That paint will only be original once. Leave it as it is. It'll be much more interesting (patina and all) than a generic looking powdercoat. Those are a dime a dozen. I'd much rather be able to see the bike's history.

Thanks for the comments everyone. I guess we'll see what happens from here on out. Ciao.

Alright guys, I've made a decision. I know some have explained the importance of keeping it's orginality and that others might frown upon it being "genericized," but many have suggested to do whatever I please. So, therefore, I've decided to powdercoat it, mainly because a couple of my old friends from school, work for a powdercoating company called "American Powdercoating" located here in Bakersfield, CA. They gave me a pretty good deal and many people that i've asked about the company have given me nothing but positive feedbacks about their work. Sorry to disappoint, but it just seems right. As far as loosing it's originality, I guess for me, it's still going to be that very same Raleigh my uncle had given to me.

Anyhow, once again, thank you for your comments. Powdercoated picture results will be up shortly. :)

No particular harm done. I've yet to come across an '86 Raleigh Grand Prix that does not have poorly-finished, soft paint in the first place - and for that matter, the decaling isn't too attractive either.

Good opportunity to apply some earlier Raleigh lettering variants (as stickers, I believe - IIRC, decals do not adhere to p-coat) if you do have it refinished.

-Kurt

The New Loo
 

THE NEW LOOK: Powdercoated :D

Attachment 74852 New color scheme.

Attachment 74853 Makes the decal look even better.

Attachment 74854 Raleighhhhhh.

Attachment 74855 Back end.

Attachment 74856 Original patent code.

Attachment 74857 No more cable guides.

Attachment 74858 For them water bottles...

Attachment 74860 Branded.

Attachment 74861 Base.

Attachment 74862 Raleigh fork.

Attachment 74863 NO more shifter bosses; right.

Attachment 74864 NO more shifter bosses; left.

I'm very happy with the outcome and I can't thank enough my friend Ric @ Bakersfield American Powder-coating for taking care of it. Hope you guys like it, cause I do.

Thanks for viewing.

*Bump before dinner. :thumb:

holy crap that was fast. i guess that's the best way, like ripping off a bandaid.

:rolleyes:

Yes, nice job, but when will you fixie fellows learn that the headset is supposed to be removed before you paint the thing? Makes it look like a genuine off-the-street, rattle-can paint job from all but close up.

-Kurt

Agreed, the white headset looks ridiculous. The rest of the bike looks great! :thumb:

Cudak888. They took the fork off and headset and painted it separately. They handed it to me piece by piece. I just asked my friend at the shop to put it for me. I'm getting the original seat post powdercoated as well. It was a 2 day process. Brought it in early morning Thursday and picked it up at 5 before they closed this afternoon. No need to be negative already. Jesus.

ARe you also getting the stem handlebars crank pedals saddlerails hubs rims spokes powdercoated? you're not gonna stop at the seatpost and headset, I hope.

[quote=rxtech06;6961653]Cudak888. I'm getting the original seat post powdercoated as well. QUOTE]

Not the whole thing I hope, or it won't fit.

No, I'm thinkin about going with a black and white look, for now. White frame, and maybye white oury grips. Otherwise, straight handle bar, wheels, chain, crankset, pretty much everything else black. Yeah it might be two toned, but what the hell. that's just the plan for now. I'm sure i'll change my mind later. One of the reasons why I chose white is because it goes with any color, so we'll see how I feel when the time comes.

I'd bet that he couldn't tighten it down too hard either for fear of damaging the paint. Considering the thickness of powdercoat, I'm left in wonder as to how the cup races, insides of the washers, and threading was masked in entirety without someone going absolutely mad.

Regardless though, it does not aid the appearance of the bike one bit - to see a painted headset the same exact color of the frame is to see something that looks like severe kludge, for it almost always is. Could have least installed a black headset if you were going for the B/W theme.

I don't get the point of powdercoating it, then again, I don't get the point of the whole fixie fashionista thing either.

-Kurt

P.S.: Do realize that the ideas of fixie culture don't particularly jive here at C&V (and mind you, I addressed all fixie builds with my comment), and you might recieve constructive criticism as a result. If you can't take it, we have a forum that will better suit your tastes: Singlespeed & Fixed Gear.

Word...........

Folks, please do not edit user names when quoting user comments.

You know, that's a rather narow view of "property." It's certainly in line with contemporary American thinking, but still a narrow view. The concept of "private property" is itself a recent historical innovation, and even within the framework of "private property," people don't necessarily do whatever they want with "their property."

Some kinds of property are used and eventually discarded as "personal property," in accordance with one's whims. Some people view all property through this lens-- even the land and it's resources.

Other types of property are held in private possession, to be used and enjoyed while one is alive, and then passed on to future generations. Under this view, the person "owning" the property is mindful that the property is not "personal property," but is only held in stewardship, to be used and enjoyed, before being passed on to future generations. Examples of this view of property include the land and its resources, as well as other types of property, such as art.

Who would think it a reasonable use of "property" for a private "owner" to repaint a Van Gogh to suit his whims? The Van Gogh, is, after all, his "property," to do with as he pleases, and yet I suspect that many who unthinkingly put forth the meaning-laden phrase "it's your property" would take nevertheless take offense at the destruction of "property" that is held in stewardship for future generations.

Whether or not it's sacrilege to cut off the downtube bosses, I'd be pretty concerned about weakening the frame at this point - I once tried the same thing on an old 531 frame and was left with two holes and a lot of daylight at that point, plus a scrap frame - lesson learned! I'd suggest buying two domed rubber tap (faucet?) washers at the hardware store deep enough to cover the bosses. Drill the centres out to the right size and put the screws back (slightly countersunk) and no strength is lost - and you won't rip your legs in the event of a tumble.

No holes in the downtube and no rubber bungs! Shows the value of a professional job, rather than an amateur attempt - I take my suggestion back. I thought the green & lilac looked good but the plain white finish is excellent. Is there any reason a fixed conversion can't still be a classic? Not my thing, I'll admit, but back in the 1970's a lot of us British club cyclists only had one frame. We'd put a fixed wheel on (with brakes) for winter riding/training, replace the gears in the spring and add a rack and panniers for touring holidays. Anyway, have fun with it - post some photos when it's built, I'll look out on the SS&FG forum as well, just in case.

But this is a bicycle, not a Van Gogh.

I knew somebody would miss the point entirely.

I wasn't saying the bike is the equivalent of a Van Gogh. I was saying that there are some types of property that are held in stewardship. The Van Gogh is an obvious illustration of the idea that "ownership" doesn't give one the right to do whatever one pleases with the "property." And stewardship isn't limited to Van Goghs-- it's applicable to a wide range of "property."

On the continuum of use, ranging from complete destruction, through irretrievably altering the property, through preserving the property intact for future generations, something that is common and readily and easily replaceable and meant to be consumed and discarded may be at the complete destruction end of the scale. On the other hand, the closer the property approaches the uncommon, and is not readily and easily replaceable, and is not meant to be consumed and discarded, the closer it is to the end of the continuum at which property, while used and enjoyed, is nevertheless preserved intact for future generations.

BlueOrder, personally I agree with you. I got kinda flamed on another thread for saying that although I really like Vitus aluminum frame bikes, I can't ride one because I'd ruin it (too heavy at 6'3" 225lbs). Personally I feel like it's a privilege to get to own one of these many classic bikes. If other people had not treated them well they would not be around for all of us to enjoy. Should we not pass that along? Unfortunately the prevailing culture does not look at things that way most of the time. A pity.

Karl

The Miyata in that link above this is a top of the line model which are much rarer -- hopefully worthy of a restoration at some point. The frame in question here is a much more common model, and like I mentioned earlier, by no means a classic. Condition was good at best. If the fixie/SS hipsters want to mess with frames of that ilk and condition, then let them have at it, as restorations of those aren't cost effective. It's when they get their unrespectful hands on really nice frames and mess them up is when I become annoyed.

I am not a fixie/ss fan myself, but I am not about to tell someone else what they should do with their personal property. There are plenty of stewards of this model Raleigh. The stewardship argument doesn't hold water for this one. Save it for better frames.

Who's the arbiter of what's worthy of being preserved? Whose standard of "worthy" do we go by?

There was a time when my '77 Motobecane was just an outdated bike, and I considered making some minor but permanent changes to it. Now I'm glad I didn't do it, because enough time has passed that it's made the progression from "outdated" to "classic." Sure, there are lots of Grand Tourings around, so maybe it wouldn't hurt to turn this one into something else. And the next one. And the next one. But at some point, you start running out of them. They only made a limited number, and they're not making any more. For what it's worth, I will be making some changes to the Motobecanes, but they will be enhancements, rather than fundamentally and irreversibly altering them. And if I want, or somebody down the line wants, they will be able to easily put them back into stock condition. Will they ever be "really nice frames"" Nope. Are they "classics"? Absolutely.

And in fact, I've got another bike that I will be converting into a fixie. No need for me to grind parts off, because there's nothing to grind off. And the conversion itself isn't irreversible. In the end, I will have a vintage fixie conversion that still preserves the frameset that is at the heart of the bike...even if that frameset will never be particularly valuable (and I should note that the frameset is unusual enough to make it an interesting fixie conversion nonetheless.).

Finally, I think it is the "personal property" argument that doesn't hold water, when you're talking about something that is no longer being made. First, I think it smacks of elitism to suggest that only frames judged by some mystery arbiter as "better" are worthy of stewardship. Second, that '86 Raleigh may not be particularly valued today, but as they disappear from the face of the Earth, people will begin wishing they had preserved Raleigh's from the "seafoam and lilac" era. Nobody, on the other hand, will give a toss about generic powdercoated mystery frames that are "alleged" to be made of Reynolds 531, or "alleged" to be made by a particular marque. Those will be a dime a dozen at the metal scrapyard.

Addendum: Depending on how one draws the boundaries, I myself may be on the wrong side of the "stewardship" relationship with at least some of my bikes. There's a fine line between "enhancing" or "upgrading" a bike and destroying its history, and I'm not even sure myself where some of my projects fall within that spectrum, or if it even matters for some of my projects. Some examples:

Motobecane Grand Tourings: The paint and graphics will be kept stock. The drivetrains will be modified from 10 to 15 speed. This was a period-correct upgrade, however. I also plan to add fenders and racks-- again, period correct. The bottom brackets will be replaced with Phil Woods, and the auxiliary brake levers will be replaced with guidonnets (if it worls aesthetically). The paint will be touched up with automotive paint. Enhancements? Or destruction of the bike's history and context?

Fujis: The Allegro will be rebuilt as a fast road tourer. The hi-ten fork will be swapped out for a Valite fork. The underlying gold paint will be kept, but I am changing the trim from brown to red. Components will be upgraded in terms of quality and contemporary performance. Wheels will be changed from 27" to 700c (I don't want Ms. Blue Order to have to struggle with odd sizes). The Sagres will be repainted blue, Ms. Blue Order's favorite color, with gold trim. I haven't quite decided how to build the Sagres, but it will probably become a city bike, again with 700c wheels, and with flat bars and upgraded components. Enhancements? Or destruction of the bike's history and context?

Gitane: My commuter, the Gran Tour will be kept mostly stock, except for the simplex barcons, which I'm not having much luck finding, and which will likely be replaced by SunTour barcons. I also plan to add cyclocross interrupter levers, and change to aero levers on the drops. Enhancements? Or destruction of the bike's history and context?

Trek 850s: These will be powdercoated fluorescent green (stock color is yellow), and stock decals will be commissioned and applied. The under the chain stay u-brake mounts may or may not be replaced with seat stay cantilever mounts. The cable guides will most likely be cut off and relocated to the top of the top tube. These will be rebuilt with mostly contemporary touring componentry. Conversion to touring bikes? Or destruction of the bike's history and context?

Raleigh Portages: These will be powdercoated white (stock color). The head badge decal will be replaced with a brass head badge. Only one of the decals will be reapplied. Componentry will be upgraded. The mixte is actually newer than the diamond frame, so I will be replacing the fork and the bars with a fork and bars that match the older of the two Portages. Enhanced? Or destruction of the bike's history and context?

Trek 830: This will be my winter commuter. Cantilever posts to be cut off and replaced with disc tabs on fork, and an internal hub on the rear. Enhancement? Or destruction of the bike's history and context?

Raleigh Record: My fixie bait. Unless I find one in bronze green, I may paint a blue one bronze green, with appropriate white trim and correct decals. The fixie conversion itself will not alter the frame in any way...with the exception of the bottom bracket threads. Destruction of the bike's history and context? Or acceptable period-correct alteration?

I use these examples to illustrate my own dilemma when confronted with my own words. How much change to a bike is "too much"? How much change exceeds the permissible bounds of good stewardship? Why is it OK for me, for example, to relocate cable guides on my Trek 850, but it's not OK for somebody else to grind his cable guides off? Why is it OK for me to powdercoat my Trek 850 a different color, but it's not OK for somebody else to powdercoat his uniquely-colored classic bike white? My point in raising these questions is that there's not necessarily a bright line between permissible changes and violations of the trust we keep. Or maybe there is, but we excuse our own follies more readily than we excuse the follies of others. Is "destroying" a bike's history like Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart's definition of pornography: "I know it when I see it"? Or is there a readily definable line beyond which the "owner" of the "personal property" should not cross?