I voted (too late) but I hated Grab Ons on my motorcycle (tried them once as I got them for free) and hated them on my bicycle BITD (paid for a set). Just as bad as those huge steering wheel covers for cars. Dump ‘em. (Or place them lovingly in a box for the next person - they might be dust by then).

I first tried Grab Ons back in the '70s motorcycling to my girlfriend three states away. Now with arthritis in my hands I can tell you simple foam is far inferior to modern materials, such as gels, which provide better grip, vibration dampening, comfort, and appearance.

I’ve a set of NOS foam grips if you want something in better shape. (but likely three decades old or more)

This treatment (the ultra thin neoprene material with cloth tape over-wrap) was donein period by Spence Wolf of Cupertino Bike Shop at customer request. Spence used thin wetsuit material on the top of the bars and on the upper surface of the drops. It had a good look and felt comfy.

So I'd say maybe this treatment has authentic provenance and therefore fits in the "C & V" timeline

/markp

Not Spence Wolf, but rather Dr. Spence the founder of Spenco whom developed and marketed a far better cushioned grip for drop bars.

They have excellent longevity and easy to clean. Though I outer wrap them with Tressostar or Newbaums. They even work with under cables / aero brake levs / end shifters.

If you ride this bike frequently and they feel good, keep them. If they don’t, toss them. If they look fine to you, great. If not, use tape. If this a show bike, remove and tape.

After thinking about it last night, I thought about looking for some Grab Ons for the bike that I ride to ALDI and the brewery or cruise the MUP on. They would appropriate for a bike boom bike such as my Takara. But then I decided I have to agree with you, they wouldn't look that swuft.

But I agree with others that say the OP should do what they want although it wouldn't hurt to see what 40 years of sweat may have done beneath them.

.
...wasn't the next thing to come along the gel padded grip sleeves ? I vaguely remember those, but once gel corked bar tape came along, I never looked back.

I don't think they are anything but c&v. It would be tough for me to come up with a situation where they aren't a c&v product that is largely relegated to low and mid level bikes from decades ago.

Harumph. So much hate for such a useful and comfortable product.

I was not aware of the thin racing-style Grab-Ons BITD, and don't recall seeing them in shops. They could have changed my life back then. Narrator: So would being broadsided by Dave Forsman's old van, but we won't let that distract from the story.

I do like Spenco grips, and agree they are a more-elegant solution. And yes, they're C&V too. I have hoarded collected several sets still in the bag. But they don't always like having cables run under them.

I'm going to console myself with the cushiness of the closed-cell foam used as grips on most of my bikes (even if not from Walla Walla), and let these macroaggressions pass. :)

They are not C&V. They are crap. They always were and I'm sure still are. Right up there with the solid rubber "flat proof" tires.

Is 'c&v' suddenly only a category for quality stuff that's old? Seeing what's commonly posted on here for the last decade, thats quite the hot take.

I recall they had a reputation 'back then' for causing irritation to the forearms on long rides. Anyone else hear this?

There have been piles of trash parts made for bicycles over the decades. Are they all C&V simply because they're old? Or are they just old trash?

Like the Schwinn Varsity, they are both c&v and crap.

I read that US Grant used them.

I'm going to come at this in two directions.

1. I've never dreamed of owning a Cinelli, much less two of them. (If I ever own an Italian bike, it's going to be a Frejus) However, if I ever owned a Cinelli, I would never dream of fitting them out with grab-ons. It's like killing kittens right in front of Karma.
2. Grab-ons are legitimately C&V and if they're in good shape, they're viable options on some bikes - namely those that originally came with safety levers - though I'd not call someone out on them if they happened to find themselves on a bike with a generic steel frame without butted tubes.

I even have grab ons on my Bridgestone 100 Fixie.

next up:

Are turkey levers C&V?

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...f95e3c246b.gif

Some of the topics and comments posted in this forum are a real head scratcher.
It's like some just woke from a decades old slumber and haven't managed to look around before posting.

On a related note- 'are wireless drivetrains and housing internally routed through the head tube modern now?'
That's the level of this thread.

The best thing for Grab Ons is a razor knife.

No.

The issue at hand is the definition of C&V. You probably read a couple dozen of the hundreds of threads that try at that foolish endeavor. But, in general, most agree vintage is an age (25-35 years) and classic means "stands the test of time" and is not faddish, like the OP topic. I decided in my post to split hairs and say indeed these fugly things are vintage, and not classic as only a mother could love that ugly baby. Others have decided not to split that hair, either they are classic AND vintage, or you are not. They have a point, whether you agree with it or not, is irrelevant.

Getting to turkey wings, I'll split hairs again, certainly old, certainly a waste of metal.

This is a common response from you in this forum and it never gets old.
When it comes to opinions on something that has no agreed upon definition, sure everyone then has a point even if I or you don't agree with it.
Thst isn't some revolutionary observation.
It's a message board and discussion is meant to exist here. If responses weren't meant to exist, there would be no quote button. But there is a quotr button and responses are encouraged. So yeah, responses to opinions will happen.

Grab ons clearly aren't modern, so i said they are c&v sincethe status for the specific item is pretty binary to me.
Others hated on it and declared it's bad and therfore not c&v. I asked if only nice stuff can be c&v.

^!thought a recap could help you see that multiple opinions have been given and we all recognize that there is no clear line for what is or isn't c&v from a date or quality perspective.

A wise man taught me that even if you disagree with my comments here, I have a point and your disagreement is irrelevant. Since it would be absurd to post an irrelevant reply, it's best thst you don't.

I provided a clear explanation of the objection. "Nice stuff" had nothing to do with, yet you bring it up again. Why?

And since you went off on some long diatribe that has nothing to do with the more or less agreed upon definition of classic, You are going down a rabbit hole you created. How exactly is that relevant?

Careful what you state, or you might end up in Bike Forums jail.

(Ps. I confess being a serial slasher to barf tape.)