components on vintage bikes
 

Since I am trying to learn what I can about vintage bikes I have what is probably a rudimentary question, but I am curious none the less: Was it as common say in the 70's to take a stock bike and rebuild it with whatever components the owner wanted as it is today? It seems it would be or in my case is difficult to identify what is actually stock or not stock on a lot of classic bikes or what is acceptable in a collectors view? I have been looking around a lot at different bikes and it seems there is a variance in what the same models have for components in the same year let alone from year to year.

In the 70s, it was extremely common for owners to upgrade nicer stock bikes with component upgrades, especially brakes and derailleurs. Riders followed fads and trends just as much then as now.

Also, during the '70s bike boom, manufacturers often couldn't get enough of the specified components they needed during a given model year and would substitute equivalent items from another supplier. Keep in mind, they were selling many times more bikes than just a couple years earlier and the component manufacturers were having a tough time keeping up. As a result, you might see a Stronglight, Nervar or TA crankset in the catalog and see an equivalent model from one of the others on a production bike.

Really high end production bikes just had a waiting list until they got what they needed since they usually had a more particular buyer who would wait.

I bought a Motobecane Grand Record off the dealer's floor in '72 or '73 and other than the wheels, saddle and derailleurs, none of the components were what they showed and listed in the catalog. It was all good stuff, but different.
-Tom

Tom, Thanks for the information, so in my pursuit to gather the few dream bikes of my earlier life I could in fact buy a bike of said model and even upgrade or change the components to what they should have been without it becoming a collectors sacrilege? Tim

Pretty much like he said. There were also those constantly seeking the lightest of components and those of us who could only afford a frame and built it up however we could to get riding and upgraded as time and money passed.

But all Campagnolo was the thing most strived for.

Post a pic of that Moto Grand Jubilee; I have one I'm going to start on soon as I finish what I'm working on.

From a collectors standpoint, probably worth the most (desired the most?) as originally released as possible.

Like an old Harley, usually worth the most stock and original, no matter how custom the geegaws.

It was fairly common to upgrade, not to mention replace broken parts. If you raced, a set of 32 or 28 spoke wheels would Hi-E hubs might be an upgrade.

I know people also wanted wider gears. I know a woman who bought a Raleigh Intenational and had it set up at the LBS with a Crane rear D and a 14-30 or 32 freewheel.

I also observed what loose spoke did--the Peugeot catelog may have spec'd Simplex, but the bike came with Huret, and as the decade progressed, perhaps Suntour or Shimano.

Also keep in mind that a lot of folks, including myself, bought frames and set them up however they wanted. So what would be "correct" for a Mercian, for example, is open to debate. Same with a Schwinn Paramount--local shops commonly sold them as frame-only in addition to stock set ups. Campy NR was a common choice, but as excellent quality components from Suntour, Shimano, Sugino, and others became more readily available, lots of folks used them. I chose Suntour barcons for my Mercian, for example.

But your bottom line question--did people buy complete stock bikes and rebuild them with a completely new set of components? Probably, but someone with that idea in mind would more likely have bought a bare frame set, or sold the bike they had and bought a complete new (or used) bike with the desired components.

Couple different trains of thought. Are you building up just to be a collectable, year perfect bike? Or are you building up to ride, tweaked to your style and preferences? Unless it is a "Grail Bike" I say build it up to what YOU like, you can keep the components in the "time frame" for aesthetics and functionality. If you HAVE the original parts, keep them safe in case you would like to go back to original, and NEVER make mods to the bike that can't be undone.

Sometimes bikes were built to meet a pricepoint, so the components on them were underwhelming. I see that a lot with some of the better Schwinns. Bridgestone did that as well. So owners might have upgraded later. I bought a UO8 in 1975, and almost immediately upgraded it with alloy rims (my first wheel build), alloy seat post, etc. Took me a while to finally replace the cottered crank with a nice alloy crankset.

My 1986 all chrome Katakura Silk came with middle of the road, nothing special Suntour LePree. I rebuilt it with Superbe Pro instead, components more in fitting a hand built, chrome bike from Japan.

I have played this game across the spectrum:

Capo #2: Pretty much all-original, except gear ratios (49-46 instead of 52-48, and 14-26 6-speed instead of 14-22 5-speed) and brake pads (KoolStop salmon in place of Weinmann)

Bianchi: Mostly original, except Campagnolo hubs instead of Ofmegas, Serfas ARC saddle, and Shimano aero brake handles for better leverage and better fit to my reach; gear ratios changed from 52-42/14-23 to 50-42/14-26

Capo #1: brand-correct updates/upgrades to derailleurs (Campagnolo); Nervar Star aluminum crankset in place of cottered steel Agrati

Peugeot UO-8: bought as bare frame; all-Japanese powertrain, including SunTour barcons; NOTHING original to a stock UO-8

Tim,
You really can do what you want as far as components since what you are doing isn't a permanent alteration of a valuable, collectable frame. Not very many around here will look down on a vintage "dream machine" and most will admire a good build, especially if it is period correct.
You will see the gamut here...
Totally untouched original with original paint and patina of age, all the way to repainted vintage frames with new modern components. They all have their fans. I have some of both and don't feel the slightest bit guilty.
-Tom

As long as you hang on to the old parts and don't do any irreversible mods to the frame, you can rest easy that you can always put it back to stock for the collectors. :thumb:

Many of the bikes I buy have upgrades. Usually shimano 105 aero levers and look pedals.

I look for catalog scans of the original bike and then do my best to get them back to how they were

Tim, The cyclists of the '70s were no different than those of today. OEM complete bikes were altered for performance, ergonomic or a host of other reasons and bare frames/framesets were assembled from scratch. For the pure collector an unaltered example (catalog correct?) of an old bike is the goal. For others period correct is just fine. Yet another group of collectors just want a preferred frameset assembled to their taste.

Save your old parts and build your bike as you wish.

Brad

I was more concerned from a stand point of paying too much for something that isn't "right". Being new to vintage, I have a couple bikes I am looking at buying and in the process I've noticed a pretty wide range of differences and I started questioning how legit some of the bikes are. I appreciate all of the comments, they put my mind at ease at least a bit. I think I'll go the route of trying to find the bikes I want and making sure the frame paint is original along with decals and the rest I could piece together as I want later. The price thing is a whole other issue, but I guess I'll figure that out. Thanks again for all of the great replies. Oh and I do plan on riding them since I didn't get to when I was young.

i wouldn't worry about components are "right" on a bike unless the existing ones are low quality, or if the original components are very hard to find. For example, a Motobecane Grand Jubile with Shimano 500 on it would be an issue for me, mainly because putting the original Huret Jubilee parts back on it would be an expensive proposition. On the flip side, I have an RB-1 that I switched out the stock group set for a Shimano Sante group. The Sante was higher quality and rare as well, so in that case I feel that I added to the value of the bike instead of detracting. Of course there may be some Bridgestone fans who would disagree with me...

In general I wouldn't worry about whether a bike is "legit" unless it crosses the $1000 mark. For anything under that, it's not worth the trouble for someone to convincingly fake a brand.

Imagine how many people around the world switched over to Look clipless pedals in 84/85 as a "must have" upgrade on their bikes! Lots of parties in France must hae been thrown by Look executives after that!

Chombi

To me, the frame is the huckleberry.

I appreciate OEM components on those older steel beauties,
but I want the group to get out of my way and let the frame impress.

triumph.1
Do you have a frame purchased yet?
I have a composite ss lugged frame called a "Lineseeker" purchased in 1972.
The components are all over the place.
Campy brakes,& down tube shifters,Front/Rear derailleurs.
Phil Wood sealed hubs and BB.
Mavic rims,Dura Ace crank,etc.
I am looking to sell the complete bike.
Not sure what you are looking for ,just thought I would mention it.

John

John, at this point I am looking to pick up either a colnago super or a Bianchi from late mid 70's-83. The Bianchi is my first choice. These are the bikes I wanted, but couldn't afford as a youth. Tim

Some guys I knew back in the day would get money off a stock bike refit by trading their new components for something better. A standard thing was to get a French bike and put Suntour on it instead of Simplex or Huret . It seems to me a Bianchi would demand a Campy Gruppo . Except for the 70's Campy headset . Lots of guys switched those when they wore , and stayed with the replacement .

There were also some bike shops that would purchase end of year warehouse closeouts. These might have been bikes damaged in transit, replacement frame/fork, parts overstock, etc. They would build up bikes with these closeout parts and frames.

Several bike shops in the Chicago area did this. Some interesting builds at times.

Skimming through the answers I don't see this mentioned but back in the '80s and I am sure the '70s as well there were not enough complete component groups to build 15 different models of bikes all with one group. there fore alot of mixing was done to get price points. so just because a bike has say a nicer quality SR crankset and Universal or Weineman brakes and Campi NR derailleurs does not really mean tthe derailleurs were upgraded.

I can only speak from my own experience here but where I came from it was common in the 70's to buy a frameset through mail order or a dealer and then outfit it as you saw fit. The high-end bike shops (around Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo, CA) had new and used framesets hanging in the lofts. Even the biggies like Trek and Specialized started out with just mail-order framesets before they produced ready-made bikes.

As far as components, the world of Suntour was opened wide. And Sugino Super Mighty cranksets made a nice alternative to Campagnolo for my money.

Lots of good points in this thread. My thoughts, which don't seem to be universal in C&V:

First, much depended on the quality level, i.e. the cost, of the bike. Parts might be upgraded just for the upgrade, but they were also upgraded when something wore out. Someone might choose, for example, to replace a worn Simplex Prestige with a Suntour because it was better performer for roughly the same cost. When you acquire a new old-bike, its quasi-original state might include such upgrades which are technically incorrect but spiritually justified.

Secondly, it depended on how the bike was used. For me at least, and I assume for many other Bike-Boomers, the bike was a general-purpose rider. I had just the one which acted as transportation sometimes, recreation sometimes, and a tinker-with object too. It wasn't an historical object, it was just a bike. So there was no concern about accuracy but there was a big concern about functionality.

Which leads to the last point, how you are going to use a new old-bike you are building now and how much work it requires. Just as with a new-bike back then, if you intend to ride it, functionality is important. If it has all the original parts but they won't do for you, then replace but save. If you are starting with just a frame there is nothing to remove and save. That means you can build it for functionallity and do a slow search for a final restoration if that appeals to you.