Vintage versus modern bikes - a scientific comparison

I stumbled across this interesting article on the internet comparing a modern bike (Lapierre with Ultegra) against a top of the range bike from 25 years ago (Pinarello with Super Record).

Quite a scientific comparison using ten decent riders and power data as well as a more subjective comparison.

Worth a read now all you hipsters are building up vintage road bikes!

http://www.fredericgrappe.com/media/revues/manipvelo.pdf

nice one, look forward to reading the download

Hah, I'm loving the SRM cranks on the Pinarello!

Also, if it's from 1983, why is he using modern clipless pedals?

oh but steel is real

is the comment i am waiting for some idiot to make

v clear that bikes have moved on, but hey if you want to impress hipsters at the pub feel free to build up a vintage bike

Titanium
Crabon
Alu
Steel

All good. They're bikes, ffs!

If you're 'hating on' anyone on a bike, you're missing the point. I'm not suggesting that we synthesise some kind of class consciousness based on our method of transport, but seriously, unless you're racing ... which I guess you James possibly, and illy defintely, are... but most of us ride for other reasons apart from beating someone to get to a certain place in the quickest time.

My latest, and possibly best, bike has ivy growing on it. Beat that. Better than all your fancy 11 speed titanium flippin gold cabled four grand bikes. To me.

Steel is real.

I read this in ProCycling when it was published last summer. Really enjoyed it.

Surprised nobody has posted it already though, for example me.

Yeah i noticed the stuff about TDV... bit late but hey, still interesting

I got 2010 fuji sl1 pro to do proper road cycling. Would never go steel from carbon for a bike used for that kind of thing. All the fixie/vintage thing is mainly for teh lols and a way to keep myself busy and poor.

1) Steel is real
2) If you care about these things, how you go vs. your chums is mostly NOT about the bike....... it's more about how well you chose your parents, training etc

3) how cheap you can get DynEPO

so it basically comes down to 19 seconds.
my current build with a 7 speed ultegra groupset and a 90's raleigh frame will cost a total of 350 pound.
or i could spend 1000 pound on some carbon plastic something and gain those seconds.
mine personally will be the steel frame with the steal price.
the good thing is the choice is yours.

Now we need a scientific study of vintage vs modern riders.
I am vintage, slow and heavy. I wouldn't buy a carbon bling road bike because it would be completely wasted on me. I'll stick to buying bikes of all kinds because they are pretty and riding them because they are fun.

Where's Edscoble when you need him? FFS!

so it basically comes down to 19 seconds.

No it doesn't. Try reading the article. Try looking at the ratings.

One of their main grievances about the old bikes was flexiness.

This can actually add a lot to the comfort, I have a 653 frame which is super flexy. But very very comfortable, its almost like suspension going over potholes.

Would probably get unerving bombing down a big descent. But for riding in the city its just great.

People also have the option of mixing and matching. A lot of peoples old steel builds I see here have modern brakes, pedals & shifters.

i read the article sir, i even looked at the pictures.
i would agree that that there are certain subjective elements to it that conclude the modern bike is better but what do most people want? in my opinion speed.
my last sentence from the previous post would also conclude that no bike is either right or wrong.
the ratings regarding handling, stiffness and comfort are clear cut in their results but the results below them suggest that with the exception of time both perform to a similar level.

Increased speed doesn't just come from reducing frame flex and frame weight.

Better handling = less braking = faster riding.

oh but steel is real

is the comment i am waiting for some idiot to make

v clear that bikes have moved on, but hey if you want to impress hipsters at the pub feel free to build up a vintage bike

Steel is real. . . cheap; well it was anyway - I mean before there was the bike boom of recent years [nb I'm not taking on the hipster "I was into it before it was cool" rhetoric] you could get a decent steel roadbike for pretty cheap, maybe sub £100, and for that money it would ride very well and to be honest if you look in the right places you'll still get decent bang for your buck.

Comparing a 30 year old bike to a modern one has yielded pretty obvious results but it still doesn't rule out steel - if money is no object of course you're going to go carbon or whatever but if you're just a Sunday rider with more time than cash and aren't a serious competitor there's absolutely nothing wrong with an older steel bike IMO.

Also don't see anything wrong with someone wanting to buy/build and then ride a period correct bike where aesthetics/history take precedent over performance - maybe they enjoy the bike more for those reasons and it's still a better hobby than sitting in front of the telly.

tl;dr - of course carbon is better but it's expensive, innit.

Bikes are cool.

Yep, cheap old steel for me..

lugged if you must..

Also, there's a 15cm difference in height between the shortest and the tallest test driver. How are you going to test any bike that doesn't fit you.

Check the trest riders - Mickael Jeannin = Jonnyrau?

Steel bikes will always be faster than others. Especially if they are red or blue. There, that's saved a whole heap of paper and .pdf's.

mmmmnnn..........Old, red and steel.

You can keep your carbon.....although Ti is nice