highlandsflyer
Retro Wizard
- Feedback
- View
Do you notice extreme negative views of none retrobikers when you say you are trying to work with an older bike?
- Thread starter retrobiker273891
- Start date
dirttorpedo
Senior Retro Guru
I'll probably get roasted for this, but I'm going to say that we get push back from non-retrobikers because newer is better. Even when you compare like for like. There has been so much progress in braking systems, frame geometries - particularly around tire clearance and rider position, and cockpit design that its hard to beat a modern purpose built bike. Sure, I still love my vintage 80's bikes, but some of them are quite impractical. My Miyata 1000 touring bike - which I took on two tours this summer - can only take 35mm tires with fenders and lacks really good wet weather braking under loads. Heck, even the rack mounting braze ons suck. If I bought a modern touring bike I could fit 42mm or fatter tires with fenders and benefit from disc brakes to bring me and my load to a safe stop on wet days. My mountain bikes require fugly stems and riser bars to get me into a semi comfortable riding position and an upgrade to v-brakes for reasonable braking performance.
Don't know if I'm getting grumpier in my old age, but my bike collection is definitely getting younger and the old ones are only taken out on sunny days and not ridden in anger any longer.
Don't know if I'm getting grumpier in my old age, but my bike collection is definitely getting younger and the old ones are only taken out on sunny days and not ridden in anger any longer.
bold stelvis
Kona Fan
tyre clearance is pretty much a fashion thing I think
many older bikes had pretty good clearance (maybe not modern 'gravel' widths) then in the 90s everything got tighter and you couldn't get more than a 25c through the brakes on most road bikes
my 1984 peugeot (supposedly a racer) can do 32c with guards with quite a lot of room to spare. Chain stays are the limiting factor rather than brakes or fork clearance - you could maybe get a 35c in there if you took the dropout set screws out and rammed the wheel as far back is it would go. The dimples in the chainstays are kinda odd in that they almost look like they were designed for a smaller wheel size (eg if I ran a 27.5 there would be gobs of room)
If it had been a late 80s or 90s model no chance.
many older bikes had pretty good clearance (maybe not modern 'gravel' widths) then in the 90s everything got tighter and you couldn't get more than a 25c through the brakes on most road bikes
my 1984 peugeot (supposedly a racer) can do 32c with guards with quite a lot of room to spare. Chain stays are the limiting factor rather than brakes or fork clearance - you could maybe get a 35c in there if you took the dropout set screws out and rammed the wheel as far back is it would go. The dimples in the chainstays are kinda odd in that they almost look like they were designed for a smaller wheel size (eg if I ran a 27.5 there would be gobs of room)
If it had been a late 80s or 90s model no chance.
dirttorpedo
Senior Retro Guru
Agree and probably a reflection on the improvement in road quality from the 70's to the 90's. My Ellis Briggs is running 700 x 32 and I could probably squeeze 35's in there if I deflate them to remove/mount. If I could convert to Mafac Racers I could probably run those 35's without deflating to mount/remove.
I may be naive, but I think the tire width thing is with us now unless new research debunks the fatter, low pressure tire is faster evidence of the past few years.
