I also posted this over at CR, so apologies to those of you who are seeing it twice. I am a newbie to the world of vintage bikes and biking in general. I am working on 2-3 projects right now and I find myself sticking to recreating the builds as close to original specs as I can. All along the way, I keep saying to myself that eventually I will find a light vintage steel frame that I am not concerned about preserving it's original patina, get it powder coated, and put whatever parts on it I think will be most comfortable, cost-conscious, and practical for me. For example, vintage Japanese derailleurs instead of Campy, a Nitto Technonomic stem and Noodle bars, etc. Therefore, I find myself questioning why I don't just set out and build the latter kind of bike as I don't have the garage space, the desire, or the kind of wife that will allow me to have a ton of bikes.

I am sure that many of you have dealt with this in your builds. The tension between recreating something back to its original glory and the desire to have a bike that truly conforms to what you want from it. Maybe sometimes that is the same thing depending on what your goal is for the bike. I would love to hear some perspectives on this, thanks.

I know that I often get caught up in the "history " & patina of the bike. Not the history in the sense that my bikes are special in any regard, but the fact it's had a "life " prior to me, it's a survivor & a little about respect.

I hear you. I think we have to focus on the primary purpose of a bicycle. Not the bicycle in a general kind of way, but the specific one you're working on. Is it transportation? Is it athletic equipment? Is it an art project? Is it a museum piece? Is it a time machine? Of course these are not mutually exclusive, and there are many other purposes a bicycle might serve. My bikes are mostly a compromise between two or more of those alternatives. But it helps to keep them in mind.

Its always good to have one in the fleet. Fun to see the many creations on the retro roadies w/ ergo - sti
thread.

I have a Viner prompted by one of the velo-clunker contest here. Low end budget and one I wanted to have for flying around college town and lock up without concerns or as a guest loaner. Its served the second purpose well but I'm still having issues with its handling.

There are only certain bikes I would keep orig spect, high end that work well already, bikes with a historical identity or are so original that I would feel bad about altering their status.

Saying this, I only ride bikes that fit me well and are comfortable to ride. I started out with the mantra " must be original spec " but really got tired of the long project time, lack of riding time with it, huge cost, and the overall feeling of discomfort with the bike when I did finish it.

IMO, find your own way...

And Welcome to the BF group!

I am down to three road bikes. None are completely stock, which is a matter of choice. I like bikes to look nice, but they are meant to be ridden, and ultimately I just don't care that much about matching groupsets.

1. 1973 Raleigh Gran Sport, owned since new. It is now powdercoated, nothing like the original color, and is a fixed gear. Other than the crankset, all the parts are replacements. I love this bike but wish I hadn't re-painted it when I was young and stupid.

2. 1978 Motobecane Team Champion, also owned since new. Mostly original, although I have replaced the bars with Nitto Randonneurs, and use Simplex shifters and clipless pedals. For me these are improvements that make the bike fit and perform better. The original parts are on a shelf.

3. 1982 Ross Signature 294s. I bought this one last fall and think of it as my "perfectly good bike." Fewer than half of the parts are original. It uses 6-spd dt index shifters, fits me great with a Technomic stem and Noodle bars, and takes 32mm tires with fenders. If it was my only bike I would have no cause to complain.

I have a "smile test". If a bike doesn't make me smile either when looking at it or riding it, then it goes.

Since I haven't the patience or the wallet for a faithful friction era build that does both, most of my time is spent on building c&vish riders based on idle thoughts about what might be ideal (and that is increasingly with modern components). The days of finding inexpensive faithful restoration worthy bikes seem pretty far in the past, or so much of a rarity that I've moved on by necessity.

I'm in N-1 mode now, and I'm focused on making what I have into great riding bikes, rather than attempting to get things to original spec.

I like how my '72 Gitane TdF is coming together. Definitely not spec: upgraded Simplex RD, Superbe seatpost/brakes/levers, Campy FD. I will also be putting Lyotard Berthet No. 23 pedals on, to replace the stock Lyotards, and probably change out the Barcons for Simplex Retrofrictions.

Unless I find something that I just can't live without (unlikely), my next bike will probably be a Velo Orange Campeur frameset, built up with a mix of modern and classic kit.

My XO-2 is slated for a bunch of modern upgrades, after it's done being the winter bike.

I just put some lovely Cane Creek SCR-5 aero levers and CC 1246A brake yokes on my 1988 Miyata 615. I love this setup, very nice.

I had purchased a 80-82 Lotus Competition frameset, hoping to build it with full Superbe, but I've just lost interest in doing so. I put it up for sale on CL. I don't really want vintage road racing bikes any more, but more practical commuting/touring/rando bikes.

I guess my priorities/interests are changing somewhat, plus I don't really have the space or finances to commit to more than what I currently have going on.

I'm a rider, not a serious collector. Therefore, for me it should 'look' vintage and pass the 10' inspection test, but it has to ride well and be adapted for my body and riding style.
So, while the DeRosa is original & the Mondia is at least period correct the others are not.
The Merckx got compact 48/34 chainrings.
The Harding/Holdsworth went 46/30 with cyclocross 33mm tires.
4 of 6 vintage are friction 6sp, 1 is 7sp indexed (shifter on the downtube).
The latest (Batavus) will be Campy 9sp triple, because that's what I have on hand.

Threads like this always make me feel guilt for not upgrading some parts - mostly brakes/levers.

I do like tubular wheels and have been picking them up affordably when I can. Sometimes the hubs may not match, and that's OK for me.

I find myself building along multiple tracks: nice touring holiday bikes for mrs non-fixie and me, and period correct bikes for the both of us to participate in C&V events, such as L'Eroica and the Retroronde.

The "problem" I encounter is this: I also find that those tend to get mixed up: sometimes (or even often) the L'Eroica bike is actually a nicer ride than the comfort-before-anything bike.

I don't know why I have the bikes I do. My crazy thoughts turned to Italia breeds. Now I recognize that there are kajilion of them!

The 1983 Colnago Superissimo was a surprise find on CL. It was "upgraded" with 4 items when I purchased it. I found group mates to bring it to 100% period correct. Ok the saddle is a Brook Swift! It has been parked on a dresser in a guest room for over a year. I just recently swapped the stem to one that is longer so I can ride it once the weather improves. When I do the pedals will be swapped for SPD's. I thought long and hard about stripping and painting. BF convinced me that I should leave well enough alone. I did and am satisfied. I love riding it even if it is a bit small for me.

The 1973 Bottecchia was an impulse buy just because it had chrome lugs and is Italian. It has its share of abuse patina but will not be painted. Decals? yes. It was built as a Giro D'Italia which has the same frame as the Professional. I have all the parts for transforming it to a Professional and that is the way it is built, HS excluded.

The Pinarello Tre Crime, if that is what it is, was totally stripped. the paint was cracking, had a fair amount of surface rust and no decals. It was a frankenbike when purchased, hence the low price of under $160. It will likely sport Fuchsia paint and 105 drive train before being given to my daughter. 105 and Victory were the options for that bike and Fuchsia was a color option.

The Trek 610 was also a frankbike to some extent with a rattle can paint. Stripped with some braze-ons to compensate for the ones removed plus a couple of others, it will be BRG with cream or off white panels when painted. Drive train will likely be the one from my 1972 Motobecane Le Champion that was crashed.

The Trek 760 will first be assembled with its ugly rattle can black paint and masked decals with Superbe Pro parts. It was original with Superbe, so this is an upgrade.

The 1991 Pinarello Montello is stock, stock, stock. Unfortunately it is equipped with 7400 DA. Which is a great group, BTW! it has serious patina issues on the paint but painting it is out of the question. only upgrade would be to Campagnolo or just change the DT shifting to Brifters.

Here is my recommendation. Do what you want as long as it does not permanently alter the frame. Remove and replace is my limit, Trek 610 excepted because someone else brewed it before I got it. Hold off on paint until you know what ya got. I was dead set to repaint the Colnago, glad I didn't.

If you want to see pics of the above bikes, go here

The criteria for an "art project" are different than for a bike used as a tool. You can intersect them by giving some nods to aesthetics and staying practical, and that ends up being a compromise. Often, it's a happy compromise. I happen to be mostly practical-minded, so the longer I own a bike, the farther from period correct it gets.

Nice thread. Yep, I'm trying to keep one bike stock. My '90 Concorde Astore, Campy Athena Grouppo. It was my retirement gift to myself and was custom made, right down to the color design. A few years back, I dropped the 42T chainring and added a 39T . This winter, I added a 14-30 cassette. All in the interest of helping me climb, as I turned 70.

My '83 Ciocc , was bought of the shelf in Germany. Came with Shimano 600 grouppo and tubular tires. It has been upgraded through out the years, to keep it moderish. This year, it will get Shimano STI's.

My Huffy, was bought off the shelf, and upgraded to a touring bike. But I kept it to Suntour components. I add and subtract, as needed.

My recently acquired bike, '85 Bridgestone 500, I want to keep in it's stock condition or the like. I did remove the 42T and put on a 34T. New tires, cloth tape and leather saddle. The bike came with 27 in. wheels, but the brakes have enough reach to handle 700C wheel set. Also, I kept the clip pedals, rebuilt and replaced the leather toe straps. I have several clipless pedals, so I can swap-out wheels and pedals as my mode changes for a given ride. The Suntour friction shifting will stay. But I can be L'Eroica (and yes, I still have my leather hair net), or toss on a few modern things.

So my Concorde and Bridgestone, will remain close to the original, while the two other bikes get upgraded, downgraded or side-graded as I see fit. My Ciocc is my pure climbing bike, the Concorde my show off , flat land, Sunday bike. KB

Its always fun to see your builds and relate.

I have a Brooks Swallow on a Colnago Super, because it works just fine in the application. But mostly think it looks good with the matched factory VIP Cinelli bar wrap and the way cool handcrafted leather hoods by our Rootboy. Same bike is built along my thinking of years ago. My first Colnago was built with careful consideration of components and budget, piece by piece. That one was stolen on me, it took awhile to even have interest in another. But eventually I moved past that and now enjoying the Super. It also has Spanish made Zeus 2000 mixed in with Campy Record parts (those bits are also mildly modified with lightened hardware + drillium). I had a gumption and mood to put my feelings into it, just like I did back in 1982. Damn be what others think. I love the bike.

BTW: Further looking back, at one time Campagnolo offered their own labeled saddle made by Brooks. Of course its most rare, but goes to show the cross branding and country of origin is perfectly normal on any bike.

This leading into my low end old Bottecchia. I love riding that bike and think it oozes character. Red, chrome, mixed bag of old parts from Italy, France, Japan riding on tubulars. Also, its been in a slow transformation in making it mostly of all steel parts. The exception are the stem, hubs and rims. The Suntour hubs and Mavic rims are soon going for another build and I'm lacing it with Tipo hubs and incorrect era Super Champion Arc-en-Ciel tubulars.

Right now in the works is a mid-80's Basso. Very much a mixed build of many Italian brands. Period, but again this was how I recall what was normal back then. Only the rich folks could walk in a bike shop, pick that fine matched group out plus a frame and be done. Even more fun because I'm in no rush and there's very little cost into it. Its a fairly wild and loud looking bike.

My 1985 USA Truk 520 is now the tour rig, came in just as a paint chipped frame and fork. Cleaned and touched-up, built it with a mix bag of parts, within the range of era, mostly SR and Suntour Cyclone, Schwinn bar-ends (Suntour) and SR triple crank. Customized brake rigging -Suntour and Dia-compe. Dual platform SPD's.

I'm all over the place, with a couple of bikes nearly stock, one with period correct components, weird ones like my Campy NR equipped PX-10 and my Viscount with a mix of vintage and modern components. All my bikes are riders and have downtube friction shifters, toeclips & straps and clinchers. I like them to look good, but I only have one repainted and I bought it that way.

I had a Viscount AeroSpace Pro that I carefully restored with original or period correct components and had great fun doing it..... Ended up selling it because I didn't enjoy riding it.

Many of the bikes I own, or have owned, would have been built up as the purchaser wished. In other words, there wasn't always a "stock" build. In fact, riding in the 70's that was the only way I ever knew to build up components. If a derailleur got trashed, it was replaced with something else and no consideration to whether it was Campy or whatever. At one time I was enamored of French bikes. Going back in time, there were no "groups" to speak of - although one can certainly look at a PX-10 and see what would have been original spec. (And even that was often a moving target.)

I prefer to step into my time machine and get out at 1968 or '73 or whatever. If I were to get a new frame at that time, how would I spec the build? That approach appeals to me much more than "catalog restorations."

And this is the best part: we all tend to approach it a little differently here. Folks are (usually) nonjudgmental about such decisions, and that's primarily because there's usually no clear cut "right" or "wrong" way.

If you want a "stock" bike, hunt down one that has been hanging in someone's garage for the last 40 years, rather than buying a bare frame, and putting all the pieces back on that someone else took off and sold. Perhaps with a few exceptions such as finding an exceptionally rare frame.

If you find a bike that was originally built up with Dura Ace, or Nuovo Record, and you choose to put on Super Record, then you really aren't putting it back to "original".

Anyway, after riding a bike for years that became vintage, and has gone through a few changes over time, I've decided to try a couple of vintage builds, but at the moment, I've chosen to go mostly vintage of the epoch, but to add a couple of upgrades, either going plus or minus a few years, or even going modern with some vintage appeal. For example, after adopting aero brakes late, I've come to like them. I'm also going to try compact bars on my next build.

Have both Doug , it's fun as long as it's fun to ride . I think I read some where that N=3 bikes , so the correct number of bikes to own is N + 1 . And apparently track bikes don't count ( whats up with that ?) so I don't know about your Kilo TT . The razor thin edge is S-1 where S equals the number of bikes owned that would result in the separation of you and your wife .

So as the story goes, it's a long and winding road.

The tale of two Merz's, first to come to me is TW189, 1979 almost completely original full touring save for tires, bar tape and saddle, full Campy, Super champion, Cinelli, Bluemels, Silca and custom made to order racks, whats not to love.

pic280.jpg

pic275.jpg

pic261.jpg

pic276.jpg

pic259.jpg

Granted, I had to do nothing but buy and ride, which I gladly did.

Stay tuned for part deux.

Those totally correct restorations can be so neat to ogle, picking out the little details and such, checking the date codes for the correct year, or even production blocks if possible. But, the cost of doing this kind of build can be blinding, since it causes migraine headaches to contemplate explaining it to your significant other when the card statements come in, and the checking account is overdrawn. I have the attention to detail part down pat, military time, engineering school, my job history and the nature of quality construction management on military installations gives you the mindset.

However, the pay scale does not make for doing those kinds of builds. Just doing two "almost period correct" builds kept me on my toes as to what I was able to bid on or buy. Surprisingly the mere task of hunting down decent components and finish items is satisfying and fulfilling for me. I can get something less than cosmetically perfect, and use the tips and methods learned here to make things correct or at least acceptable. You don't even think about NOS, NIB, or having a complete paint and decals job done.

And darned if it doesn't work for me, the best part is making sure everything is 100% safe and in daily rider nick. No jury rigging, or half-assed fixes allowed. The riding makes it worth the efforts.

Bill

There should never be 'tension' and you should never feel a 'slave to the build'. This hobby should be fun and relaxing.

I working on a LeMond build and the most practical build is also how it was OE spec'd. Where's the fun in that?

You've gotten some great perspectives. We all have our own motivations, after all.

You ask very good questions. You are not alone in your thoughts. There are certain phrases which pop up in the queries of many newcomers to the world of classic bikes. (I will not use the word "newbie" because it is demeaning, IMO.) Not necessarily in this order: "all original", "former glory", "already stripped it for repaint, now what?", "fully restored", etc.

Well, there is no former glory unless that particular specimen was a major race winner, in which case it most certainly shows the wear and tear of heavy use. There's the glory. Or unless it's a museum piece. All the rest are just bikes. Sometimes they were upgraded by the original owners back when they were just bikes instead of antiques. Some parts of the bike are consumables anyway. Sometimes the original builder, whether small-volume shop or big manufacturer, didn't have a good idea of what users really needed, for example creating awesome race frames but equipping them with only race gearing which is completely inappropriate for us mere mortals. Ultimately the bike is meant to be ridden, so practicality wins out.

All that being said, there is value is aesthetics, especially it it can be maintained without loss of functionality. Sure, brifters make shifting easier, but for those of us who have shifted DT friction levers a zillion times the improvement isn't essential. Frames which look pretty are great, but a new paint job will pick up its own scratches if you ride it much. Powedercoat may not look as nice as paint BTW. Knowing you have French derailleurs on your French bike is cool, almost worth really having them! If they work well, then so much the better! (For example, we still have Simplex derailleurs on our tandem and they work excellently. I've made drive train compromises on some bikes in order to maintain aesthetics but not to the extent of making the bike unusable.)

Ultimately it's your choice. You can fully customize it or you can maintain all the aesthetics or you can find a balance. As long as nothing significant is lost then you have no constraints.

Yeah, really, putting it back together is costly, so spend the money only if you enjoy it and understand that there are cheaper ways to get the same thing. It's like a game of "52 pickup," that fake card game where one tosses a deck of cards in the air and the other has to pick up the fallen cards one by one. One person has a complete bike and dismantles it and sells the components and the frame. Then lots of people (where this differs from 52 pickup) buy the pieces and reassemble bikes like the dismantled one. If I did that, I'd feel like the second (fool) player in 52 pickup, but clearly, not everyone does.

I have mixed opinions about the dismantled frames and bikes. I dislike it when parts that are very specific to a build (main frame & fork), and those pesky 28.0mm seatposts are separated from the whole (although it often happens when significant damage would pull down the value too much)

On the other hand, the bare frame allows one to build the bike back up as you see fit. Change 9s to 11s if you wish. Add a cassette when the bike had a freewheel. Get the gearing right. Get the crank length right. Get the stem and saddle right.

And just have fun doing it.

I recall a few years ago seeing a beautiful frame and correspondingly pantographed crankset on eBay, and from the same vendor a separate listing for the pantographed stem which absolutely came from that bike. I do hope whoever bought the frame also got the stem. I confess to being royally ticked off that the seller would take the selfish approach to milk as much money out of it as he could rather than keep the obvious parts together.