what is it about old stuff?

On Mar 5, 11:45 am, N8N wrote:
On Mar 5, 2:36 pm, Chalo wrote:



Nate Nagel wrote:

When I came back out another customer was admiring it... now it's
really nothing that special, just an old frame with some new wheels,
fenders, and lights (OK, the Cyo is a little special)

I find myself doing the same thing... bikes, cars, whatever. Something
old always catches my eye, esp. if it is a little beat looking but
someone is obviously riding/driving it regularly.

I got to tune up a circa 1983 Koga Miyata the other day. It was as
pristine as if it had been in a time capsule-- the only blemish on it
was a chip where the front caliper arm had swung around and bitten the
top tube. It had a complete and virginal Dura Ace setup on it,
including those goofy AX drop-spindle pedals and cranks-- but not
including the silly aero versions of the other parts. I was unable to
adequately explain to my young co-mechanic why I found that particular
bike so sublime.

I was a little surprised to learn that the customer had just bought it
and intended to put it into normal service as his road bike. Oh
well-- I guess that is what it's for, after all.

Chalo

New cables, repack bearings, and go! I would. (of course, I'd never
find that bike for a price that I can afford and/or in my size, but
still.)


My '89 Miyata was just over three-hundred bucks delivered. Not
anywhere near pristine, but I didn't even replace anything. I put air
in the tires and ride it. Sweet.

On Mar 5, 3:55 pm, Dan O wrote:
On Mar 5, 11:45 am, N8N wrote:



On Mar 5, 2:36 pm, Chalo wrote:

Nate Nagel wrote:

When I came back out another customer was admiring it... now it's
really nothing that special, just an old frame with some new wheels,
fenders, and lights (OK, the Cyo is a little special)

I find myself doing the same thing... bikes, cars, whatever. Something
old always catches my eye, esp. if it is a little beat looking but
someone is obviously riding/driving it regularly.

I got to tune up a circa 1983 Koga Miyata the other day. It was as
pristine as if it had been in a time capsule-- the only blemish on it
was a chip where the front caliper arm had swung around and bitten the
top tube. It had a complete and virginal Dura Ace setup on it,
including those goofy AX drop-spindle pedals and cranks-- but not
including the silly aero versions of the other parts. I was unable to
adequately explain to my young co-mechanic why I found that particular
bike so sublime.

I was a little surprised to learn that the customer had just bought it
and intended to put it into normal service as his road bike. Oh
well-- I guess that is what it's for, after all.

Chalo

New cables, repack bearings, and go! I would. (of course, I'd never
find that bike for a price that I can afford and/or in my size, but
still.)

My '89 Miyata was just over three-hundred bucks delivered. Not
anywhere near pristine, but I didn't even replace anything. I put air
in the tires and ride it. Sweet.

My '87 Stumpjumper was about the same price, except way more pristine.

(Did both of those frames come out of the same Japanese factory?)

On 03/05/2010 03:14 PM, Peter Cole wrote:
N8N wrote:
On Mar 5, 2:36 pm, Chalo wrote:
Nate Nagel wrote:

When I came back out another customer was admiring it... now it's
really nothing that special, just an old frame with some new wheels,
fenders, and lights (OK, the Cyo is a little special)
I find myself doing the same thing... bikes, cars, whatever. Something
old always catches my eye, esp. if it is a little beat looking but
someone is obviously riding/driving it regularly.
I got to tune up a circa 1983 Koga Miyata the other day. It was as
pristine as if it had been in a time capsule-- the only blemish on it
was a chip where the front caliper arm had swung around and bitten the
top tube. It had a complete and virginal Dura Ace setup on it,
including those goofy AX drop-spindle pedals and cranks-- but not
including the silly aero versions of the other parts. I was unable to
adequately explain to my young co-mechanic why I found that particular
bike so sublime.

I was a little surprised to learn that the customer had just bought it
and intended to put it into normal service as his road bike. Oh
well-- I guess that is what it's for, after all.

Chalo

New cables, repack bearings, and go! I would. (of course, I'd never
find that bike for a price that I can afford and/or in my size, but
still.)

nate

To people accustomed to the appearance of old bikes, things look
"right", and many of the aesthetics of new bikes: welds, sloping top
tubes, fat diameters with integrated bearings, Aheadsets and clamped
stems, and ergo bars -- just look wrong to them.

I agree. Possibly because I was on my third bike before anyone had ever
heard of an "aheadset" (is that term still current?) a quill stem is
just what I expect to see. The fact that I took maybe a decade-plus
hiatus from cycling while living in cycling-unfriendly areas on a
limited budget means that I missed most of the 90's (because I already
had a bike) and 2000's (because I wasn't cycling at all) cycling-wise at
least. There may be advantages to threadless, but they just look large,
clunky and inelegant to me. Likewise with the other features you mention.

I find this effect more pronounced with cars, actually - I find well
executed 60's designs FAR more appealing than current ones,
aesthetically speaking. Even some 50's ones, although sometimes they
look dated, still look *good.* I won't even attempt to defend the 70's
or 80's though; "color-keyed" (read: boringly monochromatic) interiors
and crushed velour were NEVER stylish in my book. Attempts to be
"retro" usually fail miserably to my eye (case in point, the interior of
the new Mini)


I've tried to ride a few (fairly nice) 80's bikes "as is", and found
them to be pretty disappointing, some things have come a long way. On
the other hand, many changes, especially to geometry, have gone in the
wrong direction. To my eye, a vintage touring frame like yours, with
long chain stays and relaxed angles looks like a nice riding bike -- and
it usually is. Other, more labor intensive features, like lugs and
chroming, don't do anything practical, but they look pretty -- nothing
wrong with that.

I'm frequently surprised by nice bikes being discarded. Most people seem
to have no appreciation, aesthetic or otherwise, for the old stuff. At
least once, I've been confronted by: "Hey, isn't that my old bike?"
People act like they've been cheated when they see their old bikes fixed
up a bit. But it's like cars, unless you're reasonably skilled and can
do it yourself, it's often not practical to do an extensive rebuild.
Unlike cars, bikes are inherently simple and reliable, so that's not a
big concern, but everything does eventually wear out, including frames.

I get the impression that most bike shops aren't real supportive of (or
economical at) fixing up vintage bikes. I was lucky to have Sheldon
Brown as my mechanic, but he was hardly typical.

Which is a shame, because if I have an issue with my bike which is
otherwise perfectly serviceable, let's say it's the rear wheel - would I
be better served by having a new wheel built around a high-end hub or
should I buy a new bike that "only costs a little more?" My guess is
the wheel with the good hub would be the better investment in the long
term, so long as I like the frame that I'm riding. Just MHO of course,
and obviously YMMV. 'nuff rambling about aesthetic opinions, you either
agree with me or you don't, and we could both be right or wrong in
either case.

Oh, and observation for today: if you are riding a bicycle while wearing
cuffed pants, and your bike has an old Zefal pump mounted on the seat
tube, use the little pants strap things on BOTH legs, not just the
right. Seriously, it was embarrassing how far the pump flew when the
lever got caught in my left pants cuff. Fortunately, it was on a
residential street with no traffic... lessons... (didn't feel the need
to get kitted up just to ride a couple miles to the local garage)

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

Nate Nagel wrote:
Oh, and observation for today: if you are riding a bicycle while wearing
cuffed pants, and your bike has an old Zefal pump mounted on the seat
tube, use the little pants strap things on BOTH legs, not just the
right. Seriously, it was embarrassing how far the pump flew when the
lever got caught in my left pants cuff. Fortunately, it was on a
residential street with no traffic... lessons... (didn't feel the need
to get kitted up just to ride a couple miles to the local garage)

Ahh, but those Zefal HP's are /tough/. I somehow dropped one into my
tandem's timing/crossover chain&chainring (no idea how, but it landed
just right). The chainring bit a couple of tooth-shaped dents in the
barrel before the cranks stopped turning.

Took the pump home, rammed a socket-wrench socket through the barrel to
push out the dents, and it works to 120 psi, though now there's a
"catch" when the plunger passes the remnants of the dents.

Mark J.

"I've tried to ride a few (fairly nice) 80's bikes "as is", and found
them to be pretty disappointing, some things have come a long way."

Peter, would you mind telling me what you found disappointing about
those steel frames from the '80s? The reason I ask is that I'm
presently riding a high-end steel frame from 1987 with non-aero
components, 32-spoke wheels and box-section rims, and I can't figure
out if I'm so slow because I'm in lousy shape or because everybody
else has a better bike. Thanks.

retrobilly

"I've tried to ride a few (fairly nice) 80's bikes "as is", and found
them to be pretty disappointing, some things have come a long way."

Peter, would you mind telling me what you found disappointing about
those steel frames from the '80s? The reason I ask is that I'm
presently riding a high-end steel frame from 1987 with non-aero
components, 32-spoke wheels and box-section rims, and I can't figure
out if I'm so slow because I'm in lousy shape or because everybody
else has a better bike. Thanks.

retrobilly

Bill wrote:
"I've tried to ride a few (fairly nice) 80's bikes "as is", and found
them to be pretty disappointing, some things have come a long way."

Peter, would you mind telling me what you found disappointing about
those steel frames from the '80s? The reason I ask is that I'm
presently riding a high-end steel frame from 1987 with non-aero
components, 32-spoke wheels and box-section rims, and I can't figure
out if I'm so slow because I'm in lousy shape or because everybody
else has a better bike. Thanks.


Steroids & EPO mostly

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 03/05/2010 10:02 PM, * Still Just Me * wrote:
On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 15:55:49 -0800 (PST), Dan
wrote:

New cables, repack bearings, and go! I would. (of course, I'd never
find that bike for a price that I can afford and/or in my size, but
still.)


My '89 Miyata was just over three-hundred bucks delivered. Not
anywhere near pristine, but I didn't even replace anything. I put air
in the tires and ride it. Sweet.

My '78 Motobecane Record cost me $125, although the downtube paint is
rough. Looks pristine from 30'. Up close, the lug work and vintage
design overrules any paint defects. Came with the original Campy
derailleurs (which might get swapped for some triple Super LJ's) and a
TA Cyclo-touriste complete with outer chain guard - truly a thing of
beauty.

It had a mismatched set of the wrong wheels and the wrong post and
seat. Some astute previous and following Ebay buys had it set up with
some NOS proper vintage wheels, a vintage Simplex post, and a vintage
Brooks seat and the whole package, even with new cables, cost me under
$300. Eventually it will get repainted with repro decals.

It gets admiring looks from those who know what it is, and looks of
amusement from most of the jersey-boys.

I saw a very similar looking bike waiting for pickup at my LBS the last
time I was in there. Really a nice looking ride, wish I came across
stuff like that.

nate


--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

On Mar 5, 7:31*pm, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 03/05/2010 03:14 PM, Peter Cole wrote:



N8N wrote:
On Mar 5, 2:36 pm, Chalo wrote:
Nate Nagel wrote:

When I came back out another customer was admiring it... now it's
really nothing that special, just an old frame with some new wheels,
fenders, and lights (OK, the Cyo is a little special)
I find myself doing the same thing... bikes, cars, whatever. Something
old always catches my eye, esp. if it is a little beat looking but
someone is obviously riding/driving it regularly.
I got to tune up a circa 1983 Koga Miyata the other day. It was as
pristine as if it had been in a time capsule-- the only blemish on it
was a chip where the front caliper arm had swung around and bitten the
top tube. It had a complete and virginal Dura Ace setup on it,
including those goofy AX drop-spindle pedals and cranks-- but not
including the silly aero versions of the other parts. I was unable to
adequately explain to my young co-mechanic why I found that particular
bike so sublime.

I was a little surprised to learn that the customer had just bought it
and intended to put it into normal service as his road bike. Oh
well-- I guess that is what it's for, after all.

Chalo

New cables, repack bearings, and go! I would. (of course, I'd never
find that bike for a price that I can afford and/or in my size, but
still.)

nate

To people accustomed to the appearance of old bikes, things look
"right", and many of the aesthetics of new bikes: welds, sloping top
tubes, fat diameters with integrated bearings, Aheadsets and clamped
stems, and ergo bars -- just look wrong to them.

I agree. *Possibly because I was on my third bike before anyone had ever
heard of an "aheadset" (is that term still current?) a quill stem is
just what I expect to see. *The fact that I took maybe a decade-plus
hiatus from cycling while living in cycling-unfriendly areas on a
limited budget means that I missed most of the 90's (because I already
had a bike) and 2000's (because I wasn't cycling at all) cycling-wise at
least. *There may be advantages to threadless, but they just look large,
clunky and inelegant to me. *Likewise with the other features you mention.

I take the good with the bad. I grew up a utility cyclist and while I
certainly appreciate a little elan, function has to be number one.
Didn't have a threadless setup until maybe five years ago, as I either
rode vintage road bikes, or modern Euro style city bikes that retained
a quill stem. Took me one on-the-road adjustment to sell me. Now it
just looks strong and proper. I do prefer two-bolt pop tops, four
being a little out of control.

Same goes for frames. I'm over six foot and a pretty strong guy. My
first overbuilt alu frame in the nineties sold me on 'em. Wish they
all had filed welds like Cannondales, but it's outweighed by function.
I do like the look of slightly oversized steel with tiny tig welds
more than I like lugs.

Wheels, I'm old school about. 36 holes with silver double wall
eyeletted rims. Not too concerned about the gauge of spokes or the
butting--if I've built them or dialed 'em--they're not going out of
true anytime soon.

Let the Asian robots build straight, strong, functional, and cheap
frames all day long. Add to that hand crafted wheels and I'm a happy
camper.

On 2010-03-05, Peter Cole wrote:

To people accustomed to the appearance of old bikes, things look
"right", and many of the aesthetics of new bikes: welds, sloping top
tubes, fat diameters with integrated bearings, Aheadsets and clamped
stems, and ergo bars -- just look wrong to them.

You forgot "unraked forks." Bleech.

--

-John )