Old v/s Modern bikes

Location
London
I was just getting in before @SkipdiverJohn rocked up :laugh:
Understood you the first time. Suggest you spare your paging, smileys and stick to paging yourself

Have learned more from john about bikes than I'll ever learn from you.

In the new year I'll be building up a frame that didn't come from a skip but was probably headed there if I hadn't bought it. I know it rides beautifully for I already have its twin. Also happens to be raleighnut's favourite bike I think.

On your bike.
 

MikeG

Guru
Location
Suffolk
.......I would say I cycle maybe 1 mph faster on average........... I still averaged a respectable 17 mph avg tonight on it.........
So you would average 18mph on your summer bike, and 17mph on your winter bike, roughly. You say this isn't a huge leap in performance, but it is actually a 6% difference. Over 100 miles, that's a 20 minute difference in time taken. Every mile you ride on your winter bike you fall 100 metres behind where you would have been on your summer bike. You might not think of that as substantial, but if you could ride against yourself on the two different bikes, you'd possibly see things a little differently.
 
Location
London
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.
Thanks for detailed reply roger. Expressed myself sloppily. I really meant chain-rings. No desire to go to cotter pins. Had such things as a child but never - thank god - had any need to do anything to them for my childhood tootling.
 
Steel chainrings have pros and cons.

Pros: long lasting, don't tend to develop burrs that mess up shifting or throw chains

Cons: heavy, rust if not stainless (stainless ones are expensive - Surly made some), can be quite thin which increases chain noise.
 

fossyant

Ride It Like You Stole It!
Location
South Manchester
There isn't much in it between my new road bike and the old bikes. The old bikes are very high spec though. The old steel bikes are more comfy. My Columbus SLX isn't flexy as it has 'rifled' tubes around the BB and head tube, but it 'zuzzes' out road imperfections better than the alloy and carbon bike.

Biggest differences these days are MTB's - that's where bikes have changed massively, and a modern 'trail' bike is a weapon compared to an old skool 90's MTB - absolutely no comparison.
 
Location
London
Steel chainrings have pros and cons.

Pros: long lasting, don't tend to develop burrs that mess up shifting or throw chains

Cons: heavy, rust if not stainless (stainless ones are expensive - Surly made some), can be quite thin which increases chain noise.
Wouldn't the oil on the chain, and general friction if the bike was well used, keep the rust at bay?
 
Sort of, but I still got some rust in winter from the salt.
 

MikeG

Guru
Location
Suffolk
I'd say that was pretty insignificant actually. 20 minutes over a 100 miles? Granted I never ride at anything even approaching the speeds you mention ............
Then for you, the difference would be significantly more. A 1mph difference in speed between, say, 10mph and 11mph would mean an hour later arrival on a 100 mile ride on the winter bike for the same effort.

My point is purely mathematical: 1mph isn't insignificant, whatever speed you cycle at, and the slower you go, the more significant it is.
 
Last edited:

MikeG

Guru
Location
Suffolk
..... I do disagree with with your maths ... (I think you need a percentage adjustment, not a fixed one)........
No, I was responding to the claim by the OP that his winter bike made him 1mph slower, and that this wasn't significant. I am showing that 1mph is significant, and more significant the slower you go.
 

Cuchilo

Prize winning member X2
Location
London
Understood you the first time. Suggest you spare your paging, smileys and stick to paging yourself

Have learned more from john about bikes than I'll ever learn from you.

In the new year I'll be building up a frame that didn't come from a skip but was probably headed there if I hadn't bought it. I know it rides beautifully for I already have its twin. Also happens to be raleighnut's favourite bike I think.

On your bike.
:laugh::laugh::laugh: Put your claws away sweetheart :laugh::laugh::laugh:
 

Alan O

Über Member
Location
Liverpool
So you would average 18mph on your summer bike, and 17mph on your winter bike, roughly. You say this isn't a huge leap in performance, but it is actually a 6% difference. Over 100 miles, that's a 20 minute difference in time taken. Every mile you ride on your winter bike you fall 100 metres behind where you would have been on your summer bike. You might not think of that as substantial, but if you could ride against yourself on the two different bikes, you'd possibly see things a little differently.
Whoa! I do a 100-mile charity ride once a year on my classic steel tourer, and it takes me all ****ing day! And now you're telling me I could save 20 minutes by getting a bike made from coal?! ^_^
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom