To "update" classic bikes with "modern" components? Obviously, a 1968 vintage Schwinn Paramount should be left stock (or restored with vintage parts). A 1973 C-Itoh, on the other hand - who cares???

Obviously, this is a subjective question (One woman's classic is another woman's junk), but I'd like to ask in this forum, just to see...

The question is: What makes and models should NEVER be updated and which should be updated at the owner's discretion?

My list:

Upper-mid to top-line Italian bikes more than 30 years old = NEVER
Top-line French, English, and Japanese bikes more than 30 years old = NEVER
Schwinn Paramounts = NEVER

Any other bike = At your discretion

My 198? Centurion Elite is currently being upgraded with newer cranks, derailleur, bars, stem, & seat. I'll post before & after pics for y'all to critique.

My thinking is that if you make changes that will encourage you to ride the bike, do it. I do agree, there are cases where a bike should be kept as original as possible. Examples of my thinking on this are found on a couple of my bikes: my '72 Raleigh International will stay as "correct" as I can keep it, and I'll probably only ride it on special occasions, but my '83 Schwinn le tour luxe has only the original frame, fork, handlebars, and brakes on it, and I ride it more than any bike I have right now. The le tour luxe is "modernized" and a much better bike because of it (I should know, I've owned it since it was a year old). To each his/her own I say, just as long as you get out and ride-

I flunk.

I put a 2006 long cage carbon Campy RD on my 1972 P15, but I kept the original GT-300 "Le Tour" RD for bike shows. The new RD shifts are smooth as silk, making the bike much more pleasant to ride.

+1 on the notion of whatever puts your butt in the saddle ... and, whatever gets you excited about wrenching on the bikes you have, and gets you interested in the next project. I'd just add that anything which actually alters the real old stuff is problematic. Case in point: as I've mentioned here before, I'm restoring a 1972 Bob Jackson with a decidedly non-period Shimano arabesque group. It's not TOO far off, it looks cool, and it works real well, not to mention the fact that lots of Brit lightweights were sold as frames only back then so componentry was up to the buyer anyway. That being said, if I ever want to go period correct, the Shimano can come off, 1972 Campy can go on, and nobody will be the wiser.

Admittedly my take on this subject weighs very heavily on my 28-year absence from the sport: I tend to prefer to stay within the decade of the frame, if only to fully experience what decently top line cycling was in each era. Obviously there's a huge difference between my '71 Tour de France (Simplex/Mavic), '85 Rossin RL (SIS Dura-Ace), and my '03 Fuji Finest (9-speed Ultegra), and what I ride depends on what period I care to experience that day.

And when I do play with the setup, I usually voluntarily limit myself to treating the bike as if it was something that I'd owned for about 3-5 years and are doing the usual upgrades as better bits become available. My '69 Magneet follows that trend, SunTour Compe-V/V-GT have replaced the Valentinos and I went to Weinmann alloy rims and quick release Maillaird hubs replacing the cheap steel wheels. Both changes were normal early 70's upgrades on a late 60's bike.

Assuming I add a few more bikes to the garage, no doubt I'll be playing a little faster and looser, although having been a historical re-enactor for over 20 years, the concept of 'period correct' is very near and dear to me. And it spills over in other areas, such as cars, motorcycles, stereo equipment, etc.

I'll have to dissagree on one point: I've always wanted to see a '70s Paramount outfitted with full C-Record first-gen.

-Kurt

My 1985 Trek 520 has almost all new components.

I also have a 1989 Pinarello Montello SLX that I plan to put a new gruppo on.

That said, I also have a 1976 Schwinn Voyageur that is stock and will stay that way.

Right now, I'm building a mid-80's BMZ Columbus SL tubed Italian frameset with 10 speed Campagnolo.

For me, it's pretty much mix and match to get the bike I want to ride. There are exceptions that I would keep all original, but in general I've no problem with building any way that suits my fancy.

It's not like I'm doing any permanent damage - shaving off braze-ons and so forth. And most vintage bikes have been tinkered with and changed around long before I got my hands on them. Many of the higher end bikes of yesteryear were ordered as framesets and built to customer spec, so who's to say what is "original", anyway? Granted, modern drivetrains on vintage frames are obviously not "correct", but the idea of mating old and new doesn't bother me much.

I replaced the inferior French components on my '74 PX10 with Campy NR and SR. I don't care if anybody else approves. I like it.

I installed almost new components on my 1985 510. But for me I got the whole gruppo used for $35, so instead of them collecting dust I slapped them on my Trek. But now I have a Triomphe gruppo waiting to be put on a deserving frame.

Yes and no -- a tale of two Capos, relatively rare ca. 1960 fairly high-end Austrian bikes. Full Reynolds 531 framesets with ornate lugwork, originally equipped with high-flange Campag. hubs, Campag. Gran Sport derailleurs, Weinmann 999 brakesets, but cottered steel cranks, steel seatposts, and stamped dropouts.

S/N 40324: purchased for $20 with aftermarket BikeNashbar wheels , aftermarket Nervar Star crankset , and mediocre repaint job, plus unserviceably worn-out front derailleur.
Repainted, updated, and upgraded (aluminum Campag. seatpost, ca. 1980 Campag. derailleurs).

S/N 42624: purchased for alot more $, with virtually all original components.
Cleaning and touching up paint. Replacing rims, spokes, brake cables, brake pads. Replacing chainrings with NOS period-correct Simplex aluminum 49-46; original would have been Agrati steel 52-48, but mine came with Simplex 58 (anyone want it???) - 45. Agonizing over tubulars (OEM on this specific model) versus clinchers (OEM on the other model).

For me it has more to do with what was on the bike when you got it. If was mostly original and rare, you shouldn't screw it up. If it's a particularly rare frame, don't cold set it or add braze-on's or something permanent. Other than that, if you pick up a rare/old frame with trashed components, build it up with modern stuff all you want. The next owner can unbolt your stuff and bolt on his stuff.

Likewise with my 1980 PKN-10E, which I happily equipped with a Japanese drivetrain. The first owner had already installed Galli sidepull brake calipers (the best road brakeset I have ever owned), a Shimano 600 front deraileur (again, very nice), and Campag. downtube shift levers (which entailed chiseling off the Simplex braze-ons ). Frankly, the craftsmanship on this frame is so sloppy, and the paint is so rough, that I don't regard this one as a collectible, although it is indeed a nice rider.

My UO-8, which I purchased new as a bare frame when I worked at a Peugeot dealership, has always had Normandy hubs (which I don't recommend, having bent or broken a few axles over the years), aluminum cranks, and Japanese derailleurs.

I'm in the process of polishing a turd. Putting a lot of money and time into a $60 3-speed frame. In the end it will be magnificent. Almost no vintage or NOS components, just the original trigger shifter.

Put what ever you want on it, components can always be taken off, so I dont think it's even an issue. I wouldn't cut any braze-ons off, and I'd be real carefull about repainting or coldseting. But you want to bolt some parts on? Who cares?

I guess I'm the heartless Phillistine of the bunch. I got a yellow 1967 Paramount on eBay, frame, fork and headset only. Kept the headset - Campy Record, so of course I kept it. Not a big fan of yellow in general (and someone had splashed bleach or something on it, leaving a number of discolored splotches), and I wanted something I could ride over hill and dale; we have plenty of both in my neck of the woods, and I'm big and no longer young, so Nuovo Record and 42x24 was not a viable option.

So, now it is a beautiful dark charcoal grey with white pinstriping around the lugs (Nervex, natch, and the headtube lugs and fork crown are still chrome) and white period-correct decals. The rear is now 130mm instead of 120. It has two sets of bottle cage bosses, cable guides on the BB (over the top, not underneath), pump peg and new brake cable guides. It has a collection of decidedly not period correct parts that reflect my personal tastes (which means many, but not all, of the components ended up coming from Rivendell - not really by design, it just sort of worked out that way). So go ahead, cast me out into the wilderness.

But oh man, is it a sweet ride. Damn pretty, too.

https://www.cyclofiend.com/cc/

Nothing is sacred. That is a good thing.

My '87 Bianchi Columbus SL frame came to me with a very nice Gary Cole repaint. I felt no obligation to stick with period parts. I used modern Veloce brake calipers, Veloce 10 speed crankset and rear derailleur. Front derailleur is 10 speed Centaur. Brake levers are Tektro, stem is Nitto Technomic, handlebar is Nitto B115, friction shifters and seatpost are '80's Campy, Saddle is TFI made in Italy. Bottle cages are Blackburn stainless. Wheels and cassette are 9 speed.

All I wanted was to retain friction shifting and maintain the look and feel of an '80's bike, which I think I did.

https://www.kodakgallery.com/Slidesho...e&conn_speed=1

My Bianchi is being updated.... but the components are staying the same.
It's an '83 Bianchi Alloro, and has bright red brake cables, cheapy shimano aero brake levers (would've gotten nicer if I could afford them), carbonstyke aero bars, carbon bottle cage, and soon an updated saddle.

With that being said, I won't repaint, cut/braze, or throw away any parts I remove. It'll be restorable if someone decides to do so.

If you collect bikes as art (and that's a perfectly reasonable thing to do), then you should collect as you like. Lots of folks like to collect period correct and specification correct bikes and that's just fine.

But if you ride, IMO, you should feel free to choose the best components for that frame where "best" is entirely based on what makes you happy and what adds to your riding experience. Personally, I view all top end bikes as frames with components hung on them and to be changed and swapped. I associate "original components" with lower end frames that sold as bike "models".

Hey - was that your bike I saw in a dumpster a while back?

Being from the old school of thought where "components/parts have gotten better but frames have not", I would say nothing is untouchable or should I say un-updatable. Im sure some, or most, of you will say that this is blasphemy, but I THINK if you were to put high(er) end components on a nice vintage hand built Columbus Steel frame, you would have an awesome ride! I updated my 1985 Bianchi Superleggera with mid 90's Dura-Ace but that was because I couldnt pass on a unused full D/A gruppo, including seatpost for $200.

Unless youre trying to sell it, add and replace according to your taste and standard... hell the pros do it why shouldnt we??!

Hehe this is a joke right? Someone took a photo of their paramount in a dumpster? Even has the VO seatbag I have been thinking about buying, whoever's bike this is. Can you tell me what you think of the bag?

Well..... that's what I'm hoping for, anyway. See THIS THREAD.

Pics soon, but I'm building just the bike you envision - a Columbus SL tubed frame with modern Campy 10 speed drivetrain. It should be ready to ride this weekend, and I'm hoping to knock off 40 miles on the maiden voyage.

My feeling is that if it doesn't involve a saw or a torch, it can probably be undone. It's your bike, go for it.
Now on the other hand, if I was Lance Armstrong and somebody messed up my GTO, like they did on that T.V. show, I'd be scraping Foose off my shoes.