I'm looking to buy a road bike for commuting. There is a guy near me who finds older road bikes (e.g. from the 80's) and fixes them up. Are there downsides to getting an older bike (assuming it's had a proper tune up) compared to getting a bike released in the last year?

  • Why should it be a road bike? Don't you ever need to carry anything while commuting?
    – gerrit
    Commented Dec 8, 2012 at 16:22
  • 3
    @gerrit What type of bike do you suggest? Maybe "road bike" has a narrower definition than I intend.
    – Joe
    Commented Dec 8, 2012 at 21:17
  • I'm not sure, but to me a road bike is a bicycle that is exclusively for use on a road without carrying things, a bit like a racing bicycle. Maybe I'm mistaken, but I would call the bicycle you're after a city bicycle or a commute bicycle.
    – gerrit
    Commented Dec 8, 2012 at 21:19
  • 2
    Not an answer, but... I think modern consumer products, bikes included (in every price range) suffer from Programmed Obsolescence, a "policy of planning or designing a product with a limited useful life, so it will become obsolete, that is, unfashionable or no longer functional after a certain period of time." I would feel cheated and cheating myself buying some of the mainstream stuff available today, honestly... Commented Dec 8, 2012 at 22:33
  • 8
    @gerrit Road bike really just means a bike primarily meant for the road - it could be designed for racing, touring, or commuting. People tend to get a bit focused on racing bikes (everyone likes to be fast), and even start to use "road bike" to refer only to them as you do, but traditionally it's a more broad category.
    – Cascabel
    Commented Dec 9, 2012 at 1:32

11 Answers 11


The last major technological improvement in standard bicycles was indexed shifting. The indexing part of this isn't that big a deal, but the feature also gives you the ability to shift under load (which is a big deal). I'm thinking this change occurred in the late 80s, but my memory for chronology is poor.

Yes, since then we've gotten V-brakes, carbon frames, "compact" cranksets and a few other things, but they're not fundamental changes, just minor refinements (if that).

Re "non-standard" bikes, the biggest change has likely been the improvements in geared hubs. These have gone from 3-speed, don't-dare-shift-under-load-or-you'll-wreck-it models to multi-speed or continuous models that encourage you to shift under load.

There has also been progress in recumbent technology, but I don't think there've been any game-changers (though I'm not up on this).

The main problem with a bike more than 15-20 years old is that replacement parts get harder to find. In particular, if you buy an older bike you might want to buy a spare rear cluster right off, to have on hand. And I wouldn't recommend buying a road bike with 27" tires, since replacement tires (of the narrow "racing" variety) will be hard to find.

  • A good way to get around having to source narrow freewheel hubs and freewheels is to swage out the rear dropouts to accept a 130mm cassette hub. You can still use friction shifting (though you may have to replace the rear derailleur...they're pretty inexpensive.)
    – WTHarper
    Commented Dec 8, 2012 at 15:01
  • +1 These are all great things to think about, especially the replacement parts.
    – Joe
    Commented Dec 8, 2012 at 21:19
  • 2
    What about brakes? Modern brakes seem much stiffer and more effective than the old ones from my youth.
    – Mac
    Commented Dec 9, 2012 at 22:14
  • 2
    @Mac - The only important factors re (caliper) brake performance are flex in the mechanism and leverage. The cheap side-pull brakes of years gone by would flex badly, but better quality units didn't, and cantilevers even less. V-brakes are effectively cantilevers, and the only difference in performance is the relative leverage of the brake levers, which can be made stiff or soft at (manufacturer's) will. Commented Dec 9, 2012 at 22:27
  • 8
    +1, I would also add "brifters" to that. Taking the indexed shifting levers from the downtube to the brake levers has been a major improvement.
    – Angelo
    Commented Dec 14, 2012 at 14:15

To answer your question will most likely also be a matter of personal taste. I am also one of the "not much new of interest in the last decades". The notable exceptions are:

  • Clipless pedal systems, including well-proven ones which you also can walk in.
  • Lighting evolved from "always something broken" to "forget about it, it will work" with dynamo hubs, coax wiring and LED lamps (if you can't wire the rear light internally through the frame, use a good battery rear light instead).
  • Indexed shifting with high precision is something I personally appreciate a lot. However, for everyday use (and -dirt) technology has not really become better since 8 cogs were the norm.

Just about everything else you could get as well many decades ago as today, or even better. Some recent technology I would try to avoid includes

  • Overly stiff frames: Even Eddy on his old steel frame could not significantly increase frame temperature by pedaling. Steel is almost ideally elastic, and the energy you need to (non-permanently) flex it will not be lost.
  • Lots of cogs in the back, and long wire casings: I have never experienced more precise shifting than Dura Ace 8x down tube shifters and derailleur. Cog distance matters, and you won't really gain more useful gears by adding cogs. A commuter sees all kind of weather, and reliability counts.
  • Frames and brakes with tight (i.e. standard) clearances: Winter will come, and if you don't live in paradise sooner or later fenders will come handy (yes, they can look good and work well).
  • Non-compact road doubles: If you always race with pros, run 53x42 or 52x39. If you don't, there are options that fit you better.
  • Tires narrower than 25mm (but the recent trend is luckily away from 20...23mm): They won't make you faster, but they will make you less comfortable.
  • Carbon frames and parts: Carbon will not react gracefully to abuse it is not designed for. Furthermore it is too hard to determine what could be broken. That rules out most carbon parts for an everyday bike.

The spare parts aspect for classic bikes is not a real problem if you choose the bike wisely. Most ca. 20...25 years old road bikes will be very serviceable with parts you can easily get. Modern bikes are not always better: Just have a look at "modern" bottom brackets and ask yourself what has a life span of more than five years...

  • You can buy a new steel bike if you want. Why would it be worse than an old, steel one? And claiming a 30 years old dura ace derailleur or brake will perform better or be more reliable than a new one does not make any sense, no matter the number of cogs you put in the back.
    – super
    Commented May 27, 2015 at 1:32
  • Where did I state that a new steel bike would be worse than an old one? As I said this is a personal opinion, but I still have to find the "modern" rear shifting system which almost never needs any adjustments or other maintenance and just works as accurately as my max. 26 year old Dura Ace (which was not heavily used for quite some of that time period).
    – bhell
    Commented Jun 2, 2015 at 8:58
  • I am sorry if I misunderstood you about the frame. I just think that a) age has an impact on anything, and as good as something was 25 years ago, surely is not as good now, and you should take that into account when you buy old; and b) I find this phrase "Just about everything else you could get as well many decades ago as today" contrary to reason or common sense. I am very passionate about bikes, and have a few well maintained old models which I absolutely love, but you get on a modern bike and my god you are on a different world - shifting, braking, responsiveness, torsion, ...
    – super
    Commented Jun 2, 2015 at 23:45

They are better if you're willing to invest a good deal of money. It depends on your situation. Is your commute asphalt-only or does it include dirt or snow? Will you only use it to get to and from work, or also for groceries and the occasional one-day or multi-day tour? Are you in a flat area, or are there steep slopes around?

I'm using a high-end touring bicycle for my daily commute, 9 km one-way with 120 m elevation difference, in a sub-Arctic climate; here we have 7 months of snowcover, temperatures dropping below -20°C and occasionally down to -40°C, and deep deep darkness. In those circumstances I ride along a 2-lane road frequented by some heavy trucks. Those circumstances, combined with the fact that I go on the occasional multi-day trip, led me to invest in a decent bicycle, because lights, gears, winter performance and durability are key issues. Theft risk in my area is very low.

Some relevant new technologies may include:

Now, whether you really need that is a different question. A 20-year old indestructable steel frame may be exactly what you need. In principle the aforementioned items can be installed on an old frame (except for the belt drive), but IMO that would be silly, because if you're willing to invest a lot of money you can just as well get a proper new frame as well. It all depends on your wishes and priorities.

  • 1
    Asphalt only, well maintained roads and bike paths; to and from work only; the area is somewhat hilly, but nearly always nice weather (southern California). Theft risk in my area (i.e. around a college campus) is probably fairly high.
    – Joe
    Commented Dec 8, 2012 at 21:30
  • Theft risk makes a 1980's bike a good idea - have a read up how to make you bike less attractive - Duck tape, mat paint, stickers, (fake?) mud... "Expensive, New and Shiny" is not what you want.
    – mattnz
    Commented Dec 9, 2012 at 20:46
  • I don't get this. Why do you say a 20 year old steel frame is better than a new steel frame? I mean that bike has been servicing for 20 years, that as an impact, why do you say it will last longer than this: publicbikes.com/p/… Theft is the only reason I can think of - although a good one.
    – super
    Commented May 27, 2015 at 1:28
  • I'm not saying a 20 year old steel frame is better than a new steel frame.
    – gerrit
    Commented May 27, 2015 at 10:22

This is a bit of a subjective question, and at the end of the day you are best off trying a couple to compare, as you need to feel comfortable on it.

The main difference is in technology - at the top end, dramatic improvements have been made in materials, bonding, flexibility, weight etc., and these do trickle down to consumer bikes. Spares for older bikes may also not be as available.

If you are a normal, every day commuter, a well maintained bike from the 80's may be absolutely fine, but a more modern bike might be a bit lighter, a bit more able to soak up bumps, have better gearing system and this may make the difference if you are using it every day.

  • 3
    I would say the second huge difference is price. An entry-level bike might run you $700 USD brand new, but a vintage bike (even VERY high quality) will be half that. There are some very high quality bikes from the 70's-90's that will give you more bang for your buck. (Also, considering frame materials - vintage steel frames are perfect for commuting. Much more sensible than modern Aluminum.)
    – WTHarper
    Commented Dec 8, 2012 at 13:36
  • @WTHarper Price is the primary reason I'm considering an older bike. Why do you consider a steal frame more sensible?
    – Joe
    Commented Dec 8, 2012 at 21:26
  • @Joe Steel is a great material because it is durable and forgiving! Aluminum tends to develop cracks and splits that fail unexpectedly, whereas one can crash and bend steel frames and just bend them back (to a point.) Steel can be repaired/modified/repainted pretty easily as well. A quality double-butted, fillet-welded chro-mo frame can be of comparable weight to an aluminum frame and last upwards of 40 years!
    – WTHarper
    Commented Dec 8, 2012 at 22:32
  • @Joe Aluminum stiffer than steel, making the ride harsher, every vibration and bump gets transmitted through the frame into you. Steel gives, absorbing those small vibrations and bumps making for a smoother, more comfortable ride. Steel need not be heavier than aluminum - especially if you are looking at a top end 1980's steel vs a new entry level aluminum bike.
    – mattnz
    Commented Dec 9, 2012 at 20:41

Getting an older well-made and well-maintained bike is preferable in a city in the Netherlands. Modern bikes are made lighter and with less material; they tend to be less robust.

I currently have a second hand bike from the 80's with 3 gears, and drum brakes that use levers and iron bars instead of cables. The only thing that I have to replace form time to time are the tubes.

  • What is it about the Netherlands that makes you want a more robust bike? Harsh roads? Harsh weather? Both? Something else?
    – jimchristie
    Commented Dec 8, 2012 at 22:56
  • 1
    Harsh people. Seriously, most of the times where you put your bike in a public spot, lots of other people will also do so, just throw their bikes against yours. Sometimes it's the wind that make bikes fall in a domino if they are put in a line on their standard. Commented Dec 9, 2012 at 7:21
  • Yes, that's the downside of thin tubing, it will buckle very easily!
    – Angelo
    Commented Dec 14, 2012 at 14:17
  • Yes but you can buy a modern city bike with a bulky and resistant frame. Why do you say the old one will last longer in comparison? You can't compare an old, strong city bike with a new light road bike. That's unfair. Compare it with a new, bulky city bike as well.
    – super
    Commented May 27, 2015 at 1:24
  • If you compare pricing of a brand new, high quality 'transport' style bike and a second handed bike from past century the price/quality ratio of the latter is far better Commented May 27, 2015 at 5:35

If I think about my modern road bike versus the road bikes that I rode in the '80s, there are several significant differences:

  • Indexed shifting - gear shifts just work, and with modern systems they are very quick and can be done under load.
  • STI levers - if you're talking about drop bar road bikes, one of the biggest improvements was integrated gear and shift levers, which means that you no longer have to take your hands off the bars when changing gear. This is a huge advantage, particularly when riding in traffic.
  • Brakes that actually work. In all conditions. Even a decent set of modern rim brakes are very good, that's without considering discs, hydraulics etc.

As others have mentioned there are plenty of other considerations - availability of spare parts, whether the bike has suitable gearing (or can be modified appropriately), and tire clearance to name a few.

But whilst I have a certain nostalgic affection for the older road bikes, I am under no illusions about how awful they were to ride - I would personally never go back. If you're budget is tight, you can get very good value for money even with a much more recent (<5 yrs old) second-hand bike.

  • Welcome to Bicycles @John. Nice first answer. As with all new members we recommend taking the tour to make best use of the site. Good to see you here
    – andy256
    Commented Sep 15, 2016 at 8:23

When the time comes, you may find parts harder to come by for the older bike.


The older 80´s road bikes (especially the low end ones that were called "training bikes") often have massive tire clearance. This means that you can run bigger and more comfortable tires, in the +30mm range or run narrower tires with full length fenders.


Just to add another answer.

This year I rode the 210km Eroica Italia. That requires using a bike that is pre 1987. Mine was from 1980. A reasonably high level steel framed race bike with 12 sp gears. Campag wheels, Shimano 600 gears (similar to Ultegra today). cost me 100 bucks.

  1. As others have mentioned, some spare parts are hard to source. Shimano still makes rear sprockets but they are not the same quality as was available in the past. Some campag cones (a consumer item) are very hard to find. BB and headset are French thread on my bike, again hard to find although specialists like Velo Orange can help for a price.

  2. As far as performance, there is not a huge difference. Steel is comfortable. The 80s started to see some nice saddles. Geometry is nice. Performance hit on some of the alpine climbs I do is around 5%.

  3. Clipless pedals really are nice. Either ride clipless or in sneakers. Old style leather shoes with cleats are a poor solution.

  4. Gearing: hard to get the same range of gears without going for a triple. I changed the front rings for 38x50 and put a 14x28 on the back but it is hard work on steeper climbs. The Eroica has sections of 15% off road.

  5. Brakes: are rubbish, along with pedals another biggie. I changed the brake shoes for modern compounds which helped but the system is poor compared to modern calipers.

  6. Downtube shifters: honestly I thought this would be the worst thing about riding a retro bike but it really didn't bother me. You maybe change gear less and anticipate more - but you've only got 12 gears to play with anyway.

Overall everything is just a bit more fiddly to adjust and get setup right and goes out of adjustment quicker: pedals, pre-cartridge bottom brackets, headsets. Steel is a nice frame material though, better than today's mid range aluminium bikes.

I've got another retro race bike which I fitted with fattish tires. It came from a dumpster and I use it to ride our bike thief infested streets.


Brakes are substantially better today than they were in the 1980s. I've used Shimano and Campagnolo components in both eras, and in my experience newer brakes have more stopping power and better modulation. I have limited experience with road discs (we have a giant rear disc on our tandem, and I've tried some new bikes with discs), but if anything find they are even more powerful.

Index shifting was indeed a game-changer, but shifting in general is also smoother. Shimano, Campagnolo, SRAM, and now others like FSA and Rotor engineer all drivetrain components to work together as a system, with ramps and chain designs to make shifting smoother and quieter. The old joke is that the quietest gruppo is Campy after 10,000 miles, but newer systems shift more smoothly in my experience.


I don't completely agree with some things that have been said here.

If you like old bikes, if you want it for the looks, go for it. It is a perfectly good reason, lots of people buy and maintain old bikes because they are classier and prettier. There is nothing wrong with it, your passion is perfectly respectable. I personally think something like this is absolutely gorgeous.

Just be careful when picking one, because age and rust attack the frame and components, so you should be careful that the frame is not too rusty if you want to recover it, and inspect the bike for cracks every week or so.

On the other hand, while it is (arguably) true there hasn't been a huge advance in bike mechanics in the last years, it is also true new advancements in materials, manufacturing techniques and mechanical principles make new components much better and durable.

I guarantee you a new, 2015 derailleur will last much longer than a new one made 25 years ago. It will because even though the mechanical principle is the same, a new derailleur has better bearings, better isolated, and the whole construction is more solid meaning there are less tolerances when it is shifting which will end up making it perform better and last longer.

This is true for all other components, but mainly for ones that have movement: hubs, headsets, cranks for example.

The better quality in modern products will also be more noticeable when you are using the bike, as it will feel more solid and flex less under hard pedaling, brakes will work better, wheel will flex much less, etc.

Of course if you compare an old Dura Ace derailleur (some of the best) with a super cheap one sent to you from China for $10 the old one might be better, but if you compare a 25 (from the 90's) year old Dura Ace with a modern Tiagra (some of the cheapest Shimano makes), I guarantee you the new one will perform much, much better. I have used them side by side and 25 years of evolution make a big, big difference.

Just look at them, old and new. See how different are the brakes for example? More material, less flex, better bearings, a mechanical principle revised for decades, all means they will last longer and perform much, much better.

As true for most things, using an older vehicle (car, motorcycle, boat, bicycle) means you will have necessarily less performance and more maintenance costs. I am not saying an older bike will make you go bankrupt, and it will last if you treat her well, but trust me, there will be a difference.

If nevertheless you want to go for the older one, I can't do anything else but pay you a nice, cold beer when I see you with it.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.