Yesterday I saw a drop-dead gorgeous bike at a BART station in downtown Oakland. I walked over to take a closer look: it was an early 1980s Brian Baylis painted black with super ornate gold plated lugs and custom made curving gold plated stem. The owner said the former owner had it as a show bike and now he COMMUTES on it between Oakland and points east. I thought he was brave and not too bright, running a risk of wrecking it or, worse, being bike-jacked. I'd say no to commuting on that bike but I'd ride it. I suppose in this case I define the issue as "when you say yes to riding a classic, where do you ride that bike?"
PBridge130@aol.com wrote:"Sounds like a riddle to me... When is a tool not a tool? I put tools to good use.
Chuck Schmidt"
A tool is not a tool, when its intrinsic value exceeds its practical value. In general, I agree with the "good use" concept -- my version of that is, "equipment is made to be used". However, there are cases where the historic value of a thing -- let's say a bicycle, for instance -- exceeds the value of the "bicycle-ness" of the thing. Other than that, I say, ride it, except that I might not be man enough to ride a gold-forked Paramount.
I buy bikes strictly in order that they be available for riding, but if I stumbled into a historic bike -- a Coppi Tour winner, Merckx's first Tour winner, Merckx's hour bike, let's even say Thevenet's Tour winner.... I would either hang them up on the wall, or make sure they got to a place that would hang them up on the wall for the pleasure of lots of folks.
There's a point at which a tool is..... more than a tool.
Cheers,
Peter Bridge The Mile-High City, CO _______________________________________________
---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes