Old v/s Modern bikes

[Vapin' Joe]

I've never bothered about what material a frame is made of as long as it's not cheap crap. They all have their merits and drawbacks, if they fit well they're nice to ride.

 

[Blue Hills]

Old steel frames can be had quite cheap, even 531, and still ride well. I have returned to all steel for my 26" tourer, a rather old Trek 950, a lugged MTB frame with quite similar geometry to the Trek 520, with 1 1/8 True Temper Cro-Moly tubing, double butted. I don't think Trek has taken that much trouble with a steel MTB since.

Yes and if it's for touring a few scratches hardly matter.

I recently converted my bought-new (but economically end of line) beautiful Reynolds steel 26 inch Ridgeback Adventure exped bike into an old bike by leaning it fully loaded against a concrete post only to see it slip, ding the frame slightly and scratching the paint up most of the top tube. At first a bit gutted, I have roughly painted it over and protected it and just ride on.

 

[Vapin' Joe]

Yes and if it's for touring a few scratches hardly matter.

 

[rogerzilla]

I prefer the old ones but, for a stupidly hilly fast ride, I'd take the 17lb carbon thing. It's ugly and noisy and not all that plush, but 5lb less uphill makes it worth it.

 

[galaxy]

Not much point me having a light weight bike. I’m 3 stone overweight.

 

[EltonFrog]

Good morning,

I certainly agree that older bikes can be great to ride, although I wouldn't want go back as far as the

https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/bsa-tour-de-france.239856/

BSA restoration thread.

I had a similar bike as a youth, a Raleigh Shadow, same frame, brakes and wheels but 5 speed, this was during the period that Raleigh, BSA, Sun, Carlton etc were all just different paint jobs.

For years I have avoided progress and mostly ride a 531 steel/downtube shifters era machine, but 6 months ago I was tempted by a lonely looking used full carbon/Di2 jobbie.

I really wanted to see what I was missing, I now happily swap between the two, the lighter frame is a noticeable improvement but I am equally happy with the steel frame, but Di2 is a genuine, real upgrade, for me at least.

The ease of changing gear for just a few seconds as I go down a dip and then back up again means that I ride faster but with less rests.

Although I can't imagine it ever being Shimano's intention, changing onto the small chainring when approaching a busy roundabout and then changing back up even before leaving the roundabout is a real nice way to negotiate it without being knocked off by impatient cars. :-)

The sad thing is that the only real improvement, for my type of riding, is the also the most expensive, carbon frames and steel frames are pretty much on par price wise. Clipless and toe clip pedal are also similar prices assuming you believe that clipless is an improvement. :-)

Di2 requires at least Ultegra components, as there is no sign of Di2 105. :-(

As a piece of useless info; a couple of years ago I put a new Ultegra front mech on the steel bike, when they introduced the long pivot arm, and it is a really fast change with downtube shifters and may be worth considering for your Peugoet if you use both chain rings often.

Bye

Ian

I don’t know what relevance the TdF link has to the thread . Would you care to clarify?

 

[IanSmithCSE]

Good morning,

I don’t know what relevance the TdF link has to the thread . Would you care to clarify?

For me there is a point where old steel bikes are best left in the past, the TdF thread was intended as link to the type of steel bike that for me was something that I was pleased to upgrade away from.

Excluding the bottom end of the market by the 1980s non alloy steel frames, steel rimmed wheels, steel chainsets and racing half guards had mostly been replaced by alloy steels (501/531) frames and alloy 700c wheels and alloy chainsets.

During the 1980s I had both a Raleigh Record Sprint 501 and a Raleign Gran Sport 531 main tubes and Campag Nouvo Gran Sport, these are incomparable with a Raleigh Shadow/BSA Tdf.

Yet the Raleigh Record Sprint was inflation adjusted cheaper than the Raleigh Shadow/BSA Tdf.

Bye

Ian

 

[Blue Hills]

Can someone educate me about the downsides of steel chainsets?

 

[rogerzilla]

Cottered chainsets, which cover most solid steel chainsets, are are the work of Satan. The pins often either work loose on the road, or are seized when you need to service the BB. With careful fitting, these problems are minimised but few people or bike shops have a cotter press nowadays, or can be bothered to file pins for the optimum fit.

Solid steel cranks are plenty stiff enough but weigh a ton. Ashtabula one-piece cranks avoid the cotter pin problem, but the BBs are badly sealed and they are even heavier.

Some very good hollow steel chainsets have been made, e.g. Tioga Revolver and Cook Bros (for MTBs). These weren't cottered.

 

[Drago]

I prefer the old ones but, for a stupidly hilly fast ride, I'd take the 17lb carbon thing. It's ugly and noisy and not all that plush, but 5lb less uphill makes it worth it.

That's not even a consideration for me - when you weight 267lbs, 5lb less on the bike is utterly unnoticeable!

 

[Vapin' Joe]

Can someone educate me about the downsides of steel chainsets?

They don't do the job any better than aluminium chainsets and the weigh more.

 

[Blue Hills]

They don't do the job any better than aluminium chainsets and the weigh more.

I had the idea that steel might last longer, and hence sometimes used on certain rings?

Not true?

 

[Blue Hills]

I prefer the old ones but, for a stupidly hilly fast ride, I'd take the 17lb carbon thing. It's ugly and noisy and not all that plush, but 5lb less uphill makes it worth it.

Why noisy?

Yes I do find some modern bikes verging on ugly - sometimes remind me of some 70s hotwheels cars trying too hard to impress. Or some contemporary supercars - sometimes seen growling round London.

And though I am no patterned lug fetishist (don't much care about lugs) better not get me onto some of the god awful welding you see on some modern bikes - always makes me think of the tanks the soviets chucked out of their factories in WW2 to be hurled into the front where aesthetics meant nowt.

 

[Alan O]

I prefer the old ones but, for a stupidly hilly fast ride, I'd take the 17lb carbon thing. It's ugly and noisy and not all that plush, but 5lb less uphill makes it worth it.

For a stupidly hilly fast ride, I'd choose a different cyclist

 

[rogerzilla]

My carbon bike is noisy because the big hollow "tubes" amplify cable slap and any other mechanical noise. It's a bit like the soundbox of a guitar.