Vintage looks, contemporary performance

Trickle down the wind.
Trickle down economics.

Something like that.

taking this to simply mean a steel bike.... i would go with a Waterford, Seven, IF or something along those lines .

Been lusting over these of late myself.
For better VFM though (IMHO).

Curtlo
http://www.curtlo.com/

Gunnar
http://gunnarbikes.com/site/

Strong frames
http://www.strongframes.com/

These all have their appeal, but if I was UK based. I'd be going for a more local builder. Which brings us back to Rouke, Yates, Goff etc.

I dont want to further promote the 'steel is a vintage' material idea. Its just that the same design of frame with custom paint in a material like Ti or Carbon is bloody expensive.

My first chioce for a Audax bike would be a OS 853 frame from one of the above builders, with fittings for full guards + a rear rack, and longish chain stays. Couple that with a carbon fork and the finishing kit + groupo of your chioce. Job jobbed.

I dont want to further promote the 'steel is a vintage' material idea. Its just that the same design of frame with custom paint in a material like Ti or Carbon is bloody expensive.

Actually there are some resonable Ti offerings around.

Actually there are some resonable carbon offerings around.

In fact. Shutit Smallfurry!

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

"FROM THE OFF, there’s little doubt about which bike the riders prefer. “I had to fight the bike the whole way up the climb!” Jeannin gasps, looking rather wound up as he hands back the Pinarello. Subsequent riders get even more emotional. “It’s nil! Worth nothing! Zero!” spits Morgan Kneisky."

but yeah this article is about old steel bikes not modern ones.

The results were unequivocal. The riders hated 90s technology and were faster on their 21st century bikes.

Downtube shifters et al may have worked 20 years ago, and may work now for the majority of us here, however, they are not effective or adequate for those wanting to go fast.

Non sequitur. Of course you can go fast on old-style bikes, you're just faster on new-style bikes. :)

Have you owned one?

Ignore me.

if money was no object:

I really dislike the look of that Wound-up fork. Doesnt match the reat of the tubing at all. Maybe its just me, but I'm not keen on the fork having smaller diameter tubing than the headtube.

Like this

Sometimes it can look good:

http://static.lfgss.com/attachments/20212d1263767557-montana_track.jpg

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

"FROM THE OFF, there’s little doubt about which bike the riders prefer. “I had to fight the bike the whole way up the climb!” Jeannin gasps, looking rather wound up as he hands back the Pinarello. Subsequent riders get even more emotional. “It’s nil! Worth nothing! Zero!” spits Morgan Kneisky."

but yeah this article is about old steel bikes not modern ones.

awesome article. Interesting how they play the improvement of gear against supposed doping in attributing higher average speed.

awesome article. Interesting how they play the improvement of gear against supposed doping in attributing higher average speed.

Ah, but the technology behind detecting doping has increased at the same rate as the technology behind doping. To there's been a nice expensive balance there.

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

"FROM THE OFF, there’s little doubt about which bike the riders prefer. “I had to fight the bike the whole way up the climb!” Jeannin gasps, looking rather wound up as he hands back the Pinarello. Subsequent riders get even more emotional. “It’s nil! Worth nothing! Zero!” spits Morgan Kneisky."

but yeah this article is about old steel bikes not modern ones.

That article has been debunked by Bicycle Quarterly.

the key in point is that the steel bicycle were too small for the rider, whether the modern one fit them perfectly.

will scan in the article today.

The Pegoretti Marcelo with reynolds ouzo fork was the closest to modern bike performance in steel that I have ridden. He is said to have made the pro team frames in the 90s which were resprayed with sponsor paint jobs. I guess it was back in the days when tubeshapes and frame detailing was less recognisable by internet geekery.

I really like nice steel bikes but can not see why you would buy a lugged steel frame for propper road use these days. The price of a decent tube-set puts you in to the realm of a really well developed modern frame that can tune comfort and stiffness to the riders needs (fibre orientation/ tube flaring) The marcelo was a great bike to try (in 2006 or 2007) but even then you could get much stiffer (power transmission) and more comfortable frames for less.

I am slightly hypocritical as I have recently bought a new track frame from mercian but its still hard to reconcile the cost with the performance. I love it for its craft and simplicity but even next to a stock alu OTP it will flex like a noodle. In summary if its your only road bike go for something that will let you go for another 50 miles with less effort. For the same price as a new custom steel road frame you could respray one of the hundreds of beautifully crafted second hand frames and finish it in your choice. Then with the rest you can build up a really good modern road bike for anything other than pootling about.

Ah, but the technology behind detecting doping has increased at the same rate as the technology behind doping. To there's been a nice expensive balance there.

That makes sense-would be nice to think that it wasn't the case though ;(

there was a good feature in the times last weekend about the technology of bike design-anyone see it?

I've never had a new steel frame (or carbon for that matter)- I had an alu/carbon Wilier which I liked a lot but nowhere near as much as my nago master-so much nicer to ride and its just got an aura about it which is hard to match. Sadly it may be getting jettisoned as i'm skint and will be down to one beater roadie and my fixed till i find a decent job ;(

if buying new i've got to say I'd be going for Ti or Carbon as my primary bike then getting something high grade vintage steel as opposed to new just for the pleasure of it when i can.

As this post is based around performance I would think you need to ride a high performance modern bike and an older style steel thing (even with quill) back to back to see how noticeable it is for you at your performance level and if it is noticeable whether it actually matters/is worth bothering about.
If you are are not racing on it then what is a few seconds over an hour. Can't imagine that would be noticed without a stopwatch.

You may well have done that so ignore me but thought it was worth pointing out.

Sometimes it can look good:

have you got an example?

I'd personally go for a bob jackson/mercian/rourke etc audax setup in 853 os if you can stretch to it (fillet brazed or lugged whichever), and maybe put on a columbus carbon fork and 'classic looking' silver parts... then with decent hubs and open pros and a campagnolo groupset you'd have a really nice bike.
Pretty pricey though..

As this post is based around performance I would think you need to ride a high performance modern bike and an older style steel thing (even with quill) back to back to see how noticeable it is for you at your performance level and if it is noticeable whether it actually matters/is worth bothering about.
If you are are not racing on it then what is a few seconds over an hour. Can't imagine that would be noticed without a stopwatch.

You may well have done that so ignore me but thought it was worth pointing out.

I dont think speed is the real factor here.

I think you can ride a relativly noodle-like bike, just as quickly as a uber stiff one. In fact on longer rides the more flexible one might leave you feeling fresher and able to ride faster. Unless your chain stays are getting warm, all your energy is going to forward motion. It just doesnt feel fast, and the feeling is what we really want.

For me front end stiffness is massively improved by a 1 1/8" ahead stem set-up.

That article has been debunked by Bicycle Quarterly.

the key in point is that the steel bicycle were too small for the rider, whether the modern one fit them perfectly.

will scan in the article today.

the modern is 55 and old one 54. Dunno about the geometry on either one, but as the riders are 173cm - 184cm I find it quite hard to belive 55 fits each one of them a lot better than 54. Or is it something about the geometry? I'm not that expert on geo of old steel bikes so dunno.

Anyway, if the biggest concern is about the flex on the steel bike (and the obvious diffrence in weight) how come a bigger steel bike would made all better and flex less?

I'll scan in the article when I get back home, it's an interesting read either way.

for a bit less money then the moots you could get a burls frame for less then £1000. was looking at them at the bikeshow and they seam like a good deal.
if i were in the market for a new bike I would probably get a burls or an enigma. they seam like great frames for the money

burls

if money was no object:

The Pegoretti Marcelo with reynolds ouzo fork was the closest to modern bike performance in steel that I have ridden. He is said to have made the pro team frames in the 90s which were resprayed with sponsor paint jobs. I guess it was back in the days when tubeshapes and frame detailing was less recognisable by internet geekery.

indurains tour winning pegoretti pinarello and my duende.
the similarities are obvious, dropped top tube/head tube extension and oversise down tube the same diameter as the head tube.

Did a club training ride this morning, and swapped the Cinelli with a Sienna. Come swap back time, the comment was "Never again - I paid over 3 grand for that thing, and you have just ****ing ruined the experience".

The Sienna was nice mind. Just not THAT£ nice by a long way.

recommend steve goff

http://www.colnago.com/bikes/2011/master-x-light