Olde Bike vs. New Bike

Piercemeear

Hi Folks,

Just a general question I have been wondering about lately, since doing slightly longer rides than usual on my old Peugeot.

Let's say I go out for a 50/60k spin with my friend. I'm cycling my late-'70s road bike, which I don't know the weight of, but it's heavy enough. It has, as you can see, a rack, mudguards, fixed lights, etc. Weighs plenty. Maybe one of you could estimate.

My friend is cycling a Boardman Hybrid which, according to the site, weighs approximately 9.6 kilos. Certainly feels light to me, you can pick it up with a finger or two.

The question is: How much more effort am I expending on that same 50k? Is that something we could put a percentage on?

I'm aware that the bikes are structurally different, one's a road bike, one's a hybrid. If it makes this thought exercise easier we could compare my bike to an equivalent weight modern aluminium road bike if you like.
Also let's assume we're the same weight for the purpose of this.

I guess all I'm really trying to do is compare effort required by a '70s road bike to a road bike made today, when you boil it down. Links to any reading appreciated.

Obviously this is triggered by me half-wondering if I should "upgrade".

Lumen

Piercemeear wrote: »

The question is: How much more effort am I expending on that same 50k? Is that something we could put a percentage on?

Procycling: Old vs new

A newer bike isn't necessarily an upgrade - you might hate it.

Raam

The Peugeot certainly looks nicer.

blorg

Your road bike will almost certainly be substantially faster than the hybrid, due to the more aerodynamic position.

Position matters a lot more than weight so a modern road bike would only make you marginally faster and then only up a hill.

Lumen

blorg wrote: »

a modern road bike would only make you marginally faster and then only up a hill.

According to that article I quoted a modern road bike descends faster due to the stiffer front end.

Obviously if you're out cycling with someone on a hybrid you're going to beat them downhill anyway.

Piercemeear

Lumen wrote: »

Procycling: Old vs new

A newer bike isn't necessarily an upgrade - you might hate it.

That's very interesting. I am of that frame of mind myself, with regards to the upgrade (pun absolutely intended).

While not a serious cyclist, I prefer the feel of the steel frame. And aesthetically — which is a shamefully big deal for me — most modern bikes tend to make me think of running shoes. I have trouble picturing anything uglier than running shoes.

Probably a small part of me was hoping that a new road bike half the weight would magically have me out doing 150k every Saturday morning. The answer lies within me, I suspect.

thebouldwhacker

Its a beaut of a bike, if you are concerned about weight you could remove the attachments for long spins. With a bike like this you have no reason not to go on longer spins. There is a reason these bikes are still admired today, cant imagine my Trek 1.2 being classed as a 'classic' in 20/30 years:rolleyes:...... though it is much much much lighter than the peugeot I use.

blorg

Piercemeear wrote: »

While not a serious cyclist, I prefer the feel of the steel frame. And aesthetically — which is a shamefully big deal for me — most modern bikes tend to make me think of running shoes. I have trouble picturing anything uglier than running shoes.

Lumen

Capt'n Midnight

if you are cycling on the flat then the weight of the bike isn't that big an issue

if using it for commuting then spending €999 on a bike means you will need to buy heavy locks so you will loose a lot of the weight advantage unless you can leave the bike indoors / keep a lock at the destination

for up hills

(Old bike - new bike) / (old bike + your weight + gear + water)

multiply by 100 to see the % saving


If you give the bike a good clean and service , perhaps replace chain + sprocket if they are worn , that could give you the little boost you need.


remember the Tour De France has been won by 8 seconds, so the pros can justify spending daft amounts on money of marginal gains.


you could swap bikes with your mate for a while to feel the difference

Piercemeear

abcdggs

Piercemeear wrote: »

And aesthetically — which is a shamefully big deal for me

If you thought otherwise about aesthetics i don't think you'd fit in around here. Thread discussing sock height thinly veiled by people throwing in things like 'technical sock', then the images of beauty thread with a quarter million views. We're all shallow around here

whether to upgrade or not, it's entirely up to you, if it tickles your fancy there's certainly no reason you can't do 150km every saturday, it's just a matter of building up the fitness or else just HTFU.

Piercemeear

Thanks all. HTFU probably sums it up pretty well.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

If you give the bike a good clean and service , perhaps replace chain + sprocket if they are worn , that could give you the little boost you need.

I've been meaning to look into this actually, but I keep it well cleaned and it seems in surprisingly good condition for its age.

Harrybelafonte

Piercemeear wrote: »

Thanks all. HTFU probably sums it up pretty well.



I've been meaning to look into this actually, but I keep it well cleaned and it seems in surprisingly good condition for its age.

Your bike is gorgeous, if it's a 21inch frame, and ahem, you need to raise funds, ahem, I'm over here... waiting.

Piercemeear

Harrybelafonte wrote: »

Your bike is gorgeous, if it's a 21inch frame, and ahem, you need to raise funds, ahem, I'm over here... waiting.

Haha, thanks Harry. I can't see myself parting with it in a hurry, even if I do get something else for longer rides one day. People do keep offering me money in the street though...

coolbeans

That really is a lovely blue Pug and I'd be buying if you were selling. Slightly off topic what size in a classic bike would fit me as I'm on the lookout for one. I'm 6'2" or 189cm.

Harrybelafonte

Piercemeear wrote: »

Haha, thanks Harry. I can't see myself parting with it in a hurry, even if I do get something else for longer rides one day. People do keep offering me money in the street though...

For the bike.... or other services???

Piercemeear

Harrybelafonte wrote: »

For the bike.... or other services???

Oh, that throws a whole new light on those experiences. Now I'm not sure what kind of "ride" they were referring to.

Either way, I should be okay on the raising funds front.

Ryaner

blorg wrote: »

Position matters a lot more than weight so a modern road bike would only make you marginally faster and then only up a hill.

The difference between two road bikes, even modern ones can be substantial.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

if you are cycling on the flat then the weight of the bike isn't that big an issue

if using it for commuting then spending €999 on a bike means you will need to buy heavy locks so you will loose a lot of the weight advantage unless you can leave the bike indoors / keep a lock at the destination

for up hills

(Old bike - new bike) / (old bike + your weight + gear + water)

multiply by 100 to see the % saving


If you give the bike a good clean and service , perhaps replace chain + sprocket if they are worn , that could give you the little boost you need.


remember the Tour De France has been won by 8 seconds, so the pros can justify spending daft amounts on money of marginal gains.


you could swap bikes with your mate for a while to feel the difference

I moved to a "new" bike at the start of this year, only really been putting it through its paces over the past month. On 3 Rock is has taken over 3 minutes off my ascent time compared to the old bike. I can output more power, for longer both on hills and flats. It is lighter (by almost 5kg) and more aero.

However the biggest advantage to a new bike is always the psychological affect. You think it is faster, so you go faster.