an absolutely brilliant bike for under 700 total. figure for another 200 I could jump it up to STI, but I kinda like the DT shifters- they're light and they're bullet proof.

And it is brilliant. And it'll fit 28s no problem, which makes it nice in spring when the roads begin to resemble paris-roubaix... Oh, and the paint is still close to perfect.


----------



## buck-50 (Sep 20, 2005)

raymonda said:


> I looked for 2 minutes and for 799 I found this. Do some research and increase your options. Now that bike with the right engine would win any race.


Dayum what is that? and where did you find it?


----------



## maxw87 (Aug 24, 2010)

trust me that option was looked into. finding a bike where I live off cragslist that is the correct size, priced under $700 and has high level components is next to impossible -- just take my word for it.


----------



## maxw87 (Aug 24, 2010)

In two months of scowering craigslist neurotically 5-10 times per day, I have yet to come up with anything less than $900 that fits or wasn't snatched up within 15 minutes. TRUST ME, that was my plan and theres nothing more I'd rather do than be able to go that route.


----------



## raymonda (Jan 31, 2007)

buck-50 said:


> Dayum what is that? and where did you find it?


Ebay, Mongoose Ti, I belive they were made by Sanvik, with Ultegra 9 speed. Looks sweet.

OP, If you can't spring for an aditional $99.00 wait a month till you have more money.


----------



## raymonda (Jan 31, 2007)

maxw87 said:


> In two months of scowering craigslist neurotically 5-10 times per day, I have yet to come up with anything less than $900 that fits or wasn't snatched up within 15 minutes. TRUST ME, that was my plan and theres nothing more I'd rather do than be able to go that route.


I don't know your size but here are a few more bike that are selling for between 440-700. Most The Bottechia is a 799 new aluminum Scandium frame with a mix of Ultegra. You could ride it until you can afford a better frame and then transfer the groupo. But you would be better served to just upgrade the wheels down the road.

Keep looking, your deal is out there and with the season past, there are plenty of deal yet to be had.


----------



## f3rg (May 11, 2008)

Old steel > new aluminum


----------



## exracer (Jun 6, 2005)

> doubt it, my frame will be lighter, have a better paint job, have warranty. new components that work and have warranty, wheels that stay true. my bike will be more efficient, have more gears.


Have to go with the majority here; it's the motor.

A 80's high end bike vs a 2010 entry level race bike. Hmmmmmmmm, no you are not going to beat the paint job on my Paramount frame. Ooooooooo, and wait, it's still under warranty but then I am the original owner. My old Campy Record worked perfectly back then and still works today, imagine that. The same can be said for the wheels. They are not going to go out of true in a simple 35 mile race. The advantages that you are going to have is a slightly lighter weight and probably no flex in the bottom bracket area. Granted my Paramount is a early 90's model but it's basically the same as any 80's frame. Light weight steel tubing built with fiction shifters and a 7 speed cluster on the back.

Back in the 90's, always used to run into guys that thought newer is always better when I was on motorcycles. They would get the latest greatest whatever because it was "a real bike". They always wanted to ride up in the hills. They would show on their 600's, I'd show up on my 85 RZ-350 and the last thing they would see was my rapidly disappearing tail light. We used to affectionately call them squids. Of course, having a bunch of track time didn't hurt either.
When one is in the superior position, one is expected to win.


----------



## mtrider05 (Aug 8, 2009)

kmunny19 said:


> and again, you'll miss the point entirely.
> 
> B) 2010 entry level road bike, with:
> Aluminum frame
> ...


It's okay, he has a habit of acting of this way.


----------



## bobthib (May 28, 2009)

I have an 89 Trek 1200 and an 09 Motobecane I'Pro. The 09 is more comfortable and safer with the brifters vs downtube, and 10 spd is nicer than 7, but it isn't any faster.

I would choose the new bike for a race, based on the safety factor of STI.


----------



## skyliner1004 (May 9, 2010)

30 year old bike? new bike?
30 year old car? new car?
30 year old tv? new tv?
30 year old woman? don't...


----------



## J T (Aug 15, 2010)

Mel Erickson said:


> There would be no advantage for shifting. Anyone experienced with downtube shifters can shift just as well.


I disagree. To me, one clear advantage is safety. I've been riding an 80s bike all summer with head tube shifters...and it sucks. I can't imagine having to reach down even lower to shift on the down tube. Can't wait to get my new bike in a couple of weeks. No more taking my hands off the bars to shift. 



skyliner1004 said:


> 30 year old bike? new bike?
> 30 year old car? new car?
> 30 year old tv? new tv?
> 30 year old woman? don't...


I'm 43 and I'd LOVE to have a 30 year old woman right now. :lol:


----------



## martinrjensen (Sep 23, 2007)

*?*

Why do you ask? I'm curious


----------



## strathconaman (Jul 3, 2003)

Anyone who wants to get out and race on the 80's bike, in a pack, doesn't remember what single pivot brakes were like.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Whichever fits.


----------



## Slim Again Soon (Oct 25, 2005)

I'm keen on an old-school steel frame. Especially a high-end version. Nice.

But friction shifters, that's something I am glad to have left behind.

I've had one bike with downtube shifters (those were friction). They shifted great, but the reach on this bike was long, and it really threw me off.

So, my first vote is the old frame, with some new components.

Of course, that isn't what you asked, so I say ... new.


----------



## The_AwesomeSauce_Show (May 22, 2010)

skyliner1004 said:


> 30 year old bike? new bike?
> *30 year old car? new car?*


Pay in full(since it's cheap)? Finance(read: debt)?

And no I don't have $15000 laying around for an entry level Kia or Hyundai

or you could put:

1980s Ferrari 308 or 2011 Lexus LS 460?


----------



## cyclesport45 (Dec 10, 2007)

20 speeds versus, what, twelve? Fourteen? Give me that ten cog cassette, baby!


----------



## boostmiser (Sep 10, 2008)

I'd take the high end older bike any day. I was recently on a charity ride with 1,200+ and was constantly admiring the older bikes. Very nostalgic. Might have to buy one just because.


----------



## buck-50 (Sep 20, 2005)

Here's one other advantage for the older high end frame, then I'll leave it be-

Pretty much any top end frame (actually about any frame at all) from the last 30 years is compatible with modern parts. Only things they aren't compatible with (BB30, tapered headsets) aren't gonna be on a $650 entry level bike anyway.

So, you buy a high-end/top of the line bike from 1985- it's reasonably light but the parts are dated. So you replace the parts over time with higher quality parts- you end up with a really nice bike. AND, if yer savvy, you can sell those old parts on ebay to finance yer new parts. You'd be surprised how much someone will pay for an obsolete derailleur...

Now, try that with a brand new $650 bike- yer frame is pretty much crap to begin with, so there's no real advantage to upgrading, might as well just buy a new bike. A year from now, you'll be lucky if you get $300 for it. 

The old bike has already lost all the value it's gonna lose. If it's the right bike, it's worth more now than it was when it was new (you aren't gonna find that bike though)...


----------



## Hank Stamper (Sep 9, 2009)

buck-50 said:


> Here's one other advantage for the older high end frame, then I'll leave it be-
> 
> Pretty much any top end frame (actually about any frame at all) from the last 30 years is compatible with modern parts. Only things they aren't compatible with (BB30, tapered headsets) aren't gonna be on a $650 entry level bike anyway.
> 
> ...


But the question was about which one to take in one race. Not which you're rather play around in the garage with and sell parts from.


----------



## buck-50 (Sep 20, 2005)

Hank Stamper said:


> But the question was about which one to take in one race. Not which you're rather play around in the garage with and sell parts from.


True enough. I just figure, who has a bike for just one race?


----------



## Hank Stamper (Sep 9, 2009)

buck-50 said:


> True enough. I just figure, who has a bike for just one race?


yeah you're right. The whole thing is a hypothetical tangent anyway so I'm not sure what my problem was getting pedantic so far into it.

I think I wanted to say how stupid the question was because who ever is forced into such a choice would ride each bike and decide for themself, then do poor in the race either way, or the didn't have a bike so with that background who cares what they picked they'd get smoked either way, but I got distracted and made another stupid post myself. Oh well.


----------



## Blue CheeseHead (Jul 14, 2008)

The answer here is simple, neither. You can get a mid-level modern bike used for what you would pay for a "new" entry level bike. if you don't like it, sell it and get your money back out of it.

I scored a nice 2010 4.5 Madone as a "starter" bike for my wife. It had been riden twice. I got it for 1/2 price. Carbon fiber and 105 will work just fine. Paint is perfect & screw the warranty. Service? Seriously, it's a bike, it isn't that hard, If she does not like it, I will not be out any $.


----------



## Blue CheeseHead (Jul 14, 2008)

skyliner1004 said:


> doubt it, my frame will be lighter, have a better paint job, have warranty. new components that work and have warranty, wheels that stay true. my bike will be more efficient, have more gears.
> 
> i bet you also buy your cars used because you can't afford the luxury of new cars.


Wow, sorry you feel the need to compensate.


----------



## KenS (Jan 28, 2004)

*Which one would you want to see destroyed in a crash?*

OK, I will step in to the discussion. The OP asked which bike to use for a 35-mile race. Thirty-five miles is pretty short and the peloton is going to be compact. The OP must be pretty new to racing to be asking this question. So I will assume that the chances of being involved in a crash are pretty high. It would break my heart to trash a good 80's steel bike. On the other hand, I wouldn't cry as much over losing an AL Scattante in a crash.

But if you are looking for a daily road bike then go back to the future, the 80s.


----------

