That tandem is an example of a bike that could go both ways. It is a Bob Jackson from 1980 that was almost unridden when I got it a few years ago. I bought it because it was so pretty, without giving any thought to how it might get used. My practical wife had a different idea about its purpose, so now we take it out every morning before I go to work. It has some of the nicest lugwork of any bike I own, and a solid original finish. It is beautiful enough to keep for looks alone, but it is also a fine rider that fits us both and gives us a lot of pleasure. Win-win.
And tell my mama I'm a hundred years late
I'm over the rails and out of the race...
As Pablo Neruda says, "because only moving does it have a soul." (From Ode to Bicycles)
'70 Cilo Pacer | '73 Ron Kitching/Speedwell Ti | '74 Nishiki Competition | '74 Peugeot UE-8 | '86 Look Equipe "Bernard Hinault" (Reynolds 753) | '89 Park Precision (Team ParkPre/Conejo Velo issue) | '90 Park Precision MTB (Team ParkPre/Conejo Velo issue)
Avatar photo courtesy of jeffveloart.com, contact: contact: jeffnil8 (at) gmail.com.
i would rather ride a platypus than hang it on the wall.
taxidermy doesn't interest me. i'm no norman bates.
We have two boys off to college very soon.
There will be no such thing as a wall hanger by next year at this time.
Some good input. Penguins and all. About the best answer as to why, 20Grit's sez a lot. Functionality is lost if it's not used. Though I own quite a few utilitarian objects that I don't use. I would think a valuable vintage guitar might be harder to damage than a valuable bike, unless you happen to drop it on the concrete floor. Or smash your Marshall stacks with it.
I can identify Aixaix's contention that they're "...beautiful and evocative, which is good enough for me."
I have plenty of nice bikes so I don't really need to ride all of them as a rule. I really should ride the antiques though.
1886 Surrey machinists Invincible, 1900 Nashua, 1937 Raleigh Golden Arrow, 1938 Raleigh Silver Record, 1951 Armstrong tourmalet, 1970 Motobecane Grand Record, 1971 Raleigh Professional, 1971 Gitane TDF, 1972 Legnano Gran Primio, 1973, Peugeot PX-10, 1975 Roberts, 1984 Battaglin Giro, 1985 Grandis Speciale, 2012 FTW
le prix s'oublie,la qualité reste ,(michel audiard)
You can hang a bike upon a wall and call it art
But you can't ride the art and call it a bike
I prefer to ride my bikes. What others do, whether riding, hanging them up, collecting, restoring, flipping etc.hopefully, makes them happy. I like the sense of adventure that comes from even a small/short ride. You don't know what you will see, who you will meet or what might happen. Great stories and experiences can spring from the smallest rides. Nothing is guaranteed. The one thing that is guaranteed is that there is very little chance of adventure, while hanging on a wall or in a garage.
I have had a fair number of bikes pass through my hands and what I learned about myself is that I enjoy riding more than wrenching, riding more than collecting, riding more than flipping and riding more than having lots of stuff around that I don't use. It just becomes "stuff" to manage at that point. I manage "stuff" at work and that is more than enough. I need less work in my life and more riding.
A bike is a bike.
Art is art.
A bike will never be art. But then there are bikes that should be viewed by everyone.
From a periodical covering other two wheeled machines "Ride em - don't Hide em!"
None of my bikes are rare or could be considered show pieces, that being said, 3 of our 5 (soon to be 4 on the wall) bikes hang on the wall when not in use. Its a great storage option that opens up a lot of floor space.
Its the "Bike Snob" attitude that finds a problem with it, and I despise the "Bike Snob" attitude. Beyond the pleasure of riding a bike for enjoyment/fitness its just a matter of "Men playing with Bicycles" and I enjoy playing with and looking at bicycles.
Last edited by Bruce Enns; 10-03-13 at 07:31 PM.
1981 Miyata 1000, 1984 Bridgestone 500, 1985 Trek 400
The way I see it, functionality is not lost by hanging a bike on a wall. It can still be brought down and ridden. But that's not the point. The point is that the owner may enjoy seeing his wall art as a piece of functional art, never riding it but knowing that he can ride it whenever he wants.
Why would anyone care, anyway? Bikes are not sacred. They're just objects, and humans like objects because they can evoke feelings (allusion to aixaix's comment on bikes being evocative as objects). Let people do what they want with their objects.
Now we're getting some good depth here. I have to admit I'm somewhat ambivalent about this. Don't care much one way or the other but what struck me a while ago was why some were so adamant about it. I couldn't quite understand it. Still can't.
I do like Southpaw's idea of an intrinsically beautiful object that can be pulled down off its display place and used.
I'm vowing to myself that this winter I'm finally going to make the rosewood wall bracket I've been thinking about.
That will get one bike up off the floor and at eye level where I can enjoy its beauty, but still be within easy reach.
The only open space on a wall in the whole house big enough for a bike. A rarity in this place.
my old '93 porsche 968 was art. it was also a car.
all my keeper bikes are art. merely looking them conveys feeling.
they're also transportation machines.
if i had hooks on the wall, i would hang them in between rides.
and ... what's a bike snob? same as a music snob? (someone who looks down his nose at pop radio crap.) if so, i assume most of us on c&v are bike snobs. there must be a better term for it: someone with knowledge, experience and opinion.