Road bikes.
Now, they have notches in them:
Obviously this makes them much better in every way. Still, I find myself inexorably drawn to the Road Bikes of Yesteryear, for to me they embody the very essence of the bicycle:
I find the form beguiling through the aughts, by which time shifters had long migrated from the downtube to the brake levers and the wheels were beginning to get stupid, but the frames were still often made of metal and cables controlled everything:
As I mentioned in my non-posts during the holidays, I have been analyzing my velocipedal holdings. While the Cervino is not actually mine, I often find myself comparing it to the Litespeed as they’re the two “classic” road bikes currently in my charge, though obviously they represent two very different eras. (And yes, the Litespeed is a classic. Sure, if you’re my age or older it probably seems like it was made yesterday, but it’s nearly a quarter century old now. I maintain that at this point any road bike with a level top tube, mechanical shifting, and rim brakes is a classic.)
So if the road bike embodies the very essence of the bicycle, which of these two is the most, uh, essential?
The Cervino is arguably more simple and elegant, though if you think about it there’s really nothing all that simple about gluing your tires to your rims or tying your feet to your pedals. Also, people just assume metal stuff is more durable than crabon stuff, but that’s not always the case. Consider the Super Record cranks on the Cervino, which had a reputation for cracking, and which Jobst Brandt could break just by looking at them:
We’ve come a long way since then, and now of course crank breakage is a thing of the past. Except when it isn’t:
In any case, all of the above notwithstanding, I do find myself riding the Cervino more often than the Litespeed. I’ve even come to appreciate the toe clips, and for that purpose I’ve settled upon these vintage bowling shoes as my favorites:
[Don’t worry, I’ve since fit the straps.]
This is not to say I think toe clips make any sort of objective sense. Here’s what Greg LeMond says about them in his “Complete Book of Cycling:”
As I’ve already mentioned, no one should ever consider riding seriously without cycling shoes. Most important, never ride without toe clips. This is inefficient and dangerous. Without toe clips your feet aren’t anchored and they deliver power much less efficiently, and only in the downstroke. If you get out of the saddle, you risk your foot falling off the pedal if you hit a rough spot or pothole in the road. And if your foot falls off, you probably will too.
Sure, Greg. I guess Danny MacAskill never read your book:
Foot retention certainly has its advantages in certain situations, but having come to embrace flat pedals for more and more of my riding I’ve come to the conclusion that most of the time they offer little to nothing in the way of efficiency, and if anything flat pedals are probably more efficient since you can change your foot position depending on the terrain or whatever it is you happen to be doing on the bike. I do prefer to be clipped in on a road bike for reasons I increasingly think are mostly psychological, and as used by professional racers I have no doubt they offer performance benefits, but for normal, non-competitive riding I notice no difference in “efficiency” between pedaling my Litespeed in road shoes or pedaling my Homer in sneakers.
Speaking of the bowling shoes, I of course knew that Jobst Brandt was associated with Avocet, but I had no idea he invented their footwear and that I’m actually wearing Air Jobsts:
Brandt certainly believed that foot retention was more efficient:
It has been discovered that a significant fraction of the overall power transmitted to crank 5 is done during this second half of the pedaling cycle and it is therefore incumbent to design a cycling shoe which maximizes this upward thrust and resists elongation resulting from the upward and rearward thrust of the foot.
And that red strap on the shoe is supposed to enhance it even more:
This would appear to make about as much sense as the Nike swoosh on your sneaker making you faster, but then again I’m not an engineer.
Regardless, for all the above reasons I find myself wondering if I should reconfigure the Faggin and give it the proper road treatment:
Being an Italian frame Campagnolo would be the obvious choice, but the more I think about it the more I believe it deserves to be dressed in Santé.
Shimano has always come across as the most staid and pragmatic of the big component manufacturers, but for a short glorious moment in the late 1980s they completely surrendered to the zeitgeist:
In fact it was almost impossible to tell the difference between a Santé ad and a still from the movie “Less Than Zero:”
See?
Who could forget the scene in that Brat Pack classic where Robert Downey, Jr. sells his Santé-equipped road bike for freebase and is forced to resort to prostitution?
Alas, if only he’d managed to hold onto it instead of (spoiler alert!) dying in Andrew McCarthy’s Corvette he could have seen big money today:
Sure, it’s expensive…
…but how many other front derailleurs would you consider putting on a track bike?
Anyway, I doubt I’d actually do it, but if I did you can be sure I’d change my name from Tan Tenovo to Faggin Santé.