I am one of those people who believes in a relatively robust notion of the "Common Good." You are one of those people, I am deriving from your posts, who sees the Common Good largely as a cover for what is at best a soft form of tyranny. We simply see things differently. I respect your right to your more libertarian viewpoint, and am even sympathetic to it. But ultimately I come down on the side of some sort of collective decision making as the best approach to solving common problems. Both positions have their downsides. I believe that stewardship is not merely individual but benefits from a discussion, sometimes contentious, that results in a rough, evolving set of shared cultural values. That evolving set of values gets expressed in forums such as this one. Some people see that as an attempt at imposing some sort of normativity. I see it as a valuable dimension of the discussion itself and feel there is benefit to be derived from talking about concepts like quality and value (as opposed to simply declaring beauty to exist solely in the eye of the individual beholder and moving on). Just very different perspectives.

Wow... I've never known of a C&V thread to get moved to P&R before, this could be a first.

Think of the kittens, why isn't someone thinking of the kittens!!!

WHY Fixed Gears? I say Why NOT!!

Dang, Picchio, well said! I guess every fanaticism like our vintage bikes should be considered in light of potential larger value systems!

Road (and philosophy) Fan

DREW ALERT! DREW ALERT! DREW ALERT!

-Kurt

Actually Picchio ducked...

He poetic like others on the "Common Good", "Stewardship", "Shared Cultural Values", etc....and tosses out the hypocritical, "I respect your right BUT . . ."

Hell I can do that to...give me a Jim Beam, a guitar and a Grateful Dead album from the early days...I could go on foreever...

...but he ducks the issue...

The tendency of certain C&V members to get bent out of shape as though others should only do things with property THEIR way...and yet run and hide when simply told:

"If you want to "save" it - make 'em an offer they can't refuse!"

Wanting to control what other's do with their private property beyond what is necessary to protect other's private property rights is the behavoir of socialist and communist individuals and nations.

Some would also argue that it is petty and immature behavior...

Bottom line is:

1. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
2. I'll do what I damn well feel like doing with my private property.
3. If you don't like it - make me an offer I can't refuse - else quit your whining.

I'll admit like another poster did that sometimes what you see is downright stupid...but then again...I don't get bent out of shape about it. It's a free country...love it or hate it.

=8-)

Normally I don't care much for that saddle or crankset...

...but funny thing was when I saw this picture my brain said, "The saddle and crankset are the best looking parts of that bike."

=8-)

I don't recall anyone suggesting that conversions should be "controlled" at the government level, or any other level for that matter. People have opinions, and they've expressed them on a forum.

Regarding point #3, generally the bikes that get pointed to as regrettable conversions are done deals. At that point no amount of money could return the bike to its original state.

Welcome to Japan! There's a bloke with a local company with those wheels that keep spinning when you stop on a Bentley Continental GT.

Wait, is socialism bad? Shoot, when did that happen?

I'm gonna have to get a whole new wardrobe.

Exaclty, we are only offering our own opinions. After that the owner is free to do as they wish, and we are free to feel as we wish about it.

What is so wrong about that??

I miss the days when Russians were riding track bikes with their CCCP shirts in red with bulging steroid enhanced muscles and grimmace...it was a nice intimidating front.

=8-)

Did they ride Masi's at that time - or was it after?

=8-)

Hey, I just got a new desktop image!

Neither do I. Saddle was comfortable though, yet, it kills me to see it adjusted as it was. I cannot recall why I left it like that.

-Kurt

the OP doesn't think someone is going to stop him from doing what he wants, he just doesn't like the fact that people might criticize him and hurt his feelings when all he wants to do is look cool on his fixie. That's too bad. He's going to the place where his most vocal critics are probably going to hang out and trying to keep from getting criticized. That's not smart. He should go over to the fixed forum and ask them. They probably will tell him the same thing, change the drivetrain but keep the frame original.


This is not the "convert you classic steel to something it isn't" forum. Someone comes in here and tells us that they are going to potentially Drew their bike, we are going to be suspicious. And they are trolling.

Well, actually, he was talking about converting it. It could be because he wants to ride it, not just look cool.


At least that's why I converted a classic (and rare!) road frame to a fixed gear, I wanted to have a fixed gear road bike to ride.


Remember folks, some people ride fixed gears because they like them, not because they're an (out-of-date) style prop.

Ok gentlemen, you all know how much I hate putting on my Moderator Tone with ya'll, but this thread is getting a bit out of sorts. I know that conversions are a hot bed topic for many of us here in C&V, and that there is a SS/FG forum that may be better suited for such threads. Some of those threads posted in here in the past about conversions are/were likely attempts at trolling, and should be brought to the mod's attention so that we can handle them. In regards to this thread, if you can not participate in this thread in a respectful tone, I will have to ask you from refraining from participating in it at all.

Now that is out of the way, my two cents: Reversable conversions are one thing. Drewing up a frame that can not be put back to original is another. How big of a "crime against cycling" it is, depends greatly on the quality and the rarity of the frame. Was it a lower to middle range Centurion or was it a 78 Paramount or Masi? I'll admit I resprayed a "bike boom" mid 80's lower end Centurion and rebranded it as my own. I stripped off the nearly unused Centurion ARx shifters and put on a NOS Shimano 105 Golden Arrow group. By the end of it (which included drilling the fork and brake bridge for recessed brake mounting) the bike could not have been put back to "original", though it was still a geared bike. However I doubt many people would look upon a Centurion Sport DLX as a loss to the collective vintage cycling history. A 92 Paramount is a slightly different story, as while it does carry the Paramount name, it's not the same bike of the 60's - 80's. Simply put, we've seen lots of GOOD bikes forever stripped of their gears, and any time we hear of a decent bike going down that road there is a chance that the owner will one day add an even nicer bike to the Drewed ranks. So we get defensive due to those fears, jaded by past experiences and examples. I'm not going to stand in anyone's way of a conversion if it means they are going to ride the bike, treat it with some respect and hopefully keep it in a form that can one day be restored to geared ability. I'll go as far as to recommend not breaking out the grinder on even a mid range frame, and probably would risk the wrath of my wife to make an offer to save a high end frame from the grinder wheel. A conversion on the street is better than an original in an attic if done right.

As I stated earlier I was asking the original question to get your viewpoints on me making my Paramount SS. I have been accused of trying to start something by asking a simple question. The reason I asked it here and not SS/FG forum is because I new the SS/FG forum would simply say go for it. I asked here because I respected the thoughts and opinions of those who could talk with me in a rational and decent way. I certainly respect the fact that you may not want me to SS my Paramount. It's your love for the name that made me value your opinions on the subject. Perhaps given your viewpoint I may even deicide that the love of the Paramount name may persuade me to find another bike for this project. The people who had to be nasty about this simply made me wonder what type of immature people I was dealing with. I am not a person who is trying to fit into some new found fad. I actually thought the bike would make for a sleek and lightweight singlespeed road bike. The reason for singlespeed is because of fitness not a fad. Using only one gear would help in making me a stronger rider. I am sorry for those who are so paranoid about someone posting about a SS conversion here that they have to call someone a troll, or a drew or whatever.

Maybe so, but perhaps if you had waded through every post in this thread, you might have seen that amongst the general complaints were a number of courteous, respectful replies to you which answered your original question quite well.

If I were you, I would not attack the entire group. The entire group did not attack you.

-Kurt

And you are right cudak888. To those who responded respectfully, thank you. But the statement was about "the people who had to be nasty about this".

In all honesty the initial question/statement came off a bit rough to me. Read like you were trying to get a rise out of people. I have a 1983 Nishiki I converted to a fixed gear and love the ride. The way I see it is if you're on a bicycle that's good enough. Do what you want with your property. You can do what you want and I can feel how I want.

The discussion really took a few turns that involved "Drewing" a frame, but I don't believe that was your original intent. It's just what the discussion evolved into.

.
its your bike , but please dont ----------->



and cut, smash, or pound anything off it . geared bikes are geared bikes

Yes, it is. It happened from it conception. Instead of getting a new wardrobe, how about getting a clue.

Oh, never mind, this is off-topic. In fact, its so far off-topic, it's off-forum.

??

You don't have to be a socialist to do whats in the common good. Even capitalism can exist (must exist) in a social world. The social body can organize a capitalist system (or system of capital), but its bad news if we forget that its still a social world. I believe in capitalism. I think its the best system on paper, because it simply means converting goods to something of universal value (the dollar), and streamlining barter. Its too bad our representatives game that system with preferential policies that benefit those who have already benefited enough to have the resources to "purchase" or lobby for more benefits. Nice little vicious circle there. Probably a natural tendency in a system where universal currency eliminates the necessity of being local to the items of trade, but the purpose of government should be to prevent that (hence checks and balances. the whole design of our government was shaped around it in a variety of ways, but it still doesn't work as it should), and provide stewardship so the social body is not undermined by the capacity for swift personal gain that consolidates power and necessitates a losses to others (not all gain necessitates loss, and a responsibly run version of a capitalist repiblic would be possessed of enough social stewardship to take steps to ensure that deals where only one person wins and the other loses aren't the norm. That's not capitalism, after all, but feudalism. People are self preserving, and they only trade at a loss if/when either the deck is stacked against them - i.e., not pure capitalism, which should be an even playing field - or the market is wrong for their products/services. I just don't see how the market could be wrong for the product/services of %95 percent of the people, and right for the other %5, so it must be deck stacking that's going on). This is what perverts capitalism and gives it a bad name. On paper is just a system of trade.

But to say that a capitalist nation is not still a social body, and that social values and collective value for actions and objects of social meaning is unimportant, is to mistake our purpose on this earth. That's the closest thing an atheist (technically an agnostic, but who's counting) like me comes to seeing as turned away from the light.