Reviewing a 70 year old bike: Outside article

[johnmdesigner]

Originally Posted by sg8357

I ride my '54 Claud on Saturday club rides sometimes.

I would ride that any day of the week.

[johnmdesigner]

Originally Posted by C40_guy

I wasn't that fortunate. My school commuter had a 3 speed stick shift on the top tube, raised handlebars, a banana saddle and a rear slick. Great for peeling out at the bike rack, but not so good for climbing that one big hill on the way home.

Note...my bike eccentricities started with that bike. Somehow I talked the school janitor into allowing me to park my red Stingray in the boiler room versus leaving it out on the bike rack.

Those were the happy days.

[djg]

Originally Posted by Ken Robb

I love this article. It demonstrates the power of a good copy writer. I'll bet he could do a great job writing about the advantages of the recently (re)discovered music source called LPs. :-)

I've just ordered a replacement belt for my 1985-ish turntable. I mean, today. The thing just broke (it's not the original belt, but it was getting on a bit). Looking forward to its arrival, although, yeah, I will listen to digital source material in the meantime (and after).

But the piece is a bit like copy writing, isn't it? Yes, there's a bit of a story, and some real content, but . . . slight?

As was pointed out, riding an old steel bike has a whole lot in common with riding a modern bike -- you still have to turn the pedals, and a 17 pound bike does not climb twice as fast as a 24 pound bike (or a 34 pound bike, for that matter) -- not with the same rider input, and not if they're both working. So there's that.

Cool, and everyone should ride what he or she wants. But I'd take a contemporary steel bike over one that's more than 50 years-old, even beautifully restored, any day. And Y2k vintage over 1960 -- certainly, and without a doubt, if I were going to ride it regularly. 1980 vintage over 1960 too.

And good luck getting me to revert to clips and straps for my main ride. Toe clips and straps, LOOSE, might be just the ticket for two miles in Pumas or wing tips. Does anybody actually like them, with cleats, and snug, for riding on the road for more than an hour? Not me, thanks. I'll go beyond meh to feh, and then just straight on to no thank you.

But it's all good.

[unterhausen]

for various stupid reasons, I have done a lot of riding recently on a frame I built in 1980 or 81. I really like it for the most part, although I want to retire it for good. I would say 4 things have changed since then that I like better on modern frames. 130mm spacing, rear derailleur cable running under the chainstay, bosses for 2 water bottle cages, and threadless headsets. Well, the last is just more compatible with my lackadaisical approach to bike maintenance. This frame was supposed to be for touring, so it didn't have DT shifter bosses. The only real issue with it is that if I forget and cross-chain small-small, the chain rides on the derailleur cable stop. It has all modern parts.

[martl]

Originally Posted by oldpotatoe

Some of 'us' still ride kit like that as well(altho I've 'upgraded' to a 6s freewheel)...

Good read..shows that the basic 'bike' really hasn't changed that much. Still double triangle, still chain, still derailleurs to move chain around, still 630mm(27 inch?) disc brake rotor using rubber compound pads on brake 'calipers'...

Yep. I've ridden bikes from all decades starting with the 1910s up to now and restored a few of them.
I could rebuild my 1936ish Automoto with all parts bought new today (ok, i'd hqve to cheat on headset, BB and stem because of new standards, but these don't influence riding experience). This makes me think the progress made in those 100 years wasn't as big as advertising wants to tell us.

[bocobiking]

Originally Posted by fiamme red

It's the usual blather from the bike slob. Lots of words, no substance.

I don’t think this article is trying to change anyone’s mind about vintage bikes. Instead, in its humorous way the article seems to make a serious point about the whole idea of progress.

All new bike features are touted as amazing advancements: dual control levers/shifters, indexed shifting, carbon fiber, threadless stems, external bearing bottom brackets, electronic shifting, disc brakes. And yet, as the article demonstrates, each one of these “advancements” could be described as a flawed feature, in need of upgrade or of scrapping.

I enjoy riding older bikes with none of the above features; for me, all of these features have hurt the bike riding experience. So I’m aware of how subjective someone’s feature-preferences are. Are the elements of contemporary bikes examples of progress, or merely of preference?

Often to me, these new bike features are made to seem like progress by using language, narrative, and marketing—just as the article makes the vintage bike seem like progress by using language, narrative, and marketing. Maybe “progress” is an illusion created by language, narrative, and marketing.

We are a culture hard-wired to see today as better than yesterday. But what if today’s world is just another way of living (or biking), no better or worse than the culture (or biking) of any other time or place? What if our world and its technology are not so special?