Fancy lads?

I build bikes to ride but I also try to incorporate some elegance into the build. So as not to end up looking like a VO advertisement (or too "precious") I utilize lots of old refurbished components. It's hard for a bike to be anything but functional even if it is a rafter queen.
All I'm sayin' is that to criticize this current movement, seems counter to this C&V forum.

Exactly so, there's no room on any of my bikes for something that isn't used on every ride or close to it (I make an exception for fenders, they are a grace from the Lord). I like cork tape better than cloth, so that's what I use and it would be veloweenie poseurie of the worst sort to finish them in twine. If I have a rack, that's because it's there to carry a bag or a 12-pack of Sierra Nevada or mount headlights. Mind you, I try to keep things scrupulously clean but I don't fuss over chipped paint or an un-ferruled cable end. I'm more interested in a silent drivetrain and no rattles over the bumps in the road. That I use GB Rando bars is also a matter of function, I find them very comfortable; that my Trek 616 has a Union dynamobloc headlamp is because it was cheap and I need to see at night; and the reason Bluemels Airweights are on it is because I had a pair and I wanted to use them to keep crap off my legs and back. Nothing at all to do with aesthetics, nothing at all, nope, nothing to see here, move along, that's my story and that's what I'm stickin' to.

I'm confused, and it's making me want to rant. Is this thread about vintage randonneuses as built by say, Alex Singer, Rene Herse? Or their modern followers like Pryor, Kone, Terraferma, Heine, or Weigle? And how different these are from Rivvified Treks, Fujis, and other sport-tours. For one, the traditional randonneuses usually had low trail, where Treks and Rivs are high trail. Fujis and the other Japanese '70s'80s sport-tours were billed as touring bikes, not randonneuses.

And if it's more durable and offers better grip, what's wrong, foppish, or fake about twined handlebars or sewn-on leather?

Not my taste, I like Cinelli foam/cork tape as was sold in the '70s and still is. But still!

What's more pretentious? To put what you think are comfortable grips on your handlebars, or to stand on the corner in a pack and scoff at the guy riding past you? I don't think there's any innocence around here.

We talk about grails. Can't someone's grail be an Alex Singer or Peter Weigle? or is this place now a grunge aesthetic?

End of rant, I'll sit down now.

I think it's about people who want to make a very well-groomed sow's ear out of a cheap silk purse. I have no problem with the originals-- they are the true ideal, after all-- but there's something dangerously close to the Amazonian-tree-frog-bike fixie-kid aesthetic about trying to dress up a Surly Long Haul Trucker as a Herse. The trucker is a fine bike all on its own.

Ya know?

Lol, I think we are on different wave lengths. I've got no problem with comfortable handlebar grips. Once in a long while, I see a bike that is really, really decked out in a way that looks over the top to me. I think the bike with leather wrapped around the tubes is a pretty solid example of that. It's fine, but it also looks silly to me.

My bikes look silly to the guys at the LBS and I don't care. It's all just preferences.

I can't seem to copy the url but you should all check out Velouria's blog "Lovely Bicycle". The first time I saw all the twined, Brooks saddled, Honjo fendered fad bikes was on her blog. I'm surprised she hasn't shut down this thread over copyright infringement.
I don't mean that to sound snarky. I enjoy reading her blog, and if you want a tutorial on shellaced twine grips or a philosophical treatise on why it's important to have an eye-catchingly beautiful bike, you'll find it there.

I know a lot of you are familiar with the site, I was surprised nobody had mentioned it.
Joe

With all the "fancy lads" sort of comments, this begins to sound like a schoolyard.

I am sure it is a nice ride. But its aesthetics remind me too much of those fake old style houses in a brand new suburb. Someone tried to achieve something with its design. And the only effect is that it draws attention to the details that are not period correct, and thus wrong.

http://lovelybike.blogspot.com/

Here's what I like about the Dandy Bike trend:

1. It's a way to get more people interested in cycling. The lovely bikes blog is an example. I'm in favor of anything that gets more people on bikes, and if it takes a fashion trend, that fine. Sure the fashion will die out, and people will leave these bikes in their garages, but it will be the gateway drug for others.

2. It advocates adding components to sports touring bikes that makes them more comfortable and useful, like Brooks saddles, upright handlebars (at least in some cases), fenders, and racks. In a lot of cases, it repurposes what were basically road bikes to bikes that are more useful for urban riding, and that's where growth in cycling is going.

3. It takes otherwise drab, so-so, mid-range 80s Japanese sports touring bikes and makes them look pretty cool, IMO, in many cases.

I'm not keen on any trend that takes itself too seriously or purports to establish de rigueur for bicycles. So when someone suggests I "need" Honjo fenders on mygenuine vintage bike, well, I don't bristle, but I roll my eyes a bit. Every trend or faction has an element of Star Bellied Sneetches, but I don't see the Dandy Bikers as being any different in that respect. Some of us Sneetch carbon-riding roadies, and some of them Sneetch us. (Yes, Sneetch is now a verb.)

From my own perspective, I'm not about to sink several hundred dollars into repainting and buying expensive VO parts to achieve a certain aesthetic on what I'd generally consider a middling garage sale bike. At the risk of running it into the ground, the $20 Wald rack, although not as pretty, meets my needs as well as a $160 VO rack.

Shellac and twine--now I've tried it on a couple of bars, and find I prefer unshellaced cotton. So now I don't have to invest in a half dozen shades of shellac flakes.

Hear hear. You just wrote what I was going to write.

It is a good thing, and like everything, there can be too much of it. I see most of it as functional upgrades done in a stylish way - fenders and racks are useful, and leather saddles are great. At least it isn't tassels, monkey bars, and banana seats.

For most people here this is a hobby. As a hobby it can take many forms and reflect many different interests. Why not go for a ride instead of sitting in this forum telling folks what you don't like? Better yet, go find somebody who may need some help with a bike and lend a hand. The good feeling you get from riding (in whatever style YOU choose: racing/training, commuting, etc.) or helping others discover how much fun bikes can be, does a good job of illustrating how petty these types of threads are.

Good advice. If you spend more time on the internet or even thinking about this trivia than you do riding, or helping others get started in cycling, then your balance is off.

That's why I only have 63 posts...uh make that 64. Time to log off and work one of the bikes for a while. One of the "Fancy Lads".

Can't agree more!

To some, these hobbies are to fill a void, to gain acceptance. And all too often, to justify a choice and prove belonging, it is to view and then voice out at non conformists in derogatory ways.
Does nothing but polarize people and the eye for an eye begins.

You've summed it up nicely. Normally, your dry wit and sarcasm is the perfect rebuttal that has me rolling on the floor. But a serious tone is the answer for this.
There seems to be a number of such threads popping up lately. I tried to voice my concerns similarly. Maybe winter isolation has something to do with it.

Sorry...

Bikes are worthy enough machines to make them just how you like. Comment was in jest only...

You had to find a photo of a local car, didn't you? One more strike against dear old Miami.

-Kurt

Let me get this straight. The OP describes an aesthetic which he says he "loves the look" of and wants to know what it is called besides "really cool," and somehow you find this polarizing and deserving of a rebuttal in a "serious tone?" Are you kidding? He was being completely complimentary! I swear, people in search of a reason to feel indignant will always find one even if it makes no sense.

Not the op. Just a number of posts in the thread that seemed a critical of what other people find enjoyable. My point was that it takes all kinds and the differences in this board are what keep me learning and interested. Threads that end up in the category of "this type of bike is better than that type of bike" whether that was the intent or not, bore me. I come here to learn about and discuss things that I enjoy.

If you haven't figured it out yet, this forum is all about me and my wants and needs. Jeez, get with it!

Well, yes and no. yes in that the overall aesthetic is a desirable and attianable thing. No in that the overall aesthetic is delicate and easily overreached; Generally speaking, it's the hammered Honjos that put it over the top. so either less of everything else, and the hammered fenders; or a little more all the way around, and fluted Honjos.



The quest continues.

^ What he said. My commentary wasn't directed at the OP's subject either. Re-read it and you'll see it's in support of fender1's post, and my POV of people who can't wait for the chance to critique or just plain shoot down another to assert themselves as the foremost authority. This happens all too often on the other sub forums. Folks have been quite civil and self policing here. If you've been here long enough, you'll understand. This doesn't happen often here. Last time it got ugly, it resulted in a number of female regulars leaving permanently when comments got personal and sexist. There's a fine line between voicing one's opinion and being rude. And there are a few who get a kick out of walking this fine line.

And for someone who started a tongue-in-cheek thread and openly admitted that it would be 'wicked fun' to poke fun with ones' dislikes....you sure aren't presenting yourself with a whole lot of understanding and flexibility in your post above by jumping to conclusions. Did I jump in as the thought police and b1cth-slap you the same fashion there? No I didn't. But that didn't stop your thread from inviting the trolls to sling some mud and lower the standards. Just for laughs, right? :rolleyes:

Perhaps we could just accept the views of others , and their cycling views, as all part of the same big community . Likes and dislikes aside, we all have the same aim, to bring cycling to the wider community at large . Branding views as right or wrong should be left to the religious and political "elites" . They have much more practice at it . They do it so well. We do cycling well . Keep it noble.

Begging your pardon, WNG, but if you were to read the entirety of the thread you are referencing (NOT that I would suggest it unless you've got the flu or something. Good grief, who thought it would get so long?), you would know that I most certainly did NOT start it as a means of poking fun at people or their tastes. As a matter of fact, I acknowledge that the example I give is actually great, just not for me. And because it's tough to turn off the mom in me (it is a flaw, I know) I ask people to keep a positive tone on almost every page. As far as saying you didn't direct your criticism at the OP, then perhaps you should reconsider your wording. You complained about "such threads." To most that would read as a criticism of the author.

Yes, I've definitely figured that out. I've also figured out that you've got a completely different set of rules for yourself than for everyone else. After the treatment you gave of people who like porteurs :notamused:, you've got a lot of nerve prancing through with this kumbaya routine.
Are you a politician by any chance? (That part really was a joke. I'm not actually cruel. :p)