# "Vintage" vs. "modern" road bikes - difference?



## sambam613 (Apr 9, 2014)

I am looking to get a little more serious about cycling and want to invest in a new (used) bike. I plan on using the bike for longer rides - going for a few centuries over the summer and cycling across Canada once I am finished with university. 

I'm not all that familiar with bikes so I was hoping some who are more well-versed in the land of bikes could provide me with some information.

I currently own a refurbished 1983 Motobecane Mirage Sport. It's a decent bike (I believe it was one of their entry-level road bikes at the time if I'm not mistaken). For those familiar with Motobecanes or other vintage rides, what would be the difference between this bike and a top-of-the-line vintage bike, such as the Motobecane Team Champion? Would it mostly be frame quality? 

And what would be the major differences between a top-of-the-line vintage road bike compared to a modern steel or chromoly road / touring bike? 

And lastly, how would these compare to a decent carbon bike? 

I hear a lot about speed not being much of a difference between frame materials when riding on flat land. Would the biggest differences be comfort and feel? 

Any information or suggestions would be greatly appreciated. I've been lurking biking forums for weeks looking for useful input but there seems to be a lot of contradictory information and opinions out there in the forums.


----------



## Mapei (Feb 3, 2004)

You've hit the mother lode of rbr topics. Allow me to fire the first salvo.

I'm in my early sixties, and I've been riding road bikes (never raced, though) for forty-plus years. I got my first high-end, all Campy, Columbus/Reynolds tubed, tubular-tired bicycle in about 1973. 

In the intervening years, I've held fast with what I had, and have also followed the proverbial 'I gotta get the latest thing out there' path. And I can say this --

The weight savings you get from a modern cf bicycle frame is a wonderful thing. I personally feel it under the pedals with every stroke.

Modern bicycle geometry is far more sorted out than the older stuff. In particular, my late lamented Time (which I unfortunately destroyed in a crash) was simultaneously outstandingly stable and outstandingly maneuverable.

When it comes to comfort, the cf frame was the winner, as well. It is/was more comfortable than the steel Colnago I've been riding since the Time was decommissioned. As for the aluminum Colnago Dream I've also been riding since the demise of the Time, it rides pretty damn comfortably, too, in part because I'm running very nice Vittoria tubular tires. 

In short, my opinion on the subject is clear. As beautiful and romantic as an old school bike might be, a new bicycle from a quality manufacturer is unmistakably superior.


----------



## Oxtox (Aug 16, 2006)

imo, the single most noticeable difference between a truly vintage bike and a modern one is old-school DT-mounted friction shifters vs new-school integrated/indexed shifters.

frame materials isn't all that big of an issue to me...have owned nice-riding steel, Ti, carbon bikes...I did hate the one alum frame bike I had tho.


----------



## ruckus (Apr 1, 2014)

Flex and torsion also huge. Watch video of a steel bike under great power. The entire bottom bracket and chainstay will flex, looks like wet noodle swaying back and forth.

Both newer carbon have reinforced bottom bracket, massive downtube and sometimes tapered headtube. Supposedly provides more control and maneuverability. 

Even titanium is poor in this regard. You can definitely generate more power on a carbon than you can on a Moots Vamoots Ti racing. A LOT more. Up to difference of 6mph with a really strong cyclist.

But then remember cyclists were riding steel in TdF before carbon matured...


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

I agree with Oxtox, it's all about the drivetrain.

I prefer steel, but didn't realize that until I put a new close ratio 10 speed group on the bike. I went from a 6x2 steel bike to a 10x2 carbon bike and loved the new bike. The steel just hung on the hook getting dusty. I got some money together and put a new 10x2 group on the steel bike, thinking that maybe I'd ride it some.

Well once the two bikes had the same drivetrains, the carbon bike was the one hanging on the hook. In fact I bought a new steel frame and stripped the group off the carbon bike and hung it on the new steel.

Why do I like steel? No solid answer, it's what I grew up with. Like I said, I loved my carbon bike, but it just didn't give me the enjoyment that I get riding my steel bikes.
And the new group just grew that enjoyment a bunch.


----------



## Dajianshan (Jul 15, 2007)

The modern CF bikes are stiffer. This doesn't automatically mean faster. Stiffness sells and there are lots of factors that affect speed and race outcomes. Race time averages have remained consistent for over 20 years. There was a slight uptick in the mid 1990s for some unknown reason *wink*, but the speeds have leveled out again. Companies are selling the stiffness. Riders are demanding more stiffness. Amateurs are demanding more stiffness. Bikes are stiff. 

I recently ran into a friend who is a test rider for a manufacturer of carbon fiber bicycles. When I asked where the model I knew he is currently testing went, he replied that it was simply too stiff for any more than 60mi. He simply couldn't bear to suffer that much on a longer ride on beautiful Saturday. 

So, yes, the modern bikes are stiffer. Often they are gimmicky stiff… to a fault. Not that the classics couldn't benefit from a bit more stiffness, but the gains are often overstated.


----------



## ruckus (Apr 1, 2014)

@Dajianshan it's more likely that due to laws of physics, and aerodynamics, human power can only push a bike so fast with the way road/race bikes are designed. I know there are other bikes faster, but they are of different design. There has to be mechanical limits. You can only do so much with current design of race bikes. And these elite athletes at 1400-2000 watts probably push that limit, not necessarily the material or a particular feature of a bike, but push the limits of what is capable on a seated beak with body mass over the crank and chain with cogs. To get faster, I'll bet bikes will have to evolve. A new drive train system maybe? Or make recumbant bikes safer and more maneuverable?

Testing has shown without a doubt, as a rider gets progressively better with better weight/power ratio, these lighter carbon bikes really are a large improvement on the hills. And also shown these carbon stiffer bikes are more responsive on turns and more control downhill. On a flat straightaway, I doubt much difference. But dunno about you, I don't ride straight flat roads. Around here it's one small hill after another. For me, I do notice a big difference in ride quality, I do climb a lot better. But that's probably not cause it's carbon, but attention to what makes a bike more responsive and stiffer. No doubt a Cannondale CAAD 10 would be just as good climbing hills.

It's a mix bag with these newer vs vintage. I don't think it matters. If a bike allows you to be in great condition, fit, healthy and enjoy riding, ride it. What the latest and greatest shouldn't matter.


----------



## cs1 (Sep 16, 2003)

velodog said:


> Why do I like steel? No solid answer, it's what I grew up with. Like I said, I loved my carbon bike, but it just didn't give me the enjoyment that I get riding my steel bikes.
> And the new group just grew that enjoyment a bunch.


My feelings exactly.


----------



## 4Crawler (Jul 13, 2011)

velodog said:


> I agree with Oxtox, it's all about the drivetrain.
> 
> I prefer steel, but didn't realize that until I put a new close ratio 10 speed group on the bike. I went from a 6x2 steel bike to a 10x2 carbon bike and loved the new bike. The steel just hung on the hook getting dusty. I got some money together and put a new 10x2 group on the steel bike, thinking that maybe I'd ride it some.
> 
> ...


X2 on the drive train being a lot of it. I recently upgraded my '73 Schwinn Sports Tourer with a set of modern 700c wheels and a 3x10 drive train and it was a whole new bike:
- dscf1542

I've owned that bike since I bought it new. With the flat bars on it now, it is not the most comfortable for long rides, but for a few hours on the local gravel bike paths and levees it is great. I do have a 2 yr. old steel cyclocross bike an a Reynolds 531 steel framed road bike and there are some differences in them. On the road bike, I find it is lighter and stiffer and I can climb grades in higher gears than I can on the older touring bike. But if the road is rough, I would take the softer ride on the older touring frame or the new cross bike with 40mm tires.


----------



## ruckus (Apr 1, 2014)

4Crawler, great bike. Incredible condition. I'm amazed, looks phenomenal for a '73 bike. That would look great even for a 3 year old bike.


----------



## Dajianshan (Jul 15, 2007)

@Ruckus,

Actually, it is probably due to the fact that bicycle racing is usually more than just two brutes drag racing their bikes down an asphalt strip. Bicycle racing is a team sport that involves a variety of strategic and tactical devices that play into the outcome. That is why some teams might send riders to the front or send out an escapee, or sit back in the pack until sprint time.

A stiffer bike does not necessarily make a great descending bike. You want a bike that pushes into and out of a corner. Imagine how well a 2x4 would corner. 

Darren Baum has some interesting ideas about geometry, climbing and descending.


----------



## Easyup (Feb 26, 2012)

velodog said:


> I agree with Oxtox, it's all about the drivetrain.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


+1, I buy the latest carbon about every 5 years or so starting in 1991 and give it a try, note I shave a little time off my usual rides and then sell it within a year when I realize it is just collecting dust. I ride three custom that have been coldset to 130 for 9 and 10 speed and a Zurick w/ Renolds 853. I don't race but do 5 to 6k miles/year.

As for vintage steel frame quality, with the exception of obvious gas pipe frames I usually find a difference in frames between entry level and top of the line which generally track entry level vs. better quality components, but not always. As an example at one point I was riding a Tange 1 Centurion and a Tange 2 and could tell no difference between the frames.


----------



## ruckus (Apr 1, 2014)

On today's ride I got destroyed by a carbon rider and a steel. It's the rider that makes the difference.

It's great to get destroyed. More fuel and motivation to keep pumping and try to improve. Really shows how much more work I need to do to get good. These guys looked great, very lithe, very toned looking to me. Both of em looked like they were in their 40s. They had to be averaging 20+ mph the whole way.


----------



## sambam613 (Apr 9, 2014)

Thank you all so much for all the useful input. I think at the moment I'm leaning towards buying a Bianchi with Columbus SLX frame. I am absolutely in love with their celeste colour and older road bike designs! I think once I have the money I'll eventually get a bike in each material but that won't be for some time.


----------

