ededwards":1vdrxdgp said:Nice little experiment but no real surprise at all that a modern top end bike beats a 26 year old top end bike.
Not really comparing like with like though is it - for a start the Lapierre has indexed gears so changes will be sharper and quicker with no need to move out of the aero position. Would have been interesting to compare them both with non indexed downtube shifting although that's just bringing up, yet again, a point I keep laboriously making.
In a related way, Ian Cammish is riding not dissimilar times nowadays to when he was at his peak and he puts it down to modern equipment.
But given the above, why we like older bikes is nothing to do with performance, is it? If I was racing I'd certainly have a modern bike but riding for fitness/enjoyment I'd much prefer an older bike - how much does passion weigh in any case?
Surely removing the 'technolgy' from the modern bike makes the comparison useless doesn't it? The whole point of the piece was to demonstrate that modern technology does actually make a faster, more comfortable bike and indexing is one of the key developments of the past couple of decades. I would rather have seen the old frame kitted out with a modern groupset and wheels as then you're purely testing the ride/performance of the frame itself.
Anyhow, you're quite right, that riding older bikes has nothing to do with performance, its about passion, nostalgia and a whole host of other individual stupid reasons.
My road bike is modern (1993) compared to most on here and I would love a 'new' bike but when it comes to the crunch, I always end up fixing my old girl rather than buy modern because I love her so much. I saw her sat next to an '09 Scott Speedster last week and she just looked nicer. Skinny steel vs big hydroformed aluminium... yeuuuuch!