Modern Vs Retro.

Iwasgoodonce

Old School Grand Master
Has anyone else got the August 2009 issue of Procycling? There is a rather interesting article on whether or not retro can get anywhere close to a modern carbon machine. The two bikes are:

2009 Lapierre with DA group Vs NOS 1983 Pinarello Super Record.

They uses SRM Power cranks and a group of good consistent riders (sort of like the Stig on pedals) on an up and down course.

Without spoiling (too much) the results we are all mad! A rather good article though.
 
Iwasgoodonce":3cpqt3lp said:
Has anyone else got the August 2009 issue of Procycling? There is a rather interesting article on whether or not retro can get anywhere close to a modern carbon machine. The two bikes are:

2009 Lapierre with DA group Vs NOS 1983 Pinarello Super Record.

They uses SRM Power cranks and a group of good consistent riders (sort of like the Stig on pedals) on an up and down course.

Without spoiling (too much) the results we are all mad! A rather good article though.

I won't buy this mag. What were the results? Sounds like an interesting comparison for sure.
 
Right. Those who don't want to know the scores, look away......Now.

Timed Run Lapierre: 8-56 Pinarello: 9-15 (mins)

Output Lapierre: 317 Pinarello: 308 (Watts) Difference=Flex

Speed Lapierre: 18.3 Pinarello: 17.7 (KPH)

Cadence Lapierre: 77.7 Pinarello: 77.1 (RPM)

Heart Rate Lapierre: 168 Pinarello: 167 (BPM)

What surprised me a little was that the Pinarello lost out badly on stiffness and comfort.
 
Cycling plus ran a similar article a month or two back and came up with pretty much the same conclusions.
 
Top of the range carbon frames are very good machine and have a price to match .

for middle range bikes , steel will match carbon fiber .
 
Factoring in the'soul' of the Pinarello doesn't it come out the winner ?
Hang on, let me check the figures again...........Yep outright winner! -It's a clean sweep .. ;)
 
its a pity they werent able to test em to destruction and compare things like durability, longevity and point of destruction (sudden crack v gradual fatigue).
 
Very, very few people could get the best performance from either of them, which makes comparisons like this entirely theoretical.
You've also got to factor in how well the bikes will perform when they're mechanically at less than peak performance. People who buy a bike like Lance's forget that when he rides a bike, there's a van following him which contains an identical one and an army of crack cycle mechanics.
 
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?
 
Back
Top