Well, It certainly is all just a matter of opinion, and here is mine: Yes, I am put off by people who get all uppity about bikes, cars, et cetera that are stored for preservation, whether it is preservation for the collector's later enjoyment or preservation for future generations. Of course Enzo intended those early cars to be raced, raced competitively by the best drivers and at the highest level back when they were the latest technology and could win actual Grand Prix races. At this point even Ferrari SpA is sitting on a collection of vintage iron that rarely, if ever, gets run hard. I would be among the first to the track if I knew they'd be firing up some old cars, but I hope for the sake of future generations that those cars are run rarely and gently. The cars that should be run are the brand new F360's, not the 59 TR's. While the later are undoubtedly a blast to drive, probably a far more visceral experience than some newfangled ground effects car, I would hope that a person wealthy enough to enjoy this sort of experience would be retrained enough to save a little for the next generation. If garaging an important car glorifies possession, it is only because there are people in the world small-minded enough to see a marvel of human accomplishment as merely a possession. Frankly, I think some self-indulgent unskilled owner taking the car out and thrashing on it goes from "glorifying possession" to reckless consumption.
Now, if you garaging brand-new 360s you are probably being foolish and certainly speculative, and yes it really is a shame when that happens. But, if I ever meet the guy in Florida who bought a Ford GT40 and had AC and a stereo installed so he could use it as a street car, I'll tell him what I think.
The day that I saw a Hurricane and a Spitfire take off from Duxford airbase is my second fondest memory of visiting England, next to meeting Gerald O'Donnovan. It's great that those planes were restored to flying condition. On the other hand, I have no problem with the NASM restoring their collection using the highest proportion of original parts, even if this implies they will never fly, because they pursue a goal making each restoration last 300 to 400 years. I hope that some day in 2302 some kid will look at a preserved Spitfire and wonder "what was it like? was it scary? why did things happen that way?" Maybe some of the flying planes will be around then, that would be awesome, but it is unlikely. Perhaps a reproduction would have to suffice.
I have a 1985 Trek 770 in my basement. I recently completed the restoration to a date-correct SR/Cinelli/Mavic/Vittoria setup. I had my best races using that bike in that configuration, and that is how I'd like to remember the bike. No it is not a rare bike, or even an old bike, and what I did on it was not important to history. But I would like to look at the bike in 40 years and have it look like it does today, and perhaps Ill ride it on occasion, with different tires. If having this implies that I must ride a different bike in the meanwhile, a modern bike that is significantly better suited for efficient riding, then I'll bite the bullet. email@example.com> wrote: Tom wrote: "I guess I just get a little put off by the people who act as though you're "wasting" the bike if you don't ride it. "
In the opinion of many you *are* "wasting" it. But, I'm not "put off" because of it. It's a difference of philosophies, but there is no reason to be "put off" or offended by the views of others. Is there?
Tom wrote: "It's like with vintage racing Ferraris, there are the guys who garage them and there are the guys who take them to vintage races and get all self righteous about how Enzo intended these cars to be raced. "
Isn't that what Enzo *intended*? Can you debate that? Isn't that what the makers of your "collectible" bikes intended? That they be ridden?? It sounds like you are the self-righteous one is this discussion. Garaging your Ferrari defeats the very purpose of their production. They just sit there with no soul. It only glorifies possession. This is what motivates many collectors. Possession. This may be OK for paintings by the masters, which hang on the wall (museum or not), doing nothing, because it's what they were *designed* to do. Ferraris and Masis were never, ever, designed to sit in a garage or hang on the wall , doing nothing. Just my 2 cents.
John in Boise
> Extensive message follows.
> >> If you aren't concerned with preserving accuracy, why use old style Campy
> >> levers at all?
> >I don't, generally, and I said so in my first message. I do like Campy Record
> No, you said you don't generally use old Campy stuff, but you also said you like to use generic Campy style hoods, which was the basis for my question as to why you used the levers at all. I suppose I delved into this because you seemed to be taking a bit of a negative attitude about people who don't ride their older bikes. for example:
> >>>I don't want to just look at my bikes, I want to ride them.
> >>>The only real reason for them to say "Campy" on them would be if somehow
> >>>that made them work better, as brake hoods...I don't care at all what LOGO is on my brake >>>hoods, as long as they are comfortable, fit well and are cheap !
> >>>I guess I am just not a "collector", so perhaps I do not really belong
> >>>on this mailing list. That said, I LOVE my 1973 Raleigh Pro frame. It
> >>>is my favorite bike to RIDE, at least under certain circumstances.
> Perhaps I was just being defensive, but you seemed to be condemning people who drydock their old bikes, almost implying that if they aren't riding their old bikes they must not be riding at all... not that there isn't room for people who don't ever ride. Personally, I want to preserve a couple of my bikes and to ride them would be too expensive in time and dollars due to the scarcity of things like hoods and tires. It would matter to me if these bikes didn't have correct logos on the hoods. I guess I just get a little put off by the people who act as though you're "wasting" the bike if you don't ride it. If I want a bike for an enjoyable ride, I'll use a new bike. It's like with vintage racing Ferraris, there are the guys who garage them and there are the guys who take them to vintage races and get all self righteous about how Enzo intended these cars to be raced. The difference between these two groups is that the former are millionaires and the latter are billionaires.
> >> Compared to SR/NR, the current Dura Ace 9-speed STI levers are better
> >> suited to any human hand that I can imagine and they offer more choices of
> >> hand position, PLUS they can be used to change gears! For about the price
> >> of four sets of Campy hoods you can get a set of STI levers that include
> >> hoods that may well last 4 times longer than SR/NR hoods ever will.
> >I don't like Shimano 9-speed gearing, for various reasons, but I use Shimano
> >8-speed STI or bar-end on various bikes and am very pleased with it. I use
> >8-speed Ultegra STI on my 73 Raleigh Pro, for example. Scandilous ?
> Not at all. Without getting into the subtleties of 8 vs 9 and 'teg vs DA, high-end STI is about the best stuff out there. I have no problem with what you use, no matter what it is, and in fact, my newest bike is 9 speed DA on a slightly-too-tall 1987 Oria-tubed Daccordi. So, in a sense, we have taken a similar approach, at least in this instance.
> >> Regarding the comment: "The reason I am attracted to vintage bikes is that,
> >> for me, they are more fun to ride. I like riding large steel bikes, not
> >>these new ones designed to make my butt stick up in the air higher than my
> >> shoulders, with two feet of seat post showing." There is nothing about
> >> modern frames that prohibits setting your butt or shoulders where you want
> >> them.
> >Modern frames are made in "compact" sizes, and no modern frame I am aware of
> >comes with 25 1/2" C-C seat tube and short top tube. I am unable to be
> >properly fitted on a Trek OCLV, for example.
> I guess I should have realized that you ride giant bikes. But really, was there ever a time when high-quality 65 cm bikes were readily available? I think the biggest problem with recent bikes is the super long top tubes and the shallow seat tubes. With the newer styles of posts, with less rearward setback, the effective STA goes up and the TT length down, but still, new bikes are funny. Nevertheless, I think that you could find something if you needed to, but you already have your old frames and your new parts.
> >>Modern headsets actually make it easier to set your bars high, as long as
> >>you buy the frame
> >>with an uncut fork, cut it to the desired length and use extra spacers.
> >>Yes, the seat tubes tend to be shorter relative to the top tubes, so you'll
> >> want to buy a bike based on the top tube length you want. There is really
> >> no mechanical problem with setting up a bike with a lot of post showing,
> >> though it may be an aesthetic problem for you. Of course you generally
> >> suggested that you are not hung up on aesthetics.
> >People exceeding the manufacturer's specs for how many washers to put under
> >the aheadset stem are in for a nasty surprise down the road. Ever broken a
> >stem ? Use over about 1/2" of washers under your aheadset and most
> >manufactorers of threadless forks say you are in danger of having their very
> >light carbon or aluminum steerers fail.
> I'd avoid carbon steerers to the extent that it is possible, especially if I wanted to set my bars high. With non-silly fork, there is no problem with using a big spacer. If you are talking about more than a couple cm it is much better to use a single aluminum tube. I know one guy who uses a section OS MTB posts to get about 6-8 cm of rise. He sets his bars high by modern racing standards, at a height that was typical for racers 15 years ago. If you want to set your bars REALLY high, near the seat height, that is an unconventional setup on a high quality bike and it is not unreasonable that it might require some custom work to achieve.
> >I never cut the steerers on any
> >threadless forks, and only plug them for racing. We call the resulting system
> >a "belly-button enlargement tool" and ride more carefully than perhaps we
> >would otherwise.
> Why not cut?
> >As far as compact frames go, I like to be able to reach the top tube with my
> >thighs, on my road frames. I have my reasons for this.
> >My MTB (a Ti DEAN frame) has a compact frameset and it is very nice for its intended purpose.
> >Odd that the compact frames originally came from the MTB world, like
> >Aheadsets ? I know the real reason these are offered is that it makes
> >manufactoring of bikes cheaper because there need to be less sizes made.
> One of the main reasons, yes. Definitely cheaper not to have to thread forks to several specifications. The down side for the rider is that it is a bit trickier to set the bar height, the plus side is that the system is significantly lighter at the same price. It's also easier to adjust the bearing.
> >As the MTB glory days fade, more and more MTB "innovations" are introduced to
> >the world of road bikes. Maybe due to excess manufactoring capacity ?
> Not really. I think it is because these "innovations" have become industry standards due to the dominance of MTBs in the marketplace. If OS aluminum bikes are the standard for MTBs, why would manufacturers maintain equipment to build lugged steel road frames. Using the techniques popularized by MTBs (though generally pioneered on road bikes in a limited way decades ago) manufacturers can crank out road bikes that are at least as good as the old stuff, at least in terms of initial performance. Durability is another matter.
> >I generally don't use vintage Campy components, even on my vintage bikes,
> >because they do not work well compared to other options.
> I prefer to keep the old stuff on the shelf and look at it.
> Glenn Jordan - Durham, NC
> I don't want to just look at my bikes, I want to ride them. Just as a
> worn out tire needs replacement, so do cracked and icky brake hoods. I
> would buy new clean rubber hoods, not old worn out dry cracked hoods.
> The only real reason for them to say "Campy" on them would be if somehow
> that made them work better, as brake hoods.
> I don't care at all what LOGO is on my brake hoods, as long as they are
> comfortable, fit well and are cheap !
> I guess I am just not a "collector", so perhaps I do not really belong
> on this mailing list. That said, I LOVE my 1973 Raleigh Pro frame. It
> is my favorite bike to RIDE, at least under certain circumstances. The
> reason I am attracted to vintage bikes is that, for me, they are more
> fun to ride. I like riding large steel bikes, not these new ones designed
> to make my butt stick up in the air higher than my shoulders, with two
> feet of seat post showing.
> I generally don't use vintage Campy components, even on my vintage
> bikes, because they do not work well compared to other options (I make an
> exception here for the excellent Campy hubs, particularly front ones).
> Would you really rather shift with a Campy NR rear derailer or a SunTour
> VGT Luxe or even a modern Shimano 105 ?
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness