Is the New Stuff Really Better???

I agree with a lot of what you are saying. Even back in the early 90's, when bridgestone was taking some different tacts than the mainstream industry (spec'ing individual components vs. shimano STI groupo, friction shifters vs. STI, not going full bore on suspension, lugged steel w/tried-and-true geometry, etc.), I learned to respect Grant Peterson's approach. Yes it drove Bridgestone USA out of the bicycling industry, but when he started Riv the approach lived on virtually unchanged. I still have my '93 MB1 (had an MB0 too) and love it, it's feel on a non-technical trail is unrivaled by any of the new stuff.

That said I still have an uncontrollable weakness to carbon fibre, high tech, eye candy. 😉 Thank god there isn't a limit of 1 bike per human. And I think the two schools of thought can co-exist happily.

(That said, the wanna be on the Madone with his beer gut hanging down to the TT will always crack me up too.)

I guess it depends on what you mean by better. When you get right down to it, anything with two wheels and some pedals will get the job done. I have no trouble with a lot of the new developments in technology. I like being able to shift and brake at the same time with my Ergo levers, and my new carbon fork is a lot less buzzy than my old aluminum one. The thing that gets me is the arbitrary changes in standards. When I was riding a seven speed, there wasn't a split second when I thought I wanted more gears. I believe the only reason why manufacturers are specing 1 1/8" steeres is because it makes it easier to attach an oversized down tube to the head tube. So to answer the question, sort of but not always.

I think that it all depends on what your goals are too. For short rides and toodling around just about anything will do, but if you really want to go faster or farther it makes a difference.

I recently purchased a new bike because of reach problems. I'd had the old bike forever (well about 12 years, a Trek 1200) and had resisted getting a new *fancy* bike for a long time. After all there wasn't anything wrong with my old bike right? -at least until I started having shoulder problems. Well, let me tell you the new bike is like having been set free. It's not the lightest, most expensive, most tricked out bike you can own - aluminium/carbon fiber women's Fuji Provence, but in the three months I've owned it I've become fitter and faster than I ever thought possible with the old bike and it is fun! I really do ride more and enjoy it more. First I could keep up with a lot of the the guys, now I can pass them....
what I really like about the new bike:

weight: sure its not the lightest bike out there, but it weighs about 5lbs less than my old steel one and when you only weigh 105 lbs it makes a bigger proportional difference than if you weigh 190 and take off 5lbs

ergo shifters: when I had to reach down to shift it put more stress on the already bad shoulder and I was less likely to do it in any situation that was at all dicey - now I can shift whenever I want without having to remove hands from handelbars. It has helped me to become a better climber and helped take stress off of my knees as I shift more appropriately and more often now.

Modern saddle with vent/pressure relief hole: (ok I got this a while ago before the new bike) I would never never never give this up, much comfort - wouldn't want to go 5 miles on an old style saddle.

That said I do agree with meehs and RC2, its silly to buy more bike than you can live up to, but dusting fat guys riding Madones is fun for me so I kind of hope they don't stop buying them and then acting cocky about it.

Also a Rivendell may be lower tech, very pretty, and made for comfort, but it isn't exactly cheap. A Rivendell frame alone costs much more than I spent on my entire bike.

Eden said:

...Also a Rivendell may be lower tech, very pretty, and made for comfort, but it isn't exactly cheap. A Rivendell frame alone costs much more than I spent on my entire bike.

That's a very good point. Actually you made a few good points. Rivendells aren't cheap! But you can ride using the "Rivendell philosophy" without buying one of their frames. Also if you do buy a Rivendell outfitted with "Rivendell Recommended" parts, it's still cheaper than the $5000 Madones and the like that you see around. The parts they recommend are for the most part cheap and simple. Their frames are somewhat expensive (especially the customs). But using the Riv philosophy, it might be the last frame you ever buy. God, I sound like a Riv salesperson. They should hire me!

RC2 said:

I agree with a lot of what you are saying. Even back in the early 90's, when bridgestone was taking some different tacts than the mainstream industry (spec'ing individual components vs. shimano STI groupo, friction shifters vs. STI, not going full bore on suspension, lugged steel w/tried-and-true geometry, etc.), I learned to respect Grant Peterson's approach. Yes it drove Bridgestone USA out of the bicycling industry, but when he started Riv the approach lived on virtually unchanged. I still have my '93 MB1 (had an MB0 too) and love it, it's feel on a non-technical trail is unrivaled by any of the new stuff.

That said I still have an uncontrollable weakness to carbon fibre, high tech, eye candy. 😉 Thank god there isn't a limit of 1 bike per human. And I think the two schools of thought can co-exist happily.

(That said, the wanna be on the Madone with his beer gut hanging down to the TT will always crack me up too.)

I had a Bridgestone RB2 back when Grant was heading-up Bridgestone USA. It was the first "good" road bike that I ever bought. It's still in the family. I sold it to my brother and now one of my brother-in-laws has it. It still performs well! I admire Grant Peterson for sticking to what he beleives in rather than kowtowing to industry trends.

I hear you RC2. I'm trying to rid myself of my need for the latest gear and my predilection for high end carbon components. I guess this thread was in some way an effort to profess my new-found beleifs! :o

I'm actually thinking of selling the C'dale and building-up a Rivendell Atalantis to use as my geared bike. Making the full conversion to the Rivendell way so to speak. I've only been riding the C'Dale for about a year though!

Meehs : I don't buy "newer equipment is better" concept at all.

Carbon frame, titanium this-that-t'other : I think we're been enticed to buy stuff that is not necessary.
Yeah, I bought my Krysium wheels a few years back - but I reverted to my aluminium wheels.

I haven't bought a new frame in 10 years : I cycle my bikes and maintain them
myself.
I have three bikes : Pinarello, Bianchi and Raleigh.
They're all aluminium bikes (apart from carbon forks on the Raleigh).
They're all durable and they never give me any trouble.

From an aesthetic viewpoint, as these frames age and newer fads come and go, my bikes have taken on a retro look to them and some fellow cyclists admire the machines that I ride on.

there are some who will always say "the best stuff has already been made", probably depends on when they started getting into it as much as anything...

and when i started 23lb steel bikes where ridden in a way that hurt me, just trying to hang. i remember the dude on the heavy steel whitcomb who would not tow me to the break, and i was in no man's land, contemplating the superiority of my newer bike.

now if you'll excuse me, i must further plan the next lusty bike...

meehs said:

Over the last few months I've been riding a Rivendell Quickbeam single-speed more than any other bike. Up until now, I've been just as guilty of "lusting" after the newest, coolest parts as anyone else. What do you all think about this?

I have been riding a road bike for about 18 years. IMHO, the only technologies that are an improvement are the integrated shift/brake levers and clipless pedals. People swear to me that the threadless headsets are superior, but frankly I found my old quill stems to work just as well as my newer threadless ones. Newer bikes are certainly lighter, but I'm not sure I'd say better. It's hard to look at my '91 Pinarello with it's lugged frame, chrome accents and etched designs and think of it as inferior to the newer tig welded aluminum frame that sits next to it. The old Pinarello still rides pretty well too...

meehs said:

I'm actually thinking of selling the C'dale and building-up a Rivendell Atalantis to use as my geared bike. Making the full conversion to the Rivendell way so to speak.

That'd be cool for sure. But one thing I've learned over the years with bikes [this isn't a guitar forum, but the same lesson reinforces this] -- it's ok to be moody. My MB1/0's kept the garage clean gathering dust for a year here and there as I rode the latest bling, but as I've grown up I've come to appreciate them more and more and now the MB1 is my fave MTB (that said I'm 90% roadie). Glad I didn't sell it to finance the latest bling in road bikes, could have done that several times in the last ten years and would have looked back w/the benefit of hindsight on a bad decision. That said, I wouldn't kick a Record equipped colnago C50 out of bed for eating crackers. Bottom line is follow your passion, but don't jump ship if it changes tomorrow!

PeterF said:

The old Pinarello still rides pretty well too...

Hmm... would you rather take a 20 mile ride on Marylin Manroe or Britany Spears, same difference and I'd probably ride the former. :o If it was an available option............back to the burger line...

I have both and a bike that is a half breed of old and new. I like sealed berings and stainless spokes, better breaks, good tires that are not sew ups, clippless pedals. Still have a friction shifter and it never has been adjusted since install. My record derailuer shifted as well as anything made today. I think the bike industry is just that an industry. It must come out with better stuff each year to support itself. The local bike shop must sell it to support themselves. I stopped getting bike mags because I just felt they were one big advertisement to by new stuff. If you buy into it then you need to spend $$$$. I personally don't. My more modern campy works as well as my 30 year old stuff. Do I really need 10 speeds its really not a huge jump from 9. Is it enough to justify buying all new components? That is something for each to decide. Then again I don't feel the need to drive a fancy car either. Its about riding and loving. I could do it on a 20 dollar bike frankly. I just don't get that kind of satisfaction out or shaving 3 oz of my bike weight.

You know... a lot of it is just so much [censored] designed to seperate you from your dollar.

As far as road bike improvements over the past 10 years.... wheels. The new high tension uber-light wheels are really really nice. The chubby large diameter handlebars are pretty nice too. Aside from that despite all of the marketing noise and the local bike dealers pushing the latest load of hardware there really isn't a performance difference between a good bike 1990 bike and a good 2005 bike.

Now mountain bikes are a whole different game. There have been vast improvements over the last ten years in mountain biking most of it centered around suspension technology. A lot of the technology developed for motorcycles has been scaled to bicycles and found it's way into the mountain bike market. Check out some of the suspension goods from Fox amasing stuff. Ditto the suspension framesets. You'll see rising rate linkages (Litespeed Niota) that look like miniature motorcross setups. Tubeless tires, disk brakes, integrated shifter, brake levers (Shimano XTR).

With that said any new technology goes though a period of chaos, followed by rapid improvement, consolodation and finally slow measured evolution. I think the mountain bike technology has matured to the point (with XC bikes anyway - don't follow the downhill and hucker stuff much) that it's in the slow evolution phase now. I don't think you're going to see a lot of radical advances over the next 10 years as the previous 10. Thats my bet anyway.

My .02

meehs said:

It seems like the bicycling industry keeps coming out with the "latest and greatest" gear for us to spend our money on and we just eat it up. For the vast majority of us, all of this new gear is not only not necessary, it doesn't really do much (if anything) to improve our performance or comfort! I guess I can see wanting the lightest and most efficient parts if you're a competetive racer but that's about it. I really don't mean to sound like a Rivendell spokesperson but I've come to realize that fatter tires, fenders, simpler, easier to repair parts and a more upright riding position make tons of sense for probably 80%-90% of cyclists out there. Even though it may initially look a bit dorky.

Up until now, I've been just as guilty of "lusting" after the newest, coolest parts as anyone else. What do you all think about this?

Thats actually a neat irony of riding an old frame. My old nakid Ti frame with external cable routes and classic lines gets more comments than all of the new bikes in the pack combined.

So as long as there isn't a performance difference why change?

limerickman said:

From an aesthetic viewpoint, as these frames age and newer fads come and go, my bikes have taken on a retro look to them and some fellow cyclists admire the machines that I ride on.

Let me amend my previous statement. The threadless headsets, esp Chris Kings are a godsend. I love them from a maint perspective and I like the stiffer feel of the larger diameter stem and bars.

However... from a performance point of view it's meaningless.

I agree that STI was the single best improvement to cycling in my lifetime.

PeterF said:

I have been riding a road bike for about 18 years. IMHO, the only technologies that are an improvement are the integrated shift/brake levers and clipless pedals. People swear to me that the threadless headsets are superior, but frankly I found my old quill stems to work just as well as my newer threadless ones. Newer bikes are certainly lighter, but I'm not sure I'd say better. It's hard to look at my '91 Pinarello with it's lugged frame, chrome accents and etched designs and think of it as inferior to the newer tig welded aluminum frame that sits next to it. The old Pinarello still rides pretty well too...

Not really... I weighed a new all carbon Dura-Ace Trek Project One bike against my late 1980s Sandvik/Fuji Ti road bike and my bike weighed 17.9lbs and the Trek Project One (without pedals) weighed 17.6. Add pedals to the Trek and it's dead even with my 17yo bike.

With that said everything besides the frame and fork on my bike is the latest stuff. Race X Lite wheels, Ti rail saddle, bontrager fatty bars + stem, Dura-Ace 9 speed, etc etc.

PeterF said:

Newer bikes are certainly lighter, but I'm not sure I'd say better. It's hard to look at my '91 Pinarello with it's lugged frame, chrome accents and etched designs and think of it as inferior to the newer tig welded aluminum frame that sits next to it. The old Pinarello still rides pretty well too...

RC2 said:

That'd be cool for sure. But one thing I've learned over the years with bikes [this isn't a guitar forum, but the same lesson reinforces this] -- it's ok to be moody. My MB1/0's kept the garage clean gathering dust for a year here and there as I rode the latest bling, but as I've grown up I've come to appreciate them more and more and now the MB1 is my fave MTB (that said I'm 90% roadie). Glad I didn't sell it to finance the latest bling in road bikes, could have done that several times in the last ten years and would have looked back w/the benefit of hindsight on a bad decision. That said, I wouldn't kick a Record equipped colnago C50 out of bed for eating crackers. Bottom line is follow your passion, but don't jump ship if it changes tomorrow!

You have a very good point there too RC2! It's possible that if I were to sell the C'Dale, that two years or so from now I'll be lusting after a new lightweight racer. One has to be careful to not make snap decisions that they'll later regret.

But after riding my Quickbeam for several months now (and not riding the C'dale at all), I'm not sure I can see myself ever really wanting to go back to the "racerboy" style. I'm in no hurry though so I'll wait a while and see if I feel the same way in a few months.

IronDonut said:

Let me amend my previous statement. The threadless headsets, esp Chris Kings are a godsend. I love them from a maint perspective and I like the stiffer feel of the larger diameter stem and bars.

However... from a performance point of view it's meaningless.

I agree that STI was the single best improvement to cycling in my lifetime.

I agree that CK headsets are the best made. But the threaded version works just as well as the threadless IMO. So, another relatively "new" advancement in cycling that really is nice are the sealed cartridge bearings like those used in the CK headsets and Shimano (and others) cartridge bottom brackets. Less maintenance is a good thing. So I guess there some "new things" that really are better.

I think the road side has been a really slow evolution where as the mountain bikes have undergone radical advancements.

I'm not a complete luddy. I have the best/newest components on my old frame. As stuff has worn out I've replaced it with really nice new hardware.

I love the Bontrager Race X Lite wheels. They do seem to have a durability issue with the hubs breaking apart. Don't know if that has been fixed or not.

meehs said:

I agree that CK headsets are the best made. But the threaded version works just as well as the threadless IMO. So, another relatively "new" advancement in cycling that really is nice are the sealed cartridge bearings like those used in the CK headsets and Shimano (and others) cartridge bottom brackets. Less maintenance is a good thing. So I guess there some "new things" that really are better.

When I compare my semi-state of the art ride - late 90's carbon Trek with Campy 10 and Zipp 404 tubulars, to a 70's vintage Falcon San Remo 76 I restored last year - Reynolds 531 lugged frame, Campy Nuovo Record, I don't find all that much difference.

The newer group has minor improvements - indexed shifters on the brake levers are easier to use, though I do note that a lot of pros use a downtube shifter on the front for climbing stages. 10 speeds instead of 6 gives you better fine tuning of your cadence, but not that much better. Weight difference? 3-4 pounds, and a good deal of that could be cut down if the Brooks Team Pro saddle were replaced with something more contemporary. Oh, that steel frame rides so nice, and is finished so beautifully.

The big difference, in fact the only substantial difference in performance, appears to be the wheelset, and that's most noticable when the speed rises above 30mph. Not just the old Falcon, but my riding partners with more conventional wheels on their contemporary road bikes (Trek 1500, Lemond BA, etc...) are cranking away on the downhills, while I'm coasting behind them and looking to pass.

Other than the space age Zipp wheels, the bikes are more or less in the same league. The other advantages - a couple of pounds of weight, a few more gears, quicker shifting, might gain you a bit of time over the course of a day's riding.

But that's the point - cycling is a game of seconds. The typical TDF covers over 80 hours of cycling in three weeks of stage races, yet a margin of victory of 5 minutes is considered a knockout. Anything that gains you a few seconds in a single stage could easily spell the difference between victory and defeat.

For those of us who ride for reasons other than competition, a state of the art bike is just personal jewelry. But, so what? I rather enjoy this type of personal jewelry.