Aesthetics, Technology, Ergonomics
 

While riding my commute to work yesterday I thought about why we make particular "old technology" choices. (Yeah, this is Yet Another Why C&V? thread.) The thought was prompted by the sight of a nice BRG MGB on our bike ride last weekend.

Technology-driven "things" like bicycles and cars are always evolving. Of course a modern car or bike is better than a classic. We cling to the old stuff, but not just any old old stuff. We gravitate to particular years, technology levels, etc. I don't think the "reached puberty" explanation is a complete one. I've become rather fond of my 80's bicycles, and they are several decades too late for that. Also the best technology isn't necessarily what makes vintage stuff attractive. The MGB, while a decent car in its day, was far from the best of its era.

Technology advances in fits and starts. Some attempts at refinement work immediately and some, like indexed shifting, don't work until enough evolution has occurred. The same is true with ergonomics. While manufacturers and artisans are dealing with these issues, the better ones are also trying to integrate aesthetics into their products. Every so often all three factors, aesthetics, technology, and ergonomics, come to fruition simultaneously. They just click into place and everything works. Consider the efficiency of a Campy sidepull brake, the artistic curve of the levers, the way the lever fits the hand. When these three factor come together they ride a wave of success. Other people or companies try slowly and painfully to invent a better wheel, but it doesn't light up the night sky until all the pieces are in place.

I think we gravitate to particular ranges partly because we sense that full integration, and the longevity of that technology set gives us time to notice.

Thoughts, anyone?

Tullio and later probably his draftsmen had a great sense of machine aesthetic. I am not sure how Italy educated draftsmen and engineers, but having so much architectural high art around did not hurt. Osmosis?
Ergonomics of the brake lever if you look at old images really lagged for all. Plenty of top tier race bikes with levers that would be more suited for a flat bar bike. Personally, I think whoever had the final say at Campagnolo had long fingers. Think about the first generation Record brake levers and the first stab at aero brake levers in the C Record era. No ergonomic range considered!

As to cars, two houses on the street have MG's, an MGA and an MG TC... both almost perfect.

I think that people have in mind a "golden past" that gives them the motivation to use or collect old technology. Not that it ever really existed. It's more of a state of mind.
I love old cars, motorcycles, aircraft, boats, bikes....It's funny that car collectors for the most part cut off the desirable cars at the year 1971 (with a few exceptions)- the year many things changed in the car biz. With aircraft, it's the "Golden Age of Aviation"- mostly pre-WWII planes.
With bikes, it's what you rode "back then" I think. That's the reason '80's bikes are popular on this forum.
My $.02.

Well, yes, but the question I posed is what makes people gravitate to that particular "golden past"? Inotherwords, what made it golden? I'm postulating that it is the confluence of aesthetics and optimal-for-its-day function, with good ergonomics as a bonus.

I think also some things simply work better for different people. When my vintage bike was new I was only four years old. I never rode bikes like that until about 7-8 years ago. I grew up with cheap Huffy attempts at BMX bikes, not 1970s and 80s road bikes. But my early 80s touring bike just works really well for the way I ride. While I've never actually owned a modern carbon or aluminum (or even steel) road bike, I've ridden them and I've owned an early 90s road bike with modern 10 speed components, and I simply didn't enjoy them as much as my old bike. They were certainly faster and the modern dual pivot brakes were spectacular, but eventually the bike always sat at home collecting dust because it wasn't very fun to ride. I don't know why I get more enjoyment out of using friction downtube shifters than I do with brifters or even indexed downtube shifters, but I do. I don't know what it is about an older bike that looks so good to me while many modern bikes don't really catch my attention, but that's just the way it is. *shrug*

Walter Benjamin (d. 1940) actually had a lot to say about this kind of thing in his 'Thesis on the Philosophy of History' and in his unfinished 'Arcades' project, and especially in his essay 'The work of art in the age of mass production'. He's known for exploring that golden aura of nostalgia and the way that industrialization (mass production) changed the way people interact with the objects in their lives.

An anthropologist friend of mine kinda took up that thread in her PhD research; not only the 'auratic' qualities acquired by objects that people have shaped, either in their making or through use (for example a cigarette lighter- a mass-produced object- that acquires unique individuality through the wear-marks of its owner's use, it's users' hand, on its casing), but also the aura of familiarity that comes with 'de-mystified' technology from past eras (the 'age of steam' for example). Her particular focus is the aura, the ambiance of 'big science,' state secrets (taboos of 'forbidden information') & so on, that surround the relics of the atomic era.

By these standards, bicycles are exceptionally 'auratic' objects; you could say that the way a bike is made, its size, set up, state of repair, nicks, scrapes, rust, etc. are all qualities that 'speak' for the bike's current and past riders.

The nature of nostalgia is a pretty deep question; one that's actually been on the academic docket since (easily) the days of Louis the 14th.

Interesting. I had no idea that this was a subject for academic or even quasi-academic study. But then, I are a geek, not a philophoser. I may have to look into the Walter Benjamin person. When I have some free time. Like next decade or next century. Thank you.

I'm not a philosopher either. I think that I understand what draws me to the bicycles of my youth. I enjoy riding a downtube friction shifting steel bike, with sidepull brakes and an old leather saddle. Why? Because it transports me to a time when I rode for no reason other than I loved the freedom of riding it. I didn't have the responsibilities of adulthood, had no full time job and my life was simpler. I like going back to that place, even if only for a few hours at a time...

I have no idea what anyone else thinks - every time I try to guess I get it wrong - but I like older bikes/cars/tractors/etc. because I like to be different and I prefer fixing old things to buying new (or as my wife calls me - cheap).

Both of my neighbors mow their lawns on new Cub Cadets, so I bought and fixed a '79 Wheel Horse. All of the cyclists in my area ride new Trek, Felt, etc. with brifters, I found an '86 Miyata with DT shifters. In both cases I saved upwards of $1,500, I ride equipment that performs as well if not better for my purposes, and when things go wrong (as they do for old and new machines alike) I'm able to do the work myself.

Great thread Jim!
Some eloquent responses here to a complicated question. I think we are learning in this thread that there are different reasons for different people to be drawn to older bikes. So some folks love Schwinn Varsities and some think they are low-technology boat anchors. Some appreciate brifters and put them on bikes that originally had friction shifters: Others scoff at such hybridization.

For myself it is a complicated mix. Part of it is that I understand the technology and can repair it. Another part is the aesthetic appreciation of certain components and frames. Part is the familiarity and continuity from my 20-year-old self, riding on those older components to my current 60-year-old self riding the same components. For me certainly the "auratic" nature, described by DIMcyclist, of a hand-made frame, whether it is old or new is huge - the appreciation of something that was made by human hands: If the owner of those hands has a similar aesthetic sense to myself then that frame calls to me all the more powerfully. If I know the owner of those hands personally the call is pretty much irresistable.

Another important factor is that this shared passion allows me to be a member of a diverse community like this forum and share the experience with others.

I also own and love modern bikes, but for a somewhat different mix of reasons.
Brent

Exactly: the bicycle itself has become an external, physical, extension of your internal memory, sort of a recording of you.

As for nostalgia itself, some old French medical texts dating back to the 17th century actually list it as a wasting disease of the soul that, if left untreated, can gradually remove all interest in living in the present; your family, wife, children, duties, etc. The afflicted looks continually back, to childhood, to friends long gone, to past glories, yearning for and yet unable to recapture the glow of those days until madness sets in. I'm paraphrasing, but that's the gist of it.

Who'd ever imagine that your own memory could be so dangerous? :lol:

That's an excellent nutshell version that accurately fits my own mindset on this subject. On re-reading what I wrote, I think "nutshell" was a good way to put it. ;)

Oh, great. That's it. I'm only riding a super duper aero time trial bike with teardrop helmet, integral glasses and a shiny silver skinsuit whenever I ride in the future. Will this help to delay the madness?

Or will it simply be another type of madness...

As someone who both rides old bikes and has an MGB in his garage, I am particularly susceptible to the aesthetic of vintage. Many posters have raised points that chime with me, including both simple nostalgia and the ability to do one's own work. But I think another part of the charm of these old machines is that they require a little more from the operator. The MG demands, at the very least, an ability to work a 4-speed stick with an overdrive and an understanding of what a choke does. On my Miyata 712, you have to lift one hand from the bars and drop it to the down tube to shift. Innovation not only makes products perform better, it makes them perform easier. Some of us don't want easier. Those skills we've learned to perform are part of the fun for us.

Have you seen the price of new high-end race bikes? Even vintage Cinelli's are cheap by comparison. I am drawn to vintage bikes for nostalgic, aesthetic, and financial reasons.

Walter Benjamin, himself an avid book collector, had a lot to say about the act of collecting--both the "thrill of acquisition" and the "sex-appeal of the inorganic," the way in which objects are fetishized and made into art in the mind of the collector, not necessarily as objects made for a particular function. As I understand his thinking, Benjamin would not object to hoarders of wall-hangers. A rather tenuous position for a Marxist.

You would enjoy Art as Experience by John Dewey.

I rolled my eyes the first time I peaked into C&V. Obsess over old bikes? Come on. Then I realized that I shared a lot of knowledge with the people here. It got me to appreciate what I have. It got me to do more with my bikes and also build some more bikes. I know how to deal with the old stuff. I've since learned to deal with the new stuff and appreciate that, too.

I don't think I've ever made a decision to stick with old bikes. For me, it's just frugality. I have old bikes, and I can update them more cheaply than I can replace them. Since I have so many parts on hand, the cost of doing this is pretty low.

But now I think I've spent a bit too much on this stuff, for too little return. I'm thinking I'd like a modern bike or two. New stuff has its merits, and old stuff has a different set of merits. The best way to get the best of both worlds is to have some of both, right? In time, when money is not so tight, I might end up with a nice Rivendell or similar and maybe a carbon fiber bike, too. Or something.

I liken the way bikes got unattractive, the way Formula 1 Grand Prix cars got ugly. Put an 80's bike next to a current "modern" CF monocoque framed bike and put an 80's Grand Prix F1 racer next to one that races today and the amount of "uglification" over the years is pretty much close to the same...
JMO.....

I have thought about it and for me I think my preference for classic steel lugged bikes is primariy aesthetics..... the level top tube, classic diamond frame with a classic stem just works, it is balanced, elegant, and functional. Threaded stems are lean/mean and practical in terms of adjustability. Steel just feels right and I know it will last without concerns.

I am not pure C&V on components....I like STI, I have a classic campy friction and cheapo sunrace thumb friction also. I like the look of alloy components.

I have in my mind for a custom (some day after kids college is paid) Kirk frame, classic diamond frame, level top tube straight stays, threaded stem, internal rear brake routing and ultegra di2. The result would be clean, minimal cables and wires, old yet new.

On Monday I assembled my new road bike, the Campagnolo components and elegant Carlton frame a thing of beauty and solid function.

By Tuesday it was Obsolete.

On Wednesday it was an Oddity.

By Thursday it was Retro.

On Friday it was Classic & Vintage.

Today I rode it once again.

-Bandera