|
Will Modern Bikes Ever Be Classic?
Obviously we here in C&V would collectively answer "no", because we're retro-grouches, tight-wads, lug-addicts, steel-admirers, or because we lust after the bikes we couldn't have then. Or, perhaps we don't like the fact that the modern bicycle industry is pretty one-note, over-globalized, obsessed with "progress", too race-oriented, or is becoming increasingly obsessed with planned obsolescence.
I fall into pretty much all of those camps, with the possible exception of lusting after bikes we couldn't have "then". While I was at my LBS yesterday I decided to check out some of the high-zoot bikes. On one level I appreciate things about them that make them more "useable" - compact cranks, brifters, dual-pivot brakes - are a good example. But with these advances (I use this term loosely) comes the expense, and from what I've heard, lack of durability. I know that (at least to these eyes) modern Dura-Ace looks like crap and simply doesn't scream "timeless" like 7700 era stuff did, for example. I'm also so amazed that a Dura-Ace crank is now like $600. Perhaps the good stuff cost a similar amount then, relative to inflation, but it just seems like the cost of this stuff is pushing people out of the sport. What I guess I'm getting at here is it seems to me that many of the great 80's-era bikes are/were plentiful and had reasonably bomb-proof equipment on them. I'm always amazed when I see a 600-equipped bike from the early 80's running as good now as it must've back then. Now, roadbikes are much more niche-oriented. We already have to wade through a sea of crappy MTBs to find a classic roadbike. Now that an entry level roadbike is roughly $1k, and your average hybrid is like $300, what will the C&V of tomorrow look like? I just can't imagine a $5000 Trek ever showing up on a site like this 20 years from now. Also from a sheer numbers standpoint...how many of these super-bikes actually get produced each year? Seems to me that part of why we had it so good over the last decade or so is the sheer volume of bikes produced around both bike booms. One thing I will not downplay is the tendency of people to buy really expensive bikes...and not ride them. Thanks for reading this Friday pre-lunch post. I think about this stuff a lot, and hope that this wasn't too jumbled or too much like other "What will C&V be like in a decade?" threads. Moreover, this could also easily be the case of not having lived through the frustration of some of these advances. I have riding buddies who are decided anti-C&V, claiming they lived through this era and the stuff now is just so much better, so much so that I'm pining for a golden age that never existed. |
I had a brand new 1985 Ford Mustang. It was the worst POS I ever owned. When I sold it 4 years later, with only 50,000 miles on it, it was falling apart.
My nephew in Illinois called me the other day and told me to keep an eye out for a classic Mustang for him. He is looking for either an '85 or '86. I laughed my --- off. Of course, some of today's bikes will be classics. |
Originally Posted by Oregon Southpaw
(Post 11323619)
While I was at my LBS yesterday I decided to check out some of the high-zoot bikes. On one level I appreciate things about them that make them more "useable" - compact cranks, brifters, dual-pivot brakes - are a good example. But with these advances (I use this term loosely) comes the expense, and from what I've heard, lack of durability.
Aesthetics and cost aside, brakes and shifters are real, huge advances - no need to qualify the statement with the term "loosely". As to lack of durability, that is a misconception - with the possible exception of low-end Shimano brifters (ut even they last for 1000's and 1000's of miles). My modern Campy cranks, brakes, etc, will last for a long, long time, and if the brifters finally fail even after as little as 20,000 miles or so, big deal - I'll buy another set for $150 or thereabouts. They are more than worth it for the ride quality improvements and enjoyability. Crash damage is a whole 'nother kettle of fish, but I've seen plenty of that with the "old school" stuff, so it's a wash. |
depends on the material.
there may be a few aluminum modern bikes that will be classic (haven't seen one yet). almost anything titanium is semi-classic and will be sought after. and 20 years from now people will talking about surly lhts like miyata 1000s. |
I would guess the Specialized E-5 and the Cannondale CAAD8/9. True race bikes: stiff, light, and affordable.
You could argue about the Trek 5200, except that there are so many of them. (And the paint is flaking off most of them.) |
Excellent topic. I have discussed similar topics on watch and stereo forums as well.
There is something classic about the simplicity of vintage lightweight bikes. If cared for, there is no reason those bikes can't run forever as there isn't much to break, and it is pretty easy to find replacement parts. Will that be the case for today's higher end bikes? Only time will tell. Regarding cost. My take is, maybe really high end bikes have gone way up in price, but at the same time, regular bikes that people ride just for recreation are, inflation adjusted, more affordable than ever. When I was a kid in the late 70s, a basic heavy entry level bike store 10 speed might cost maybe $150 to $200. I remember admiring a bike, a Raleigh, I believe, that sold for $600 in 1979. Inflation adjusted, today's hybrid or comfort bike retailing for $300 to $400 with 8 to 24 speeds indexed is a lot more practical (and cheaper) for the average recreational rider than those cheap heavy 10 speeds of the 70s. In addition to all the higher end road bikes, will the 80s and 90s era mountain bikes ever be valued as lugged steel framed road bikes of the 70s and 80s are today? That remains to be seen. They certainly aren't as pretty, but the frames and wheels are durable, and they are relatively simple to repair or upgrade. |
Originally Posted by MRT2
(Post 11323892)
In addition to all the higher end road bikes, will the 80s and 90s era mountain bikes ever be valued as lugged steel framed road bikes of the 70s and 80s are today? That remains to be seen. They certainly aren't as pretty, but the frames and wheels are durable, and they are relatively simple to repair or upgrade. |
Originally Posted by illwafer
(Post 11323923)
no. there are more roads now (and growing) and less open space (and shrinking). soon there will be few places to MTB --- speaking as a SoCal resident.
|
That's true. I picked up a late 80s Specialized Rock Hopper at a garage sale for $40 to pull the kids' trailer. A great bike for commuting, errands, just riding around. Heck, I once even rode singletrack on it. ;)
|
I think lightweight steel frames built by hand will define an era. If an auto enthusiast is going to choose a Chevy to restore, he's not going to pick anything built after 1973, and chances are (according to current supply and demand) he'll pick a '57 BelAir. I think he'll do the same 20 years from now.
Not sure what will define the next era. |
Originally Posted by CardiacKid
(Post 11323749)
I had a brand new 1985 Ford Mustang. It was the worst POS I ever owned. When I sold it 4 years later, with only 50,000 miles on it, it was falling apart.
I would argue that it's quite possible that some current bicycles will eventually become classics. A future classic is generally defined by three things: An unusual positive quality, an unusual negative quality, and tremendous scarcity. A good example is the original Sturmey Archer 3-speed fixed gear hub - it gave you three speeds on a fixie...with all of the cost, mechanical drag and complexity of a 3-speed hub to go with it. Nobody bought one, and up until a few years ago when Sturmey's new Korean owners announced they were putting it back in production, they were worth hundreds and hundreds of dollars. If you want to find a future classic, look for something excellent, but fundamentally flawed. Those Strida folding bikes, for example, come very close: The ability to put a bicycle in a briefcase is an amazing thing, even considering that the bicycle can't take a pothole the size of a bottlecap and is no faster than walking. Were it not for the fact that they've inexplicably sold a large number, I'd have bought one for an investment. EDIT: Also consider that the reduced cost of industrial production has allowed for very different bicycles. A Wal-Mart road bike for $170 might have machine-assembled wheels, a frame made with no care whatsoever, and a seat made out of Styrofoam, but the geartrain - the cheapest stuff Shimano makes - is still smoother and more reliable than you'll find on any bicycle priced at $170 in 1976. Considering that $170 in '76 money is roughly equivalent to nearly $1,000 today, that's a huge increase in quality for the dollar. One of the reasons why vintage equipment - frames in particular - seems so luxurious is, quite simply, that it was. In an era where a full Campagnolo group cost almost as much as a secondhand Volkswagen, finely constructed, handmade steel frames made perfect sense. |
I slowly, but surely, am converting many of my bikes to fairly modern Campy 10 speed systems.
Why? They simply outperform all of my old favorites by a landslide. From 2009 10 speed Centaur gruppos to a similar vintage 10 speed Chorus gruppo, these systems outperform the likes of DA 7400, Tri-color 600, the original Campy Super Record, etc. etc. Do I still like to use these older systems? Of course I do, where appropriate. I was chatting with OFG about a month ago, and he recommended the Campy Centaur brakes, but not necessarily the regulars, rather the Skeletons. I bought a pair and installed them yesterday on my Merckx Century. Good god, they stop so well they'll rip fillings out of your mouth. Durability? Chains and brake pads for the modern Campy stuff, that's it so far. I won't go into depth on modern, custom built frames, but I would invite folks to ride a brand new steel frameset like a Carl Strong for example. I tried a fellows two weeks ago, and it was way beyond any expectations I could have dreamed of. Also, check out a Kirk Terraplane. Modern yes! Classic yes! Easily possible then, for current custom steel builders to make a "classic" bike that will stand the test of time. |
When everyone has moved from CF to silicon nano-frames, electronic derailleurs (wireless e-shifters?), 140mm-spacing, 30+ gears, etc., there will be those who harken back nostagically to the days of "manual" brifters, and "heavy" 15-lb. bikes.
|
Originally Posted by Oregon Southpaw
(Post 11323619)
Obviously we here in C&V would collectively answer "no", because we're retro-grouches, tight-wads, lug-addicts, steel-admirers, or because we lust after the bikes we couldn't have then. Or, perhaps we don't like the fact that the modern bicycle industry is pretty one-note, over-globalized, obsessed with "progress", too race-oriented, or is becoming increasingly obsessed with planned obsolescence.
I fall into pretty much all of those camps, with the possible exception of lusting after bikes we couldn't have "then". While I was at my LBS yesterday I decided to check out some of the high-zoot bikes. On one level I appreciate things about them that make them more "useable" - compact cranks, brifters, dual-pivot brakes - are a good example. But with these advances (I use this term loosely) comes the expense, and from what I've heard, lack of durability. I know that (at least to these eyes) modern Dura-Ace looks like crap and simply doesn't scream "timeless" like 7700 era stuff did, for example. I'm also so amazed that a Dura-Ace crank is now like $600. Perhaps the good stuff cost a similar amount then, relative to inflation, but it just seems like the cost of this stuff is pushing people out of the sport. What I guess I'm getting at here is it seems to me that many of the great 80's-era bikes are/were plentiful and had reasonably bomb-proof equipment on them. I'm always amazed when I see a 600-equipped bike from the early 80's running as good now as it must've back then. Now, roadbikes are much more niche-oriented. We already have to wade through a sea of crappy MTBs to find a classic roadbike. Now that an entry level roadbike is roughly $1k, and your average hybrid is like $300, what will the C&V of tomorrow look like? I just can't imagine a $5000 Trek ever showing up on a site like this 20 years from now. Also from a sheer numbers standpoint...how many of these super-bikes actually get produced each year? Seems to me that part of why we had it so good over the last decade or so is the sheer volume of bikes produced around both bike booms. One thing I will not downplay is the tendency of people to buy really expensive bikes...and not ride them. Thanks for reading this Friday pre-lunch post. I think about this stuff a lot, and hope that this wasn't too jumbled or too much like other "What will C&V be like in a decade?" threads. Moreover, this could also easily be the case of not having lived through the frustration of some of these advances. I have riding buddies who are decided anti-C&V, claiming they lived through this era and the stuff now is just so much better, so much so that I'm pining for a golden age that never existed. I couldn't disagree more. As people age the bikes they had back in the day will become of interest to them. And maybe your just speaking for yourself? I own many (to many) vintage steel bikes the range from the mid 70's to the late 80's. Because thats where vintage ends with me. And this has more to do with my age and taste but everyone is different. I bought a new carbon "wonderbike" last summer. I've ridden it over 6000kms as of this week and has been completely reliable and durable. Its the bike I choose for a fast century or group ride. My Marinoni Special doesn't even come close although I like the look of it better. If I were to put 6000kms on any of my vintage rides in a year (even if it were brand new) there is no way the bike would go that far without BB and wheel bearing adjustment or lube. Not to mention and other adjustments. Sheer numbers? Back in the bike boom there were scads of mass produced bikes everywhere. Touring bikes couldn't be made fast enough. You may need to embrace a new ride yourself. Costs? I can't imagine what my Roubaix would have cost in the mid 80's if it could have even been produced for volume sales. |
Originally Posted by caloso
(Post 11323882)
You could argue about the Trek 5200, except that there are so many of them. (And the paint is flaking off most of them.)
SP Bend, OR |
A lot of the interest is because of nostalgia. There are guys -- and we are, by far, mostly men -- who acquire the toys we had as kids or the toys we wished we had as kids. Or young adults. And I'm not calling a bike a toy, as in "not serious." I'm talking about something physical we get a lot of pleasure out of.
|
first of all I think we have become too much of a "disposable society". while I am sure every intends to own there new 2009 trek madonne til death or theft do they part, as soon as the slightest hint that a specialized Sworks bike is better (and won 1st and 2nd in the TDF), the madone becomes junk and specialized is the king.
2 I think bikes are too homogenized these days. there are not enough differences to really make on stnad out from the other. Oh sure there is very little difference between a 68 Clubman and 69 Clubman but there difference that you can see and feel. the only difference between a '09 Bianchi Infinito Ultegra and '10 Infinit 105 is the color. I think 20yrs from now the bikes we are scrambling after will still be the sought out classics. |
Originally Posted by noglider
(Post 11324523)
I'm talking about something physical we get a lot of pleasure out of.
I like a lot of bikes. There sure are a lot of Madones on sale, lately, and white seems to be the new black. There are some pseudo-modern bikes I consider already tending towards a C&V niche... These prompt me to think "I'd get one if I came across one at a fair price..." Affordable enough to appeal to a broad swath of cyclists, quality enough for 99% of their intended market. I know I sure can't "outride" any of them. The R700 2.8 Cannondale, The Kestrel 200 series, The Trek 5000/5200 OCLV, The Surly LHT, maybe a Douglas.... Some of the new wunder-bikes inspire amazement, and appreciation, but not yet the "I'll sell a few bikes and pick one up" feeling. They are way cool, way well done, and that new Trek tri-bike is to the bone, but will they become classics? I don't know. I'd say the Cervelos are rapidly becoming the modern "classic" tri-bike. You say "P3, P2," etc, and people instantly know what you're talking about. Already a common term of endearment. Now, price-comparison is a whole different bag. I don't think there's much argument that past products with an excellent frame and components are any less excellent now. Fewer bells and whistles, a little more attention needed when riding, but all-in-all, good stuff is good stuff. People like bells and whistles, though, and a lot of riders don't want to learn the skills needed to ride like norskagent on his McLean, smoothly running through the gears and ringing that bell...in a pace line....Market is one thing, and classic is sort of another. Classic is just part of the market, and it's fun. |
I've made this argument before on a similar thread:
Let's look at reasons we like the bikes we like...it's often because we couldn't afford them and lusted for them (as said)...it's because we regarded them as the best of their era...it's because they were innovative when compared to what was around at the time...they might have been rare, or mysterious...they worked well and rode well... The reason we like the aesthetics of lugs is because we grew up with them. The future C and V'r is the 14 year old looking at $6,000 bikes he can;t afford...they are being held up as the paragon of beauty. The future classics, and there will be classics, are the bikes that are "best in class" and most exotic today. I don't know a whole bunch about modern CF bikes, but from what I do know, the Cervelos are going to be classics. The usual suspect European CF bikes will be classic (De Rosa, Merckx, etc.), the Madones will be classics, Litespeeds will be classics. I think if anything the shorter life spans and planned obsolescence might make them even more valuable commodities. I suspect that the CF bikes are more likely to become classics than the aluminum. Why? They're usually more expensive and prestigious. I don't have much experience with CF, but from the little I have had, I'd take it over aluminum every day and twice on sundays. I think it's very apparent that the craft frame builders (sachs, Bilenky, Kellog, etc.) will have followings for a long time. I suspect that the cult of GP will always have some members willing to pay a fortune for his stuff too. |
Originally Posted by CardiacKid
(Post 11323749)
I had a brand new 1985 Ford Mustang. It was the worst POS I ever owned. When I sold it 4 years later, with only 50,000 miles on it, it was falling apart.
My nephew in Illinois called me the other day and told me to keep an eye out for a classic Mustang for him. He is looking for either an '85 or '86. I laughed my --- off. Of course, some of today's bikes will be classics. Why is he looking for an '85/'86? I've always thought the '87-'89 were the sweet spot -> no carb
Originally Posted by ldmataya
(Post 11324056)
I think lightweight steel frames built by hand will define an era. If an auto enthusiast is going to choose a Chevy to restore, he's not going to pick anything built after 1973, and chances are (according to current supply and demand) he'll pick a '57 BelAir. I think he'll do the same 20 years from now.
Originally Posted by Spasticteapot
(Post 11324059)
Wasn't that the one with the V8 that produced 120 horsepower? The Mustang less powerful (and much heavier) than contemporary Honda Civics? That's not a "classic." That's just a cheap and convenient mounting bracket for a nice pushrod V8.
Originally Posted by Spasticteapot
(Post 11324059)
One of the reasons why vintage equipment - frames in particular - seems so luxurious is, quite simply, that it was. In an era where a full Campagnolo group cost almost as much as a secondhand Volkswagen, finely constructed, handmade steel frames made perfect sense.
|
I'm waiting on a Pinarello Dogma FPX Magnesium frame (pre 2010 all carbon models) to fall into my lap. Someone will want those 25 years from now.
|
I think will they be classic is a different question from will they be collectible. Certainly there will be those who will see today's carbon uber bikes as collectible, most everything becomes collectible at some point. Being classic is really defined by how the bikes will be perceived by the people of the time. We percieve lugged steel as a superior construction method for various reasons. But will people 20-25 years from now perceive a current carbon frame as superior to their micromesh carboceramic (making that up) frame? I don't think so. Now that frames are composite I think earlier composites will be looked down upon much more than steel is "frowned upon" by the majority of the masses now.
The move from steel to alumimum to composite is such a quantum change. The move from carbon to micromesh carboceramic is less of a quantum change. Did I make sense? |
This is the point I am trying to make. It is all relative. If you want to compare a '57 Chevy to an '87 Mustang, I won't laugh (to your face). We all thought the bike world was going to hell when mountain bikes dominated the market in the 90s. 10 years from now when the kids that were riding them are looking for something to waste money on, those bikes are going to be classics. Instead of talking about Ernesto, they are going to be talking about Gary and Keith.
|
I'll keep this short.
The company that always comes to my mind when I think "future classic" is Surly. Of course, for one, their bikes are steel—which we know is capable of holding up for tens of years (at least!). And the parts they use tend to be steel too—no plastic brifters on these bikes. But perhaps more importantly, they are unique and idiosyncratic. Nobody makes bikes quite like Surly, and if they do, 9 times out of ten they are simply aping an established design. The LHT might be an exception, as I've always seen it as a tribute to the great 1980s tourers, but those are classics too. Surly creates niches where there previously were none. This is the definition of future classic. |
Essentially no.
But I am a member of the Cult de Surly. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:47 PM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.