First - this is not intended to criticise Brian Baylis or any other restorer. I would not be surprised if he agrees with some of this, or disagrees with all of it. Neither is this intended to criticise people who try to restore to "better than new" standards. To everyone their own...
That said, in the rare cases where I restore bikes or tandems from bygone eras (I prefer original finishes, even if they have lost some of their original luster), I strive to replicate the original in look, quality and materials. For example, if possible, I want the paint to look like the original, not like modern paint. Even if it were possible to apply perfectly straight pinstripes with some laser-guided device, I'd prefer an artist with a brush.
Currently, I am manufacturing a bunch of parts for an old Herse tandem: bolts, nuts, stems and a few other parts. I try to use the same or similar materials, and for the machining, I make them by hand the old-fashioned way. I do have access to a CNC lathe, but I feel that the parts will replicate the feel better if they are made the same way. Ideally, the bike will look like it did when it left the shop in nineteenhundredsomething.
In the same way, I prefer to respect the authenticity of the machine. If a racing bike originally came with 52-49 chainrings, I feel that it would not offer the same riding experience if the small ring is changed to a 46. Adding chrome to a bike that didn't have it originally, is similar. It saddens me that so many Herse bikes go to Japan and are "up-spec'd" with chrome on lugs, seatstay caps, etc., when originally, there were few bikes with those features. I can see the appeal of owning such a "top-spec" bike, and thus the temptation.
Of course, if you plan to ride the bike, you get into questions like whether to leave a stem that is too long for you, or change it for a period-correct one that is the right length. Either way, the riding experience isn't the same as original. Ideally, you'd find a bike built for somebody with your proportions... In cases where it appears off by a bit, I see whether I can adapt - a lot of older bikes provided a slightly less stretched-out position than is popular today - so it may be that the bike isn't the wrong size after all, but that they sized things differently. After a few miles, I often find that quite comfortable, in fact, I resisted the temptation of a longer stem for our PBP tandem, despite the reach being about 3 cm shorter than what I usually use.
Of course, I do believe in state of the art when it comes to environmental protection and workers' health issues. In fact, I even wear a helmet when riding my old bikes, even if it detracts from the experience. Life is full of compromises, and everybody chooses for themselves which ones to make. But that doesn't mean you have to throw in the towel immediately.
And finally, there is nothing wrong with "projects." Taking a
not-super-rare, not-super-special, not-super-well-preserved bike and
making it your dream isn't bad or wrong. Install those Ergo levers on
the old Raleigh, add those braze-ons on the old Trek. I have a late
1960s Singer that soon will sport a Schmidt hub and modern lights, to
be used as my main randonneur bike. I look forward to it. If it ever
gets a repaint, it will receive a lever-operated front derailleur,
also not "correct" for that vintage. (And fortunately, it already has
chromed lugs, so no need to "cheat" there.)
--
Jan Heine, Seattle
Editor/Publisher
Vintage Bicycle Quarterly
http://www.mindspring.com/
>BB
>
>I found the irony of your comment really quite humorous,
>given the long running discussion this week about old vs. new,
>and the proliferation of modern technology as applied to
>racing bicycles. I think the fact that you will be using a
>"state of the art" facility to restore vintage bikes is
>priceless!!
>
>Grant McLean
>Toronto.Ca
>
>
>brianbaylis@juno.com wrote:
>I'm SUPER excited about the new venture, and the future of the
>vintage cycle hobby for all of us will be very exciting.
>Our workshop will be "state of the art" (cut)