I know its a stupid question but i have been looking for a do it all bike for a long time and realised its likely easier and cheaper to just have two cheap bikes that do their respective jobs easily than one expensive one which tries both but isnt perfect for either.
That said if i opt for a cheaper gravel/touring/winter commuting bike that is heavy and not very fast, i can still fit this little weirdo into my budget as a fast road bike for going on one day rides with just my bodyweight.
I also think it would be really fun stripping this frame to a polished look.
Its really cheap and has some charm i cant explain. It has weird gearing but where i live i cant really run into any hills for a few hours away from my house so just for singleday rides it would be great for me.
by badatdecisio
28 Comments
It’s about the rider not the bike. My dad has multiple bikes, steel carbon, titanium and aluminum. He’s fast as hell on any of them.
The most important thing is the fit. Does it fit you? Yes? Get it!
Made up numbers:
10% is bike, 90% is rider.
Depends on who’s riding it.
This is the thing I will teach my son. Anyone can buy the highest end item of anything and it won’t do much if you can’t harness the power.
You’re the engine, that bike will likely go just as fast as you can make it. Can’t see anything about it that says ‘slow’.
Depends on who’s riding.
Reddit is not letting me edit this for some reason haha, you are all right and this is why i love reddit because you always tell me exactly what i want to hear. I just needed some backwind to buy this little rascal.
slow? no. comfortable? maybe not. old bikes have their limits
Did they have a Tour de France in 1990? Yes they did. And they had it fifty years before that. And so on. Believe me, they were plenty fast.
Looks fun.
Hope you enjoy it.
The difference between a 50 year old bike in good condition and a new superbike is maybe 1 or 2 mph
Just keep thinking that buying another bike that will be well suited for…. N+1 is love ❤️
Is this lugged aluminum? I’d just read up on that a bit, first, as I’m not sure if this building style was ever quite mastered.
Anyway, yes sure, older bikes can be plenty fast. There are of course some advancements, some more major than others. Brifters are IMO the biggest upgrade over vintage bikes’ downtube shifter. Gearing has also changed (more gears, wider range) but I don’t think that’s that huge of a deal, it mostly just means you have more control over the pedaling cadence. Brakes have improved, but it’s pretty rare that you’d find yourself without enough brake power, so IMO it’s only a slight upgrade unless you live in very hilly or rainy areas.
Anyway! All that aside, I think my personal favorite bike I’ve ridden so far has been my 1986 Team Fuji. It’s hard to explain, but it just feels *good*. I have a newer Aluminum team Fuji as well, which I admittedly haven’t ridden too much yet, but I don’t think I enjoy it as much as the older one. And recently I rode a brand new carbon Trek Emonda, and it was OK, but I didn’t love it, or anything. All this is to say that while newer bikes are technically better, that doesn’t mean you’ll necessarily enjoy them more.
Looks like a sick whip! I run an early 90s aluminum frame on long rides (80+) and the aggressive stance does get tough on the hands but the ease of pedaling does make up for it in my opinion. Charging a relatively flat, 15 mile loop in 45mins on a bike I got for $100 feels good also.
It depends on the cyclist. When I first started cycling, I bought an old Trek 1000. I wasn’t sure if I would enjoy cycling, and I think it cost me around $220. I took it home, swapped the tires, cleaned and lubed the chain, and put on hundreds of miles on it. As my fitness improved, I was able to keep up with the cyclists who used newer bikes and fancy-sounding hubs. Later, I got a new carbon bike, which was still modest compared to other bikes on the road. However, honestly, my speed improved only marginally. Was it a more comfortable bike? Yes, but the bike improved my ability only marginally.
Well, let’s look at it this way.
If you are a rock climber does a better rope or better draws or better shoes really make a difference? Answer is maybe but in reality it’s not going to be significant enough to suddenly climb a few grades higher.
If you are a runner will new shoes make you faster? Maybe a little but it won’t be life altering.
A bike is a tool but the gains are marginal. The difference between a modern high end bike and an older high end or mid end bike is going to be maybe a half mile and hour assuming they are set up the same.
You want to go faster, HGH, testosterone and EPO will all do more than spending money on a bike.
I’ve been looking for a vintage bike just like this one for a while. My only comcern is that compatible components might be harder to find esp if you want to keep the vintage (eg gear shifting on the down tube)
Didn’t know bikes drove by themselves back then
Anything with straight wheels is fast.
Depends what n how hard you can pedal ☺️🙃☺️🙃
It will be fast, but a new bike is noticeably faster. I purchased a new one last year, with the previous newest being from mid 1990s, and it’s quite obvious.
Yes, depending on the tires it will fit and the position you can hold.
I’ve had “tour de france” levels of bikes in the 1980’s..they were around 20 lbs..they were quick, due to the rotational weight..mostly the wheels, which created accelleration performance…
I’ve charged down hills with roadbikes and + 10 lb heavier mountain bikes…and the top speeds were pretty close..so everything can be fast, but it’s the accelleration that makes a bike, quicker.
With top speed the issue is, your body and the wind resistances at speed..there’s a point where you can’t push faster because of that resistance.
Then you mention your gearing on this bike in your picture, but I can’t see it…but, years back, gearing was to keep a speed up for the rider to have a choice, to finely tune the gearing for a shift in the winds, drafting other riders, the sight rise on the roads, etc..to keep a steady pace..so you were more “managing exhaustion”, with a gentle balance between your lungs and your legs.
Each pound of overall weight, amounts to 1 kmh in average speed.
So one would set up their gearing to take up hills at a reasonable pace, for the lowest gear..and a top speed for the highest gear..what was in between was to manage pace, without the loss of average speeds…any cog I don’t use, I change it to one I will use..anywhere in the cogset.
All that setup, changes with the purpose of the bike, the overall weight, the terrain encountered, etc..on any rides..
I even will change my cogset ratio slightly, for different tire makes and tire weights..even when the tire change is with slicks.
Ultimately, I assembled my road bikes as hardtail, rigid fork, 26″/559 mountain bikes with 175mm cranksets, 8 speed cogsets and 54/44/34 – 12-21 for a 20 lb bike…and 52/42/30 – 12-23 for a 24 lb bike.
With the smaller wheel diameter, with the tires on and at 100 psi..the overall diameter for my wheels are 24.75″.
They handle extremely well, very nimble and I can slide both tires in cornering at high speeds, without any instability..very predictable and controllable.
And each 32 spoke wheel, are 224g lighter than a roadbike wheel with the same spoke configuration…so that produces a bike with “explosive” accelleration rates…to about 60 kph on a flat road.
But over time, each of the drive side spokes start to crack the rim at each drive side nipple…from the rear wheel drive torque..and it’s well worth it !
So that’s where I ended up as a former roadie to a mountain bike guy..then back to a roadie, with a very easy “in the field” serviceablity, reasonably inexpensive, reliable, durable, bikes…that’s my “recipe for a bicycle”, for everyone.
And, have a great time riding, everyone !
Are you?
Only if you are
I love the tinfoil handlebar wraps
Depends on the motor
No. They’re slow AF. I’ve never ridden an old bike that was fast.
Same with modern bikes but I can’t see the common denominator.