Are old bikes better?

[malcolmlauder]

Hi everyone.
A few years ago I was lucky enough to find myself in a position to cycle to work. I sold my car and bought an old 20 year Raleigh mountain bike for £35. I used it for about 4 years and the only thing it ever needed were brake blocks and a new chain. After being told the whole time by other cyclists that my old steel frame was slowing me down I got involved in the cycling to work scheme and bought a new scott metrix hybrid. I commute every day in all weathers and have been using it for over 2 years and in that time I've went through 2 bottom brackets and the work done in its last two services has amounted to over £200! I admit the bike is tight and responsive but for a 10 mile round trip commute and other fair weather jaunts i feel a bit short changed. Have I just been unlucky (a 'friday' bike), badly advised or ripped off? I'm seriously thinking about going back to my old steel bike. I'll have to leave about 5mins earlier in the morning but I can handle that. So my question is, are old bikes better??

I'm a trendy consumer. Just look at my SM-G360F using hovercraft full of eels.

[gloomyandy]

Hard to say without knowing more about the two bikes. So for instance do both bikes have mudguards and mudflaps? If they do do they both provide the same amount of protection for the BB area? Could be that you are spraying your new bikes BB with a lot more salty water. Other then the BB what other things did you have to have fixed on the new bike? May provide a few clues as to why you are suffering more issues with your new bike. Could it also be that you are less likely to put up with "problems" on a new more expensive bike, that you would happily ignore on your old bike?

[Samuel D]

For durability and low maintenance costs, as a general rule? Yes, much better! (As long as you don’t go back too far.)

In the past, bicycles were designed by benevolent engineers who knew what the customer needed even though the customer had no idea.

Nowadays, bicycles (and their components) are designed by marketing departments to appeal to customers, who of course remain as ignorant as ever. Fitness for purpose and economic design are not primary considerations. After all, bicycles are largely pleasure machines these days.

[pete75]

Most bikes seem to be designed either for sport/leisure use or as a means of transport. The latter was much more common in years past. A decent tourer should be both.

[mattsccm]

What's better?
The fact that older kit seemed to last longer? Big thick chains wore just as quickly but there was more metal to wear. Same with freewheels etc. Brake blocks lasted longer but stopped less effectively. Of course we didn't notice as we had nothing to judge by. I don't remember ever worrying about the Campag brake blocks in 1983 but nowadays I realise that wood may have been as effective.
Costs were less as we didn't bother so much. If a chain was worn I tightened it. 5 speed freewheels were less fussy so I got away with knackered chains. 11 speed wouldn't cope the same way. That not better its more finely tuned. Possibly not what is needed of course but you don't have to buy it.
I dare bet that if you ran two identical bikes, one from, say, the 70's and one from this year, that the modern materials would be longer lasting. Of course that wouldn't be identical would it?

[bigjim]

Stopped for coffee yesterday on a club ride. Chatting to a club member, who was new to me, though we had both rode in the bunch to the cafe. He told me that he had destroyed his rear mech on his newish carbon road bike when it had been dragged into his rear wheel. He had one these new electric indexing systems. On enquiring about a new mech he was infomed that they did not sell them anymore and he would have to purchase a new chainset at £900. The only alternative was source a mech from the likes of e-bay but it would then have to be plugged into a coded computer so the software could be updated so it would change properly. We had rode 20milish, [tough ride] together from the meetup. I was on my £100 70s bike and very nice it was too. You pays your money and........

[Brucey]

Brake blocks lasted longer but stopped less effectively. Of course we didn't notice as we had nothing to judge by. I don't remember ever worrying about the Campag brake blocks in 1983 but nowadays I realise that wood may have been as effective....

They lasted longer simply because they were thicker. I think the compound used then was pretty much the same as the compound found in most modern campag brake blocks too; if applied to the rim with the same force they will obviously slow you down in the same way.

FWIW I think the main improvements in rim brakes have come in

- overall system MA; back then you needed a close-clearance frame to have the best brakes, because the MA always got worse in a 'gappy frame', and

- thinner brake blocks (not to mention stiffer arms) make for a brake that is less squishy and inefficient

- better cables; now we have less squishy cables, run at lower tensions, with lower friction inside them. This can increase the braking power substantially.

If you assemble a vintage set of short reach Nuovo Record or Super Record brakes with decent cables etc , I think you will find that they are still pretty powerful brakes by any standards.

cheers

[PH]

On enquiring about a new mech he was infomed that they did not sell them anymore and he would have to purchase a new chainset at £900.

If I'd been told the solution to a damaged mech was to buy a chainset, I'd get my advice elsewhere.
There's good kit and bad kit and I suspect there always has been. Some of the problems occur when people use inappropriate equipment, or expect to get good service from something at a fraction of the price it would have cost a couple of decades ago.

using it for over 2 years and in that time I've went through 2 bottom brackets

There are some poor designs of BB, but you can still get (for not a lot of money) ones that are at least as good as the one on your Raleigh.
IMO there's never been a better time to get good value, but relying on the mainstream bike industry to help you achieve that is getting harder.

the work done in its last two services has amounted to over £200!

This to me is an example of how much people expect for so little, I don't see that as a lot of money, either in terms of how much the bike shop is getting for their time and effort or how much value you're getting for the mileage.

[bigjim]

If I'd been told the solution to a damaged mech was to buy a chainset, I'd get my advice elsewhere.

That advice was off the bike manufacturer, or assembler IMO. Ribble.

[Brucey]

On enquiring about a new mech he was infomed that they did not sell them anymore and he would have to purchase a new chainset at £900.

If I'd been told the solution to a damaged mech was to buy a chainset, I'd get my advice elsewhere..

possibly something has been 'lost in translation' here. If you run certain first gen Di2 equipment and it breaks, you will presently need a new gearset, I think. Yup, just a few years old, and no available spares....

There is a full spectrum of bikes out there from 'workhorses' to 'weekend toys' . The bike industry is very keen to sell as many of the latter as possible to as many misguided folk as they can find; it is good business for them, if the customer is forced to 'consume more' in a vicious ever-tightening circle of alleged 'product improvement'....

cheers

[Cyril Haearn]

A wise man once said: the bicycle is a simple machine, it can be improved by making it simpler.

For example by upgrading to a single fixed gear.

A good or rather bad example of worse new equiment: rims that wear away and have to be replaced.

Back then we just replaced our brake blocks.

[pete75]

What's better?

I dare bet that if you ran two identical bikes, one from, say, the 70's and one from this year, that the modern materials would be longer lasting. Of course that wouldn't be identical would it?

Then take two bikes of the same type from the 70's and this year. The machine Chris Froome rode in the TDF and the one Eddy Merckx used in 1973. Use them for commuting and knockabout use in all weathers. My bet would be the seventies machine to last much longer.

[bigjim]

What's better?

I dare bet that if you ran two identical bikes, one from, say, the 70's and one from this year, that the modern materials would be longer lasting. Of course that wouldn't be identical would it?

Then take two bikes of the same type from the 70's and this year. The machine Chris Froome rode in the TDF and the one Eddy Merckx used in 1973. Use them for commuting and knockabout use in all weathers. My bet would be the seventies machine to last much longer.

The difference is that we now live in a dispoable society and todays consumers do not expect things to last. Bikes are probably no different than washing machines to a marketing guy. Throw it and move on.
I was chatting to a guy who was emptying his late mothers house. I was amazed that he had to pay somebody to do it. I can remember not too long ago when they had a look round and then offered you cash for the contents. Now evidently they just skip the lot.
Are todays bikes nicer to ride and more efficient?

[hamster]

Then take two bikes of the same type from the 70's and this year. The machine Chris Froome rode in the TDF and the one Eddy Merckx used in 1973. Use them for commuting and knockabout use in all weathers. My bet would be the seventies machine to last much longer.

Definitely cartridge square taper bottom brackets and midrange Shimano hubs last for thousands of miles with no intervention - unlike the poorly-sealed stuff of the 70s.

[PH]

Are todays bikes nicer to ride and more efficient?

Nicer is all subjective so I’ll put that to one side, though I wouldn’t have been able to afford bikes of the quality I now have a few decades ago. Efficient can also be subjective, but those things that are measurable and effect efficiency - aerodynamics, weight, rolling resistance, braking… all seem to have improved greatly and continue to do so. Practical stuff that I like on my bike, good lighting, waterproof luggage, corrosion resistance and hub gears are all IMO vastly superior than in the past. I don’t disagree with your dislike of the throwaway society, but you don’t have to be a part of that to still appreciate some modern options. I’m glad I don’t have to put my geared bikes away for the winter because I can’t afford to maintain or replace the components, something that was pretty common in my fathers generation.

Then take two bikes of the same type from the 70's and this year. The machine Chris Froome rode in the TDF and the one Eddy Merckx used in 1973..

You’re probably right, but you could find a bike from either era that would outlast them both. If you want to compare two racing bikes, it’s only fair do so for the purpose they were designed, which do you think Merckx would choose to race on?