Delano

Pardon me if this question has been posed already. It seems like a logical post to BEGIN this forum, but I couldn't find it -- there are 572 pages of posts to look through, and I may have missed it.

What makes a bike a "classic"? A Masi from twenty years ago I can see, but a bike from a discount store from twenty years ago I can't see. How does one spot the "classics"? What criterion do people use to determine the quality of a bike? Age alone can't be the criterion, even though the quality of a steel bike from several decades ago is probably a lot better than the quality of a steel bike today. There has to be something objective (in addition to all the subjective stuff like beauty, etc.). Is it the name? if so, how does one spot a good manufacturer if you're new and they've been out of business for a while or sold to a mass producing company?

Ex Pres 

For those of us that are vintage, too:
The bike you wanted to own when you were a kid, but couldn't afford. Or in my case, wasn't even aware of because they were priced so high.

And what part of C AL? Bham here.

sauerwald

I have often wondered this too - The bikes in my stable are not old, but are, in many ways classic. Lugged steel frames, two of my 3 bikes use non-indexed shifting, and although built in this century, could have easily been built 50 years ago.

RobbieTunes

That's been posted to death here, but I'll analogize:

Sophia Loren is classic.

Delano

Alex City, about an hour and a half away.


Yes, I am sure it's been posted here before, and many times. Care to provide me with a link or two so I could benefit from the wisdom of the weary?

CardiacKid

We pretty much have a laissez faire attitude here. Classic is in the eye of the beholder. I have even seen a website for collectors of department store 10 speeds. Those people thumb their nose at people who only collect high end old bikes.

mtnbke

In my book, and as I advocate seemingly ad nauseum a frame design that was the lightest in the world, and stiffest and most efficient at its introduction. A bike that afforded the rider an almost telepathic connection with the road. A bike that suffers from none of the inefficiencies of wriggly bottom brackets and twisty chainstays. A bike where when you pedal you GO.

To me the Cannondale 3.0 frame series is Classic.

I think the frames and the bikes are absolutely epic. Making them even more classic in my mind is the fun fact that you can find one in its original kit with Dura-Ace, Campagnolo, or Suntour components, and all in the same production year. Since some of these were produced with 128mm spacing you can hang vintage kit on them, or modern kit and not only are these frames groundbreaking, but they also manage to bridge the gap between vintage and modern.

What they aren't is Italian steel. However, I think the handmade aluminum frame and the romance of the Bedford, PA facility is lost on the American cyclist.

The average cyclist can not even comprehend the skill difference between someone in Italy brazing steel lugs and someone in Pennsylvania who is TIG welding frames. The skill level comparison is like playing for the JV team on your high school team versus making it to the show.

Cannondale has always been at the forefront of cycling innovation. Italian bikes are more about tradition.

I think that early Cannondales are going to be thought of very very well of in the coming years. They were just...brilliant.

What they weren't was Italian, or steel.

AndyK 

Fixed!

USAZorro

My brain makes a bike a classic.

Same goes for everyone else.

FZ1Tom

yep, classic is very much whatever you, the buyer or collector, think it is. I saw my CAAD 9-7 today for the first time and I have to say that FOR ME it's already a classic! (the patriot blue is gorgeous). But in 20 years it may well be just another cheap aluminum bike to the masses.

Or it maybe be tomorrow's equivalent to today's past - Italian and Japanese lugged steel frames that exude skill and craftmanship, superb functioning and reliable components, often at very reasonable prices.

It's also a learn as you go process. I had been out of bicycling for the most part of 20 years, since the late 80s and early 90s. That seems to be a golden era for lugged steel frames, and a number of high end bikes of the era are still superb riders even today. That's why I want to get something cool like a Bridgestone RB-1. Sure it might weigh a few more pounds but in the scheme of things that's certainly something I can gladly live with.

Then there's the still older pre-80's stuff which, while a little heavier and a little simpler still, has some marvelous bikes - cudak's chrome Paramount racer comes instantly to mind here.

And so on all the way back to the beginning of the bicycle as we know it today.

I dunno when I'll ever actually get a nice C&V bike, much less a 'holy grail', but I sure do enjoy reading about all the great finds and cool pics. And that's half the fun of it

Tom

Little Darwin

Some fixies are classics, some are ghastly.

But back to your actual comment... which I hope was in jest, but I will write about anyway. Not as much in response to you as a comment I had brewing in my mind concerning what to me makes something classic...

While department store bikes of today might be junk. I rode (and still ride) department store bikes from the 70's, among other bikes, and they are fine bikes. They may not be light, but then again, neither am I.

A 1957 Chevrolet Bel Air is a classic, and always will be... why wouldn't a bicycle that filled a similar niche be a classic? A 1957 Bel Air when compared to the exotics of its day may not be at the top of the heap... but very few would dismiss it in the same way that bicycle collectors sometimes dismiss a very nicely constructed department store bicycle from the 1960's or 1970's that was just as durable with classic lines.

Both are incredibly heavy and slow when compared to their exotic counterparts, and would never keep up with them in a head to head comparison, but why should one be considered a classic while one is called junk just because of a switch in categories? We don't all have the means (or desire) to own the elite product, but that doesn't make what we choose to collect non-classic.

While a 1957 Corvette is a classic, so is a 1957 Bel Air. While a 1970's Bianchi is a Classic, so might be at least some Western Flyers....

As long as we each enjoy our passion, we should be able to enjoy the work others put into their hobbies as well.

BigPolishJimmy

https://www.geocities.com/bigpolishji...fy_camaro.html

maybe a classic, maybe not, still worth doing though

ozneddy

If its "Cool" its "Classic" !

Zaphod Beeblebrox 

All kinds of bikes can be classics...

Even though its a big lunky beast, i think most folks would consider a 60's or 70's Schwinn Varsity or Continental a "Classic"

Casrider

My opinion echos that of most of the other posts. When I think of the word "classic" I think of "style" and "fashion". Those things that are classic never will go out of fashion because they have great style.

It's subjective. You have to find your "classics" on your own. The bikes you are drawn to regardless of trends - those will be your classics.

First, determine the use of the bike and your purpose for it. Some mass produced bikes are excellent for utilitarian purposes - while some top of the line custom built race bikes aren't the best for hauling groceries back from the farmers' market.
After that it's all the usual criteria that you might consider to determine quality of any bike - geometry, components, frame tubing material, condition, etc. But a lot of it revolves around your first visual impressions.

Not true. Advancements in steel tubing manufacturing, I would argue, got better as the years went on.
My Casati frame from the early 90's is a better build than the Casatis from a decade before it. Advancements came about as science developed. Even small things like internal cable routing made them more aerodynamic.

Yes, some names are known for making high quality bikes. Some of the objective things I've mentioned above: frame geometry, frame tubing, components,
Spend time doing research. Browse these pages for names - also check out websites like https://www.classicrendezvous.com/
just do random Google searches for "classic bicycle", "vintage bicycle", "retro bicycle", and the word "brand" to each of those searches as well, etc.

Flying Merkel

Don't laugh, but I still have a soft spot for a Royce-Union department store 10-speed that I rode back in the late 70s. Decent piece. Needed a lot of fiddling to keep going, but it was the bike I took my first real long ride on, 'bout 40 miles or so. Lugged frame, cottered steel crank with razor-sharp crank arms that shaved away the skin on my ankle bone regularly. Burnt orange with gumwall tires.

Junk to most, but classic to me. The old bike boom ten-speeds played an important role in American bicycling culture.

yuoil 

I think I agree everyone will have a different perspective. To me, a classic is anything you get and you want to ride and use until it falls apart. Then you rebuild it and ride it more. You enjoy looking at it and riding it. Or using it if it's something you can't ride!

Delano

Paging through the various pictures of bikes posted on this forum, some bikes were o.k., some were not so o.k., and some made me do a double-take at how beautiful they were. Not knowing their names or heritage, I wanted to find out more about them.

...I think I got it.