# athena 11 alloy is sexy



## majorbanjo (Dec 12, 2010)




----------



## roadworthy (Nov 11, 2011)

majorbanjo said:


>


Pretty bike but I really question the whole retro thing. Kind of reminds me of boomers buying old relic muscle cars that they grew up street racing in their teens recapturing their younth when even modest modern cars do everything better.


----------



## majorbanjo (Dec 12, 2010)

Thanks for the laugh



Old bikes are like fine wine……a good vintage is timeless….


----------



## roadworthy (Nov 11, 2011)

majorbanjo said:


> Thanks for the laugh
> 
> 
> 
> Old bikes are like fine wine……a good vintage is timeless….


or...Old bikes are like old bikes i.e., heavy, poor handling and as stiff as a rag. 
Glad you like yours tho.


----------



## majorbanjo (Dec 12, 2010)

Yep….at my age…..looking sexy while riding is my top priority….I've thrown away 10 top tier carbon bikes in the last 20 years….but the master keeps looking classic….


----------



## Marc (Jan 23, 2005)

majorbanjo said:


> Thanks for the laugh
> 
> 
> 
> Old bikes are like fine wine……a good vintage is timeless….


You sire, have one drool worthy bike



roadworthy said:


> or...Old bikes are like old bikes i.e., heavy, poor handling and as stiff as a rag.
> Glad you like yours tho.


LMAO.

There's a reason kids these days drop $2-5K on a brand spanking new plastic bike...and then in 1 or 2 years don't like their ride anymore and are pining for something new. No soul.

Don't worry junior, some day you'll get it. :thumbsup:


----------



## Gomad (Aug 16, 2006)

Beautiful bike executed to perfection. I'd take that over any carbon frame.


----------



## bigbill (Feb 15, 2005)

Here is my lame, poor handling classic steel frame built up with all alloy Athena 11 with a NOS UT crankset. It is a Mark Nobilette built GT that started life as a Team Shaklee race bike. I had it painted by Southwest Frameworks and although it's heavy and outdated, I can still keep up with the locals on their new fangled carbon bikes and even occasionally take a sprint on training rides. It's almost like the engine is more important than the car.


----------



## roadworthy (Nov 11, 2011)

Marc said:


> You sire, have one drool worthy bike
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm sixty years old and grew up riding now Italian vintage bikes including Colnagos...lol.
If you want to live in the past with technology, go for it. I prefer my Ipod to an 8 track and others are forever caught in a time warp I suppose.


----------



## aa.mclaren (Jun 25, 2008)

*Great choice for my second bike*

I rebuilt an old steel race frame with Athena earlier this year, mostly to make it compatible with my carbon bike which also has various Campy 11 parts. It's an aesthetic thing, sure, but it also functions far better than the parts I had on there 20 years ago.

It's a bit of a mixed bag of Athena parts since half of them were passed down from the carbon rig and half purchased new, therefore the cranks and rear derailleur are silver, the brakes and front mech are black, and the levers are 2010 ultra shift Athena in carbon wrap. That was the economical choice as well, while I upgraded more parts to Chorus or Record on my lightweight bike. The best part of it is, I can now ride modern Campy wheels with 11s on either.

Aesthetically though, I really like the Athena PT cranks in silver, I know a lot of posters hate Power Torque, but it's unlikely to be de-installed for some time yet. Also, it seems that when they re-designed it from the earlier Athena UT model, it shaved nearly 100 grams, at least according to my scales (744 g for 50/34 in 175 g for the PT cranks) versus the claimed weight for alloy UT though I have never weighed those myself (supposedly 840 g according to some listings). It's no weight weenie bike, but sure, I'll take that.


----------



## colnagoG60 (Jun 27, 2013)

roadworthy said:


> I'm sixty years old and grew up riding now Italian vintage bikes including Colnagos...lol.
> If you want to live in the past with technology, go for it. I prefer my Ipod to an 8 track and others are forever caught in a time warp I suppose.


I prefer my c-j tubes and vinyl over mp3s  , but as far as "old bikes", for me, it's not about nostalgia, as much as its about worrying if my plastic bike will fail if I hit a pot hole, drop a chain, etc...I don't have this fear on my "old" Master.


----------



## 1Butcher (Mar 15, 2011)

Steel vs carbon, new vs old are great discussions, but why ruin this thread when all this guy wants to do is to show off his new build?

If you do not like it, great. You do not have to post your nasty comments. If you don't like it and have to post [to move up your post count], then lie.

BTW, I like it. 11 speeds and all.


----------



## roadworthy (Nov 11, 2011)

1Butcher said:


> Steel vs carbon, new vs old are great discussions, but why ruin this thread when all this guy wants to do is to show off his new build?
> 
> If you do not like it, great. You do not have to post your nasty comments. If you don't like it and have to post [to move up your post count], then lie.
> 
> BTW, I like it. 11 speeds and all.


It is you who are sullying this thread by your criticism. Apparently you can't read. I said 'pretty' bike. I rode Colnago's growing up...did you? Do you know anything about them? My best friend still rides an Aluminum model in fact...along with a fleet of other carbon bikes and tandems.


----------



## 1Butcher (Mar 15, 2011)

I chose not to ride/buy a Colnago frame. I thought buying that brand was not the way for me to go. I mowed a lot of yards in the day so all the money I made was a lot of hard work to get.

I had a custom made bike with Reynolds 531, built by Tom Ritchey. Yes, that Tom Ritchey. He was very small at the time, 1977 btw. Still have it, built with Campagnolo Super Record, Cinelli, Regina, you know all the old non Japanese stuff.

If I remember correctly, it was a bit cheaper but a much better value.


----------



## Donn12 (Apr 10, 2012)

Plenty of weak responses on rbr lately. I think most should keep the criticism to themselves. That is a gorgeous bike. I have a couple of carbon bikes but would love one of these with campy 11. My guess is many people have several bikes and want a steel classic. What wheels are those? I don't see any provision for down tube shifters (which I want to avoid).....what frames , year etc do I look for to do a build like this one?

I am interested in a sort of resto mod build. Zipp 303s, blacked out trim and a white frame. I may just stick to something like the bike above because it looks so good. How much do they weigh? A couple of pounds is no big deal


----------



## aa.mclaren (Jun 25, 2008)

I would add to this thread, so far as the title is concerned, a quote that I learned a long time ago, about bike parts in general, no matter how elegant, exotic or expensive: 

"remember, the metal is cold". 

The passion is (or should be) in riding. Polished alloy is a timeless and classic look though.


----------



## Blue Star (Jun 9, 2012)

I'm an Athena devotee too--- beautiful bike major.


----------



## headloss (Mar 3, 2013)

roadworthy said:


> Pretty bike but I really question the whole retro thing. Kind of reminds me of boomers buying old relic muscle cars that they grew up street racing in their teens recapturing their younth when even modest modern cars do everything better.



No, I'd love to have a 1970 Mopar E-body although such a model is roughly ten years older than my birth... Likewise, I love retro bikes with alloy parts (although I am a fan of indexed shifting and threadless stems)... it's just preference, nothing to do with recapturing anything.


----------



## majorbanjo (Dec 12, 2010)

Donn12 said:


> Plenty of weak responses on rbr lately. I think most should keep the criticism to themselves. That is a gorgeous bike. I have a couple of carbon bikes but would love one of these with campy 11. My guess is many people have several bikes and want a steel classic. What wheels are those? I don't see any provision for down tube shifters (which I want to avoid).....what frames , year etc do I look for to do a build like this one?
> 
> I am interested in a sort of resto mod build. Zipp 303s, blacked out trim and a white frame. I may just stick to something like the bike above because it looks so good. How much do they weigh? A couple of pounds is no big deal


The wheels are custom built by Tom at GVH in Oregon..
White Industries H2/H3 hubs
Velocity A23 rims
Sapim Laser spokes (32 spokes for this bike)
alloy nipples
weight - 1537g


On another note…..I love my master….I get stopped at every ride for folks to look at the bike……I built it for me, and what I like…..I acknowledge there are folks that don't appreciate it like I do…..and that's ok…….twenty years from now it will still be classic…..


----------



## aa.mclaren (Jun 25, 2008)

majorbanjo said:


> The wheels are custom built by Tom at GVH in Oregon..
> White Industries H2/H3 hubs
> Velocity A23 rims
> Sapim Laser spokes (32 spokes for this bike)
> ...


Nice, I'm thinking of doing an A23 build on a pair of 9s Record (can do 11s) hubs 36° front and rear, for some heavy duty trailer-hauling rides with a tent. Are you running those tubeless?


----------



## vagabondcyclist (Apr 2, 2011)

Nice looking bike. Usually, I'm not a fan of white stems and saddles, but yours look really nice with the bike.


----------



## headloss (Mar 3, 2013)

aa.mclaren said:


> Nice, I'm thinking of doing an A23 build on a pair of 9s Record (can do 11s) hubs 36° front and rear, for some heavy duty trailer-hauling rides with a tent. Are you running those tubeless?


Why A23'S? If you're going for the wider-is-better mentality, the H+Son TB14 keeps the classic look with a wider profile... it also has a 36h option.


----------



## roadworthy (Nov 11, 2011)

headloss said:


> No, I'd love to have a 1970 Mopar E-body although such a model is roughly ten years older than my birth... Likewise, I love retro bikes with alloy parts (although I am a fan of indexed shifting and threadless stems)... it's just preference, nothing to do with recapturing anything.


Hi headloss. I grew up building muscle cars and street racing. My dad worked at Chevy Engineering at the Tech center and used to bring home all the greatest muscle cars from the 60's and 70's...lots of Corvettes, SS Camaros and one notable LS6 450hp Chevelle we took out and ran the wheels off. If that car isn't crushed, it is worth a small fortune today. I can tell you a lot of stories about cars we built. Just a great period to grow up and wouldn't change it for the world.
To me it is about recapturing because there is such a difference in new tech....so we disagree there. I had a ton of the bikes coveted by vintage fans including 3 different Schwinn Paramounts. In the real early days in the US, Schwinn was considered a great bike until the European bikes put them out of business essentially...perhaps you know the story there.

So aside from the aesthetic or art and nostalgia, I would much prefer to ride a modern carbon bike as I want the most performance. I wouldn't mind owning a Paramount to hang over the fireplace and remind me of my youth, but I don't. So a difference in opinion. By comparison, as much as I love old mid 60's Corvettes, I would much prefer a new one...or a Porsche. To be honest, a mid 60's Corvette is a bucket of bolts compared to a modern Corvette or even Camaro.


----------



## rplace13 (Apr 27, 2011)

Love the Colnago. Master is a timeless bike. I really think the all white/silver works in this case. Enjoy it and ride safe!

I don't think there has to be a one or the other when it comes to bikes. I have a Pinarello Prince that I picked up 2nd hand from a guy with money is no object mentality...and there is no doubt it is the fastest, most fun, give you back what you put in to it x10 bike I have ever ridden + it is very comfortable. I recently built up a 80s Merckx with alloy 11s Athena and A23s, BTW. It is nostalgic and beautiful and fun in its own right. Very comfortable and super quiet. Just a pleasure to cruise on. My Colnago C-40 is somewhere in between. They are all bikes, we are all riders...plenty of room in the tent for everyone. I personally like having options for different rides/days/moods.

Can we all agree we like Campy?


----------



## headloss (Mar 3, 2013)

roadworthy said:


> Hi headloss. I grew up building muscle cars and street racing...


But again, it's personal preference. My daily driver is going to be something new and modern (and sadly, disposable... my 98 Nissan Maxima is currently at 210,000 but it's on its last legs). For a "Sunday car" that stays in the garage, I want something with a unibody and a carburetor, something infinitely rebuildable and capable of being passed on to another generation (modern cars do not meet this criteria, too much plastic to save weight and a limited supply of replacement parts).

The scenario is different for bikes, it's just an aesthetics vs value thing. I like the look of steel... I also prefer steel for a commuter where a 25# frame is no big deal. I honestly have no interest in riding carbon as I get no advantage from it with my personal riding style. It's essentially just throwing away money for my condition and riding style... I would be owning carbon, purely for the sake of it, which seems like a dumb investment. If you prefer it and/or have a reason for it, more power to you. So, for me at least, it's not nostalgia but what suits my needs. I like my bucket of bolts, because I like longevity and repairability over lightness and competitive edge. I wouldn't own an old car with any aspirations of racing it (except maybe a Shelby Cobra kit car, and even then, it's more about building it than driving it...). 

I guess with bikes, the most important thing to me is commuting/touring. With old cars, it's all about wrenching. I'm not racing either.


----------



## roadworthy (Nov 11, 2011)

headloss said:


> But again, it's personal preference. My daily driver is going to be something new and modern (and sadly, disposable... my 98 Nissan Maxima is currently at 210,000 but it's on its last legs). For a "Sunday car" that stays in the garage, I want something with a unibody and a carburetor, something infinitely rebuildable and capable of being passed on to another generation (modern cars do not meet this criteria, too much plastic to save weight and a limited supply of replacement parts).
> 
> The scenario is different for bikes, it's just an aesthetics vs value thing. I like the look of steel... I also prefer steel for a commuter where a 25# frame is no big deal. I honestly have no interest in riding carbon as I get no advantage from it with my personal riding style. It's essentially just throwing away money for my condition and riding style... I would be owning carbon, purely for the sake of it, which seems like a dumb investment. If you prefer it and/or have a reason for it, more power to you. So, for me at least, it's not nostalgia but what suits my needs. I like my bucket of bolts, because I like longevity and repairability over lightness and competitive edge. I wouldn't own an old car with any aspirations of racing it (except maybe a Shelby Cobra kit car, and even then, it's more about building it than driving it...).
> 
> I guess with bikes, the most important thing to me is commuting/touring. With old cars, it's all about wrenching. I'm not racing either.


What you define is really what makes the world go around. People have different likes and taste shaped by their experience. To me a steel bike feels clunky and heavy and whippy. Yes putting a modern groupset and wheelset on one helps but the frame is the soul of the bike. I have ridden more steel bikes than Al or Ti or carbon. My last one was a Bianchi a few years back and it was red and pretty and built with Campy but felt like a trampoline compared to my current Roubaix which is lighter and stiffer and with better power transfer but also with much better handling and the ride is much more stable.
Anyway, good to have choices and I think we all agree that the early bikes were elegant and a throwback to a simpler and perhaps even happier time.


----------



## wabasso (May 18, 2012)

bigbill said:


> Here is my lame, poor handling classic steel frame built up with all alloy Athena 11 with a NOS UT crankset. It is a Mark Nobilette built GT that started life as a Team Shaklee race bike. I had it painted by Southwest Frameworks and although it's heavy and outdated, I can still keep up with the locals on their new fangled carbon bikes and even occasionally take a sprint on training rides. It's almost like the engine is more important than the car.


You're just talking nonsense.


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

I find the comments about old bikes funny.

When I was 16 I used to peer through the window of Dentons in Summertown, Oxford at the row of TI Raleigh replicas on display. 531 frame, full Record group, Cinelli bars & stem, GP4's with Clement 66 tubs, made them the thing of dreams I couldn't imagine owning ever. Roll the clock forward 25 years and I managed to piece together a Colnago Super with SR etc for a song. I rode it twice and hated it. It reminded me of all the issues with old parts, lethargic brakes, vague shifting not to mention uncomfortable levers. The one thing I couldn't fault was the frame despite it being heavier and less rigid than current steel, alloy & carbon. So the idea of a classic Colnago or De Rosa with current Campag 11 on it with modern rims & tyres makes absolute sense.


----------



## roadworthy (Nov 11, 2011)

ultimobici said:


> I find the comments about old bikes funny.
> 
> When I was 16 I used to peer through the window of Dentons in Summertown, Oxford at the row of TI Raleigh replicas on display. 531 frame, full Record group, Cinelli bars & stem, GP4's with Clement 66 tubs, made them the thing of dreams I couldn't imagine owning ever. Roll the clock forward 25 years and I managed to piece together a Colnago Super with SR etc for a song. I rode it twice and hated it. It reminded me of all the issues with old parts, lethargic brakes, vague shifting not to mention uncomfortable levers. The one thing I couldn't fault was the frame despite it being heavier and less rigid than current steel, alloy & carbon. So the idea of a classic Colnago or De Rosa with current Campag 11 on it with modern rims & tyres makes absolute sense.


Funny in what sense? Do you believe that carbon superceded steel for best in class performance based purely on marketing...lol? 
Can you tell us what bike you ride as your daily training bike?

One thing I see, is there seems to be a lot of love for the old steel bikes on the Campy forum. Perhaps there is the artisan side to it that melds with Campy's 80 year storied history and penchant for beautifully sculpted parts. Not sure, but seems undeniable.


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

The idea that people cite them as heavy, poor handling etc. if the handling was so poor why are many builders still using the same geometry 30 years on? 

The components from that era don't stack up against modern kit well at all, but a NOS steel frame from 25 years ago won't have deteriorated at all over the years. Unless you are racing it won't make one iota of difference to your enjoyment of cycling. 

Dual pivot brakes, integrated brake & shift levers and cassette hubs are a big improvement.


----------



## roadworthy (Nov 11, 2011)

ultimobici said:


> The idea that people cite them as heavy, poor handling etc. if the handling was so poor why are many builders still using the *same geometry 30 years on?
> 
> *The components from that era don't stack up against modern kit well at all, but a NOS steel frame from 25 years ago won't have deteriorated at all over the years. Unless you are racing it won't make one iota of difference to your enjoyment of cycling.
> 
> Dual pivot brakes, integrated brake & shift levers and cassette hubs are a big improvement.


Same geometry? If you knew what differential section modulus was, we could have a discussion, but my sense is you have no idea what that is or you wouldn't have said same geometry. In fact, 3D geometry difference separate modern road bike performance more than carbon versus steel as substantial as that is.

You didn't mention what bike you trained on...perhaps you don't want to say.


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

By geometry I mean the usual. STA HTA BB height & fork rake. These figures have changed little in 20 years. 

As for my training bike, I don't have one. I just have several bikes and ride whichever I feel the urge to. My steel bike is an Condor Stainless, the carbon is a DeAnima and my cross is a Condor Terra-X Disc. Both road bikes are identical setups. 53x54 with a 73 STA & 265 BB height. Both handle the same but the carbon is a bit lighter and slightly stiffer. The XCR is by contrast the smoother ride. The inspiration for both in terms of geometry was an old 2002 De Rosa Merak. The only change was a slacker STA and longer TT. Only difference on the road aside from a better fit is a crisper front end due to the tapered forks on these bikes.


----------



## roadworthy (Nov 11, 2011)

Considering a bikes handling characters based upon '2D' geometry is like comparing a Rolex to a Timex watch...both have the same geometry...they are round.

Watershed to handling with carbon bikes is asymmetric sections throughout starting at the head tube. Cannondale was an earlier adapter of tapered head tubes and Specialized took this to another level with integrated top tube and down tube. It is front end stiffness of carbon that gives carbon such an advantage in handling.

In fact the basis for the tremendous handling of the new Tarmac SL5 is getting all sizes of the SL5 to handle the same. They did this by tuning force/deflection through a handling course with heavy instrumentation working with MacLaren. Then frame sections were adjusted accordingly. Differential sections can not be achieved with steel or aluminum or Ti to the degree they can with molded carbon where the flex modulus can be varied as well based upon intent.

To me old steel bikes...even with the pedigree of Colnago, DeRosa etc ride and handle like covered wagons compared to top level modern carbon bikes. To you, this apparently doesn't matter. To me it does.




ultimobici said:


> By geometry I mean the usual. STA HTA BB height & fork rake. These figures have changed little in 20 years.
> 
> As for my training bike, I don't have one. I just have several bikes and ride whichever I feel the urge to. My steel bike is an Condor Stainless, the carbon is a DeAnima and my cross is a Condor Terra-X Disc. Both road bikes are identical setups. 53x54 with a 73 STA & 265 BB height. Both handle the same but the carbon is a bit lighter and slightly stiffer. The XCR is by contrast the smoother ride. The inspiration for both in terms of geometry was an old 2002 De Rosa Merak. The only change was a slacker STA and longer TT. Only difference on the road aside from a better fit is a crisper front end due to the tapered forks on these bikes.
> View attachment 298726
> View attachment 298727


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

roadworthy said:


> Considering a bikes handling characters based upon '2D' geometry is like comparing a Rolex to a Timex watch...both have the same geometry...they are round.
> 
> Watershed to handling with carbon bikes is asymmetric sections throughout starting at the head tube. Cannondale was an earlier adapter of tapered head tubes and Specialized took this to another level with integrated top tube and down tube. It is front end stiffness of carbon that gives carbon such an advantage in handling.
> 
> ...


The thing is you can have all the tapering, stiffening and as much integration as you like, but if the basic "2D" geometry is off it'll ride like a sack of sh1t or worse still be unrideable. Get the 2D stuff right but in a less rigid structure and the same is far less likely. 

As for the McLaren link to Specialized, I suspect it's worth more in marketing terms than actual real discernible benefit to 99.9999% of riders. Specialized, Trek & the rest of the manufacturers in the marketplace need something new every year to push. Stiffer, lighter, smoother year in year out. Pinarello came out with asymmetry a few years ago, stating it was a first. Funny because Time had asymmetric tubing over 10 years ago. They were the people Cannondale went to for their forks 15 years ago, probably the first SI ones were from Time as they used tapered then. They also used different lay ups on different sizes that long ago with no help from McLaren. But then they make carbon from filament unlike every other manufacturer other than Giant. Probably forgotten more than most too.

At the end of the day, each to their own. I enjoy all the bikes I ride for different reasons. Steel and Carbon each have their advantages and their disadvantages. To say one is better than the other is myopic to say the least. Keith Bontrager came up with a maxim for bikes many years ago, "Strong. Light. Cheap. Pick Two." It still holds today.


----------



## pmf (Feb 23, 2004)

roadworthy said:


> Same geometry? If you knew what differential section modulus was, we could have a discussion, but my sense is you have no idea what that is or you wouldn't have said same geometry. In fact, 3D geometry difference separate modern road bike performance more than carbon versus steel as substantial as that is.
> 
> You didn't mention what bike you trained on...perhaps you don't want to say.


Why don't you find somewhere else to troll on? You've made you opinion clear in your first response. No one really cares what you think, what you grew up riding, how old you are, how many bikes you've owned, or whatever else you know. If you don't have anything positive to add, then bugger off.

Major -- Nice Colnago. I did an Eddy Merckx Corsa 01 frame a few years ago with Athena. It was the first year Campy offered it (the second time around). I think its nice we have an alternative to the black carbon fiber look. Plus, old frame rides nice, new components ride nice.


----------



## roadworthy (Nov 11, 2011)

ultimobici said:


> The thing is you can have all the tapering, stiffening and as much integration as you like, but if the basic "2D" geometry is off it'll ride like a sack of sh1t or worse still be unrideable. Get the 2D stuff right but in a less rigid structure and the same is far less likely.
> 
> As for the McLaren link to Specialized, I suspect it's worth more in marketing terms than actual real discernible benefit to 99.9999% of riders. Specialized, Trek & the rest of the manufacturers in the marketplace need something new every year to push. Stiffer, lighter, smoother year in year out. Pinarello came out with asymmetry a few years ago, stating it was a first. Funny because Time had asymmetric tubing over 10 years ago. They were the people Cannondale went to for their forks 15 years ago, probably the first SI ones were from Time as they used tapered then. They also used different lay ups on different sizes that long ago with no help from McLaren. But then they make carbon from filament unlike every other manufacturer other than Giant. Probably forgotten more than most too.
> 
> *At the end of the day, each to their own*. I enjoy all the bikes I ride for different reasons. Steel and Carbon each have their advantages and their disadvantages. To say one is better than the other is myopic to say the least. Keith Bontrager came up with a maxim for bikes many years ago, "Strong. Light. Cheap. Pick Two." It still holds today.


Another way to look at is...highly pedigreed bikes don't have 2D geometry that is off. So that argument is a non starter. In fact, if you can step out of your paradigm...old steel bikes were 'off' in the critical 3rd dimension...hard for round tube metal bike lovers to wrap their mind around.

But enough bickering about the obvious as the old steel lovers congregate and absolutely, as you say to each his own. This stuff is kind of like religion. Just not gonna get a consensus...or a contrarian position even within a minority group of retrogrouches isn't going to get much love. 

Enjoy your bikes and as the one poster stated, now I will bugger off.


----------



## pmf (Feb 23, 2004)

roadworthy said:


> Enjoy your bikes and as the one poster stated, now I will bugger off.


There, that's better ...


----------



## roadworthy (Nov 11, 2011)

pmf said:


> There, that's better ...


Yeah my fault for the distraction of appreciating the OP's Colnago. It is a pretty bike for sure.


----------



## pete2528ca (Jun 17, 2011)

I just built up a mid 1980's Colnago Super with a 2014 Campagnolo Veloce silver Gruppo and 2014 Campagnolo Khamsin Wheels. I used an original Campagnolo Record Headset and Seat Post and the original Cinelli Bars and Stem.

I got to tell you, compared to my carbon Guerciotti with the same wheels and gruppo, this is head over heels better. Steel is real folks, albiet a bit heavy.

WIll post pics soon.


----------



## pete2528ca (Jun 17, 2011)

Here you go:


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

roadworthy said:


> or...Old bikes are like old bikes i.e., heavy, poor handling and as stiff as a rag.
> Glad you like yours tho.


No reason that you need to like an old steel bike, but you probably never rode a high end steel bike if you think that they are as you have painted them to be.


----------



## roadworthy (Nov 11, 2011)

velodog said:


> No reason that you need to like an old steel bike, but you probably never rode a high end steel bike if you think that they are as you have painted them to be.


No. I have been riding competitively for 4 decades. I am 60 years old. I have probably owned more steel road bikes than anybody on here. I am a bike junkie. Pick a brand. Again, sorry to sully this thread which started with an innocuous, I don't get the steel thing in 2014. What I have learned is there is a legion of retrogrouches hanging out on this Campy forum which is cool. Aesthetics do matter to me but only to a point. I want the lightest, fastest, best riding bike with the best handling for the thousands of miles I ride each year. Having owned all of them including Ti and several Al bikes, carbon has no peer. Others clearly don't have that priority as they are still faithful to steel.
That is my explanation of what happened in this thread. I should have just said, pretty bike and I had a couple of steel Colnagos back in the day. But make no mistake, I probably have owned 30 high end steel bikes will different iterations of steel material which affects frame lightness more than modulus and flex which doesn't vary much.


----------



## pmf (Feb 23, 2004)

I think some of this embracing of steel bikes is a reaction to the way the industry has gone. Everything mass produced in China by the same 3 or 4 plants. All the bikes kind of look the same. Every year or so, there's some new "innovation" like pencil thin seat stays that every bike has. Its kind of lost its soul. 

I also think there's a fair number of people here who took up cycling recently and have never ridden a steel bike. Its a different experience than carbon. 

I recall my first carbon bike. I bought it in 1991. A Kestrel 200 Sci. Monocoque frame, made in Japan with a 200 EMS carbon fork. All my steel bike friends laughed at me for buying a plastic bike.


----------



## headloss (Mar 3, 2013)

Personally, I don't care about material. I don't like carbon because it's over-priced and given my riding style there is no perceptible benefit as a return for my paying more... I'm not likely to pay top dollar for a steel frame either (although I have been flirting with the idea of picking up a Ritchey Swiss Cross). Then again, I may eventually bite the bullet and pick up a carbon frame with an electronic group just to mix things up; not in any hurry. 

I'm not sure that it's a reaction to the industry. My take is that people want to know what they are getting. With steel, there are brands and there are grades outside of the actual frame maker. With carbon, it's some sort of magic hat that manufacturers pull a frame out of. Since everything is proprietary, there's a bit of a mystery over whether one carbon frame is any better than another. With steel, there's a more obvious variation and publicly available numbers to quantify it to some extent. Perhaps steel is more a choice for the tinkerer for that reason (not implying that it is an inclusive quality, just giving an alternative to the idea that people like steel because they are retro).


----------



## majorbanjo (Dec 12, 2010)

pete2528ca said:


> Here you go:
> 
> View attachment 299013
> 
> ...


Yep…..Sexy


----------



## ridesmasterx (Aug 3, 2013)

*Almost identical*

Other than my stem being zero-rise polished aluminum and a Selle Italia SL saddle, I had to do a double-take on your Master x 👍👍 (QUOTE=majorbanjo;4682492]







[/QUOTE]


----------

