Every once in a while, a thread pops up asking whether it is a "sin" to do this or that to their C&V bike. The answer is always: No. It is your bike. You are allowed to do whatever you want to it.

The only exception I can think of is whether one thinks of their C&V bike as an investment they may want to sell later. If that's the case, as long as you don't make any permanent changes, you're good to go.

It's your bike. Enjoy it, for cryin' out loud.

+1 Well said.

/pulls out hack saw and goes to work on that pesky derailleur hanger on his chrome paramount.

/while he's at it, the frame is a bit too large, let's take a centimeter or two out of the head tube and seat tube.

^+1

Hacking parts off a vintage hi-end frame is just wrong. Sure, you own it, but do you really have to do that to it? I don't object to making it into a fixie or whatever; just don't do things that are irreversible.

if you hack up your bike you're going to piss off a LOT of people on the internet. Are you sure you really want to do that?

The same quandry is all over the auto industry with hot rodders and restorers.
So, make it a hot rod or restore it.
Use is what it's all about.

My former employer chopped up a '58 Vette to turn it into a drag racer, made me i'll.

No sins???....
https://www.lunt.demon.co.uk/obree/chrisandobree.jpg
The guy on the left is certainly looking very devilish with his "special" handlebar configuration!

....but then, I have seen a bunch of homeless guys around SF doing the same on their bikes.......maybe they know something we don't??

Chombi

There are no sins, but plenty of foolish decisions that will draw hatred from the bike community.

I disagree:


(thread)


While this wasn't a PX-10 Mixte (if they exist) or some other rare French bike, it's still sinful in my book.

Anything that messes with the frame's integrity, ruins desirable lugwork or paint jobs, or ruins a bike's usefulness should be a sin. Also, letting a great and useable bike turn to rust propped up outside your house or in your shed should be classified as a sin.

The words "you own it, you can do whatever you like with it" don't sit well with me, even if they describe the legal situation accurately. I am inclined to think damaging and/or destroying objects of historical significance is, in its way, a crime against humanity. Obviously the level of the crime must be considered in proportion the the level of the object's historical significance, but the nature of the crime is the same either way. Given that the historical significance of any factory-made bicycle is practically nil, it is practically impossible to commit any great crime against humanity upon it; but if it were something of real significance, the potential is there.

Doohickie, here's a somewhat extreme case. Let's say I picked up a genuine Wright Brothers bike at a yard sale for ten bucks. It would now be mine to do as I want with it, right? Legally, yes, of course. But if I decided I didn't want a track bike with wooden rims, and decided to have proper Campy drops brazed in instead of the track ends, along with shifter bosses etc and a flashy repaint, then, don't you think that would be something akin to a sin? I do.

Grinding the derailleur hanger off a chrome Paramount? Oh, it's a silly thing to do, but let's not blow it out of proportion.

I'd say the only "sin" is when the bike of a famous rider, is drastically changed.

For instance, if the Paramount that Lance Armstrong raced as a teenager, had its braze-ons removed, RD hanger clipped, was re-painted, and turned into fixie, I'd call that a "C&V sin."

But if people want to do that to their bikes, it's their prerogative.

The guy is Graeme Obree, who slumped over his handle bars like a downhill ski racer, see 35 seconds in
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZU9cy4fjvg

Can I tell you how to ride, set up, adjust, paint, customize, or restore YOUR personal bike??? NO... Your going to make those decisions for yourself. We all love C&V, but we don't personally own them all. I have a love for vintage Volkswagen's also, and when I see a baja bug I think to myself, Lame! But do I have control or any say over what the owner chooses to do with his or her car... None whatsoever.

Personally, I think the word "respect" needs to be included, in our appraisal of what we should, or should not, do to an old bicycle.

I agree with reversible modifications. I agree with cosmetic replacement when replacement is warranted. But I do not agree with destroying the original state of an old bicycle just because you happen to own it. In this case, the word destroy means irreversible modifications.

But that is just me. I will repair, but I do not modify, frame sets. I have, however, been known to over polish a component or two. Is that the same thing? Perhaps it is. Oh no:-(

Ok, that's actually pretty neat.

Amen

KHatfull, the De-struct-OR!!

they stick their 2-4 case between the upright turned drops for transportin'

I got grief for putting fenders on my Paramount by some people. I also put a rack on it and use modern panniers. I think that is the kind of "sin" Doohickie is talking about. I know a lot of people would keep a paramount cleaner looking this one is mine and I love riding it all the time.

Since I don't plan to be buried with my bikes (or anything else I own, for that matter) they're not actually "mine". I'm just taking care of them for a while and our collective historical heritage is more important than my own selfish desires. When these things are gone they are GONE and that happens far too often for me to treat them as anything other than an endangered species. Literally... although at least the Kakapo can reproduce. But you wouldn't kill one of those, would you?

But, y'know, the Mona Lisa is just a painting and if the owner thinks it'll look better with a Manhatten skyline I guess it'd be okay.

It's a tough question that deserves thought. What one can do (or not) isn't the same as what one should do (or not).

I'd love to own an early '70's PX10, for example. But as configured from the factory it wouldn't be a good bike for me. I'd want to lower the gearing and swap out the Simple derailleurs, the tubular tires, maybe the saddle too. I could keep the parts, but if I never intended to sell the bike they'd just be collecting dust in a box. Now, if someone else had already done that then I'd consider owning. Otherwise I'll let a collector buy it. I don't want to do those things, especially if someone else went through all the trouble to restore it.

I believe the word "sin" originates from an old archery term, meaning to "miss the mark" If so, yes there are certian ways in which you could "miss the mark" in remuddleing. Even if it wasn't a PX10, what happened to that blue Mixte was a sin. Sorry, got to call it what it is.

That mixte is an extreme case. I think what the OP is talking about are minor cosmetic things, maybe a paint job. How about an old bike with modern components? or maybe a nice bike with a horrible, big gel saddle that is comfortable for its owner. I actually know of someone who owns a 60's cinelli with straight bars because he wasn't in the best of shapes and he needed something comfortable. is that a sin?