likebike23

Thanks. Looks like @bikemig and I were thinking the same thing at the same time.

noglider 

One piece cranks have one thing wrong with them, and that is their weight. I used to hate them because of the association with low end bikes. As a mechanic, I hated working on them because they had been so badly abused. Then I realized that the problem was the abuse, not the design. They're really super easy to service compared with other types.

Schwinn kickstands are truly superior.

Turkey levers and stem shifters befitted the bikes they came on.

Rcrxjlb

Things I hate to see on bikes:
1.gumwall tires. Really hate that paper bag colored sidewall.
2.safety levers. They dont work well & they always get loose.
3.colorful bar tape. Real bikers use black.
4.fenders. If you dont wanna get wet then ride the bus.
5.cycling computers. You ain't going fast enough to get a ticket so why do you care how fast you're riding?

likebike23

Well said noglider.

bikemig 

This bike looks great. A dork disc might be overkill . . . It's a beautiful bike.

old's'cool

Your fantasy bike build definitely needs one of those molded plastic, non-padded "ASS-HATCHET" saddles.

juls

Prejudice for: Galvanized spokes ON the steel wheels! Performance/function thing I guess. The weight thing bothers me only if I gotta carry it up the stairs LOL. Vintage = simplicity to work on/to me-since I grew up with them. (The vintage bikes that is) If I see a bike that I want on cl, and it has steel rims, I weigh the price without the (worthless to me) wheels.

uncle uncle

Reply to: Things I hate to see on bikes: (from my view)
1.gumwall tires. (I don't have anyone telling me that I have to use gumwalls, to be period correct, or that gumwalls provide a superior or equivalent ride to other options. So, even though you hate them, I don't see any prejudice towards them. If anything, their is a prejudice for blackwall tires, but anything that looks gumwall-ish seems to be acceptable.)
2.safety levers. They dont work well & they always get loose. (There may be prejudice here. For certain people and their needs and riding style, I think safety levers are just fine. I can't remember anyway saying "you know, I would have avoided that accident, but I used my safety levers and didn't stop in time". And most argument to that would be speculative anyways.)
3.colorful bar tape. Real bikers use black. (Uh, no. Some real riders use colors other than black.)
4.fenders. If you dont wanna get wet then ride the bus. (Most people are good with fenders, or don't care either way. And the people who really don't care for fenders are not very adamant in their convincing others to not use them.)
5.cycling computers. You ain't going fast enough to get a ticket so why do you care how fast you're riding? (Computers do more than give you speed. Like total distance. So, even though I don't use them, I can see the benefits. No one is adamantly cussing out others for putting newer computers on C&V bikes. At least I don't think they are.)

daf1009

agreed!

Bobtoo

I bought a never-ridden 1985 Phillips Phantom bike for my son a few years ago that was pretty close to the fantasy bike that's being talked about here.

DSC_7846 by RichardB5, on Flickr

Steel rims, although at least they weren't Rigida Superchromix
Gas pipe frame
Dual brake levers
"Ass-hatchet" saddle (I've never heard that description before but I like it), complete with the mounting arrangement that was mentioned earlier
Many reflectors (a legal requirement in the UK on new bikes since 1985)
Handlebar tape that was even thinner than insulating tape
Huret Eco rear mech. I'm not sure if that's been mentioned but it's a sure-fire indicator of a low end bike, in the UK at least.
Side pull, single pivot brakes

I think it's only really missing the dork disk and cottered cranks.

I went on a run with my son, me on my Dawes Fox- itself a fairly low-end bike. I was leaving him for dead and kept having to stop and wait for him. Then we swapped bikes and I found out why, I was having to give it everything just to keep him in sight.

I'm not really a bike snob, if anything I'm an inverted snob, but it doesn't really make sense to pay £50 for something like that when you can get something so much nicer to ride for slightly more.

noglider 

@Bobtoo, what makes the Phantom so hard to pedal? Something might be wrong with it.

Murray Missile 

Also known as "Phil McKracken Racing Saddles".

OldsCOOL

IGood heavens that poor derailleur is about as tight as it gets!

kickstart

Says the Texan.............

Try that in the PNW..............

Dave Cutter

+1

I was thinking today that even the crappiest old 10 speeds that didn't always shift reliably... was pretty cool stuff in their day. And it wasn't like we had todays modern brifters back then to compare them to.

I guess there are some things on some bicycles that I find less desirable. Or maybe... it is that there are specific items that really attract me most. I could list the bicycle things/items/accessories that I generally shy away from. All [of which] I've made an exception for on one bike or more. And I've seen beautiful old C&V bicycles I'd love to own.... even though they embody every feature I tend to avoid.

Bobtoo

It might have been partly that the grease I used was a bit on the thick side. It wasn't anything like as hard work as a Y-framed supermarket bike but it just didn't want to go like the Dawes. My son advertised it on a Facebook group this year and got double what I paid for it- and £10 more than he was asking.

That's the length the chain was from the factory! These Huret Ecos didn't have a lot of wrap, I can't remember but I wouldn't be surprised if it the chain was as long as it could be and still work on the small ring and sprocket.