jimmuller 

I'm not sure this is germane to being a curmudgeon but I'll toss out one FG/brakeless story. 'Twarn't me though. When I was train/bike commuting to Lincoln, RI there was this guy who'd often get on at along the same stretch I did with a Raleigh Super Record (I think), the slightly upgraded versions of the commonplace Record, IIRC. I complimented his bike but he was always mumbling his disrespect for it. Okay... So after a month or so of his being absent he showed up with something very different, black, modern, looking odd. I asked him about it. He bought a new bike and had the shop convert it to FG, brakeless, repainted baaaad-black. (He didn't seem like a punker or even a hipster, but maybe a hipster wannabe.) But it had a brake. He explain that on his very first ride he'd had trouble stopping and run into a car, gotten injured, had to have some extensive repairs, new fork, and oh by the way, put a brake on it please. Yeesh. He should've kept the Raleigh.

YYMV, of course, but I believe at least one brake is require by law here. Gears are required by physics in so many places too.

noglider 

Very few people are skilled enough to ride fixed on the road brakeless. Most who do have inflated senses of their skills. Even with those skills, there's not much reason to do so (in my view) and plenty of reason not to. I keep my mouth shut most of the time. I did get one fixie-riding messenger to put a brake on his bike. He is very happy with it.

Anyway, I love old bikes and new bikes. The advances in technology the industry has made are real and substantial, but they don't make old bikes obsolete in the way advances in digital electronics make old stuff obsolete.

John E

I do like my road bikes, which bracket my favorite decades -- the 1960s and the 1970s. However, we all have our limits, and I would not want to go back before the days of parallelogram derailleurs or when 3- or 4-cog freewheels were the norm. I have tried fixed gear (Avanti track bike with inch pitch chain, wedding present in 1973 from my wife's brother), and I have tried pull-chain bandspring derailleurs (Cyclo and Benelux), and neither is for me.

Bobtoo

I'm definitely a curmudgeon. I don't have a modern bike at all, and I have spent the last year undoing the few modern touches the previous owner (who bought it new) of my Super Galaxy made. I hate aero brake levers and pedals that don't look like pedals.

As with previous commenters, my objection to modern stuff doesn't extend to lighting. I have a couple of sets of lights from the late 70s/early 80s and they really are poor. I can remember you basically got one ride out of a set of batteries. I'm thinking of trying an LED conversion on my period lights, so my bike looks the part even in the dark.

fender1

I like having old and new bikes.

Salubrious

You might be surprised how long the tube vs transistor debate and the analog vs digital debate has been raging in the audio world. Certainly longer than the internet and quite vibrant to this day!!

noglider 

I'm aware of those debates. I was skeptical of them until I recently heard that there is a scientific explanation. Analog audio equipment has good 2nd and 4th harmonics and weaker 1st and 3rd harmonics. Or something like that. That is what creates the so-called warm sound. That is, if I remember the explanation right. Whatever it was, the explanation was the first plausible one to me. Generally, I trust newer stuff but not categorically.

I know a rock and roll musician who uses tube amps. I respect his decision, especially since his band aims for a 60's era sound.

upthywazzoo 

To quote a certain movie: "Brakes are death"

likebike23

No doubt all of those things are an improvement. The thing is, it takes a while to figure out just what are true improvements and what is industry hype.

bici_mania

Aesthetically I love the 60's & 70's. The most beautiful bikes to my eyes come from this era. Functionally, it is a mix of what I find available, costs, and reliability. The bikes that I have most enjoyed riding have always been a mix of old and new. I have been fortunate to own great bikes but I have not owned any 'special' bikes, if I did I would be a bit fussy about what components were put on the bike. The only reason I set my bike up as 2x10 was the belief that there will be better availability of replacement parts 10 to 20 years from now and thus I want need to change the bike later. 8 speed is more than enough for me.

I work in IT but also work against the idea that 'new = better' in every area of life, especially when it comes to bikes. In my mind, in current North American culture, nothing better personifies this than riding a bike. In my mind, carbon fiber bikes with electronic shifting, disc brakes and power meters marketed to non-racers represent very well what I see as one of the fundamental flaws of our society and culture.

Cycling related or otherwise; when someone tries to tell me something new is better my question is how? why? There is rarely a sufficient answer.

rhm

I tried riding with only one brake on my single speed road bike, and didn't like the asymmetrical feel of the handlebar. Especially when climbing. I do practice riding without actually using the brakes, but I quickly forget. It's nice to have brakes.

tarwheel 

My sentiments exactly!

jimmuller 

I gave up using the brakes while climbing long ago. It just made climbing far too much work.

noglider 

I've ridden fixed over the years, but I'm hardly a maven. Until recently, I made it a point of honor to do as much braking with my legs as possible. I'd use my brake only when I really needed to. It's good exercise, but now I've decided it's too nerve-wracking. Now I go for the brake first and slow with my legs second, if at all. Life is more peaceful that way.

rhm

I use them --the levers, specifically the hoods-- as handles. On a steep hill it's nice to get my weight in front over the pedals.

Wildwood 

Ambidextrous here - I can go either way. As stated by others: new + old = 2X as nice.

edit = nothing more satisfying than a good friction shift - all ride long.

The Golden Boy 

I don't think I'm a curmudgeon, per se. I want my bikes to have a "classicness" that I can define as I see fit.

I'm not a slave to "period correct" whatever, if I don't feel the need. My own particular... idiom is with 1980s touring bikes with early 1990s components. There's also no problem with modern-y bar tape, chains, housing, cables, clips, straps, lights, tasteful bags, tasteful saddles and the like.

I think the core of Grant Peterson's message is to ride. It's ultra inclusionary, it doesn't exclude anyone. You don't need to be special to ride a bike. You don't need a special bike to ride. And despite the price tag on Rivendell bikes, you can enjoy the bike you have and think it's beautiful and get a bike you think is beautiful. Just bringing up his name turns people's brains sideways in their skullz- any common sense goes out the window and "yer either wit us or agin us" becomes the mindset. I don't agree with everything Grant writes and puts out (and I don't think he does either)- but I agree with him more than I disagree with him on a whole slew of subjects.

rootboy 

That's interesting, Tom. I'll have to read up on it, when the chance presents itself. Especially since I'm re-kindling interest in my old LP's. They definitely sound better than my CD's. To me. But I have no idea why. Lack of compression? As Neil Young says. I like CD's too. They're handy. Hard to listen to LP's in the truck. But records seem to provide a lot more information hitting my ears.

ThermionicScott 

There's also the argument that tubes are more linear than solid-state devices, requiring less negative feedback to get the same THD. This means that there will be less speaker damping with tube amps for a more lively feel, and negative feedback tends to shift the proportion of harmonics toward the more dissonant upper harmonics.

I really dislike how compressed many recordings are these days, too. It fatigues the ears quickly, and just sounds distorted in some cases. I think this trend started in the early 80's, and has gotten worse recently.

The Golden Boy 

IMO, tube guitar amps rule. IMO solid state bass amps rule.

I haven't used any of the fancy modeling amps the kids have these days- but tube amps have the best feel- you have a dynamic control of your attack and gain. Again, I know newer modeling amps sound really good- I don't know how they respond.

Solid state bass amps don't have the squashiness that tube amps just "are." There's an immediateness that the good SS amps have that you're not getting with a tube amp until 300w- which is far more glass and iron than I want to drag around.

My favorite guitar amps- a 1981 Park and 1978 Marshall







And a 1962 Gibson Falcon







My favorite bass amp- a 2001 SWR SM-900. 900 watts into 4 ohms.

spiker

Gee, 45 posts in and no one's thrown motorcycles into the mix...

Henry III

That's another whole thread by itself. But to add it I recently sold my 03 Ducati 800 SS. First fuel injected bike I've ever had. Before that I was also a vintage cycle guy. Used the cash to fund my framebuilding venture.

jimmuller 

My guitar is so old-school it doesn't use tubes. I mean amplifiers, neither tube nor solid-state.

dddd

When I built my first STI-shifted bike, I thought at the time that it would be hard to ever go back to downtube friction-shifting.

I was wrong, though I still appreciate how integrated shifting can help allow one to maintain drive and speed over steep climbs.
Coming back to using friction-shifting, a more forward-biased saddle and handlebar positioning allows me to maintain drive as the cadence drops, by allowing me to more quickly and effortlessly transition to a standing (off the saddle) position that's favorable to applying much higher torque to the cranks. And, at least the higher effort/power level gets the climb over with in a much shorter time, while also serving to increase one's fitness level (one's threshold of sustainable power).

I really, really appreciate what narrower, modern chains have done for both shifting and for allowing smoother power transmission at greater angles of cross-chaining. That modern chains also are lighter and much more tolerant of scant lubrication is icing on the cake. Woo Hoo for modern chain!

I only ride with clipless pedals these days. I'd still like them better even if I could find suitable shoes/cleats to fit my wide feet and work with the old pedals. This must be my most visible concession to modernity when riding my preferred vintage bikes, since substituting modern chain and my preferred Suntour or Uniglide freewheels to my vintage bikes is virtually un-noticeable by comparison.

I ride on both modern and vintage-leather saddles, and do especially appreciate the lighter weight and softer nose of the newer ones, though both can be comfortable.
I sometimes use contemporary, padded "cork" handlebar tape on vintage builds, which is another concession to comfort.

I've enjoyed the challenge of getting vintage components working to high-performing standards, in an effort to keep a bike's look as stock as possible. Keeping an old bike's original cottered crankset and derailers can be somewhat of a big deal.

gomango

Yep, that sums it up for me.