|
|
| Author |
Message |
DIFFO
Yahoo User
|
 Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 8:25 pm Post subject: Why does a 20 year old steal track fixed road bike go faster and feel better than a $3000 aluminum bike? |
 |
|
| Has twenty years of development in cycling made any real difference for our mid range bikes.I personly think it hasent ,allthough the new bike is a normal road bike with gears ,but the components are all ultraga. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Lolleez
Yahoo User
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 8:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| you like your 20 yr old one better because you've had 20 more years on it than the new one. can't get enough carbon imo... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
McG
Yahoo User
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 8:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| What I like about my 37 yr old Reynolds 531 steel frame over my 1 yr old aluminum/carbon bike is the feel. The steel frame has more flex and is forgiving. You can see the fork flex under braking. My old bike has DuraAce cranks but they were 170 back in the day, now they are 175. Does 5 mm make a difference? I don't know, but that old 5 speed freewheel and 52/42 combination still gets me up and down the hills. On long rides I still take my new bike, because -- well the other is 37 yrs old, LOL. It's just one of those things. The old bike I guess is semi-retired now. But when I want to remember what a whippy frame and tubulars are like, I jump on and go for 20 miles or so. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Max
Yahoo User
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 8:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Your used to the old one. Same with me, I could jump my old bike way better than my new bike. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dtewsacrificial
Yahoo User
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 8:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| You comparison is invalid. It's like trying to compare a '70s-era formula car with a current-era sports car and proclaiming that cars haven't gotten any better over the years.Try comparing that 20-year-old steel track fixie to a modern-day track fixie. At the same time, try comparing that modern road bike to a 20-year-old road bike.Besides, by limiting your comparison to track bikes/road bikes, you are deliberately focusing on the most conservative (some would argue artificially so) niche of cycling. Look at mountain biking and you will see that a current-day full-suspension bike outclasses one built only 3 years ago, not just in suspension performance, but drivetrain performance, component reliability, and more. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ride!Urban
Yahoo User
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 11:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I agree that it's a hard comparison to make, but I'll take a stab at some things that come to mind. Steel has a nice feel to the ride....no denying that! Aluminum is harsh by comparison.....even the new designs that supposedly create some flex-cush are still pretty stiff.If your track bike has 27" wheels, that can make a noticeable difference in the bike, too. 700c became the defacto standard, but 27" is a tad larger and you can feel the difference on most road surfaces. Combine that with a compliant steel frame, and the ride just feels nice!Even a steel track bike will probably be lighter in weight than a modern aluminum geared bike. It's also quieter......the almost silent transmission of a singlespeed drivetrain is a pleasure to sit above.Another really important factor is the frame geometry. Track bikes are aggressive and zippy. Sport or racing road frames aren't as responsive (but they're more comfortable for the long haul, for most riders). Heck yes 20 years of improvement has made a difference in bikes! That said, the big changes have had not-so-big effects in the overall picture of "a bike". Indexed shifting and clipless pedals are the biggies.....then come dual-control shifters, frame materials, and lightweight wheels. Small advances in braking are a really nice thing, too! Threadless stems? I think they just made bikes uglier, but they sure are nice to work on. Consider this, though.....frame geometry, derailleurs, cranks, gears, bottom brackets, headsets, saddles, etc. have all been tweaked into nicer or more efficient products, but they haven't changed that much in original design for many decades! So you DO have a point!  ) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
phoster
Yahoo User
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 3:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| there is a saying steel is real. i believe it. all i can say is ride a steel bike for a time, and you will never want another. i have a steel bike and will buy another when the time comes. steel combines strength and comfort in a way nothing else seems to. i hate alluminum, too harsh. carbon is dead. it has no life to it. i havent tried titanium, but at those prices i would still opt for steel. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
silverbullet
Yahoo User
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sign up for a time trial series. First race, take your old bike, second race take the new one. All questions will be answered.I like riding a '50's era cruiser on the Newport Beach boardwalk, but that doesn't make it a better bike. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sfr1224
Yahoo User
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 6:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| All good points mentioned, so far. I would also like to mention an old fixie feels faster and better for several reasons.First of all, with no cassette, hub, brakes, cables, shifters, or derailleurs, I suspect if you weigh your old fixie and your road bike you'll find the fixie is lighter. Since it is easier to accelerate a lighter bike than a heavier bike, the fixie feels more responsive and fasterSecondly, a fixie doesn't have all of the energy robbing drive train components of a road bike. Regardless of whether your road bike has Ultegra or the crappiest of components, the fixie has no pawls to engage in the hub. The chain line of the fixie is always perfect; there is no twisting and flexing of the chain. There are no jockey wheels in the derailleur to add friction. There aren't even derailleurs to rub and be out of alignment. There are no gobs of extra chain to take up. Thus, when you put the power to the pedals it is instantaneously transmitted to the wheel, with a minimum of parasitic drag.Finally, most of the time we only consider wheels when thinking abour rotational mass. Remember a cassette, hub and crankset are rotating mass, as well. A reduction in rotational mass has a bigger effect on acceleration than a reduction of fixed mass. Thus, removing weight from the crankset, hub and cassette has a big effect on the response of the bike.I think it would be real interesting to know how your old track bike stands up against a modern track bike. Would there be enough difference in weight and especially rotational mass to make a tangible difference??Hope this helps. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mirageguitarworks
Yahoo User
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 9:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hm. It IS a tough comparison.If both bikes were equipped exactly the same and the only difference was the frame/fork there is no question that the steel bike rides better. Steel has the near perfect combination of weight vs. comfort vs. strength.Regarding weight, comparing high end frames, steel will almost always be lighter than aluminum and comparable to titanium. Those that love CF, Ti, and aluminum may remark on this AFTER doing their research  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
coreykeizer
Yahoo User
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 11:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steel is the Cadillac of frame building materials. pliable, soft subtle. Aluminum is like the Porsche, rigid, stiff and fast. Steel is going to give you a more comfortable plush ride, especially on longer rides. However it's swimmy and typically not as responsive as Aluminum. Aluminum is going to give you better pedal to wheel power transfer and better acceleration both in the sprints and when climbing |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Register
Log in
Powered by Yahoo! Answers