Like the sound of a flathead, at full song, or on a heavy winddown.....................

That brings up another interesting point:

I've never felt the attraction to "keeping it original." Whether it's old bikes or old muscle cars, my first thought is "What would I change first?" A new matching number Corvette that I'm afraid to drive because adding miles would lower it's value has no appeal for me at all.

I am the same way, I used to think "period correct" but then I realized that if I had owned the car or bike since new, I wouldn't have bothered to keep it correct for the 40 years since I bought it, so I have abandoned that aspect generally. I can understand people that do have that view, but it holds only a minimal appeal for me. In fact, my current leaning is toward STI shifters on vintage frames... classic looks with some relatively modern technology thrown in. :)

No. I landed here via Google and I am liking it here.

Here's one of my favorite rides. It's around a 1986 vintage Raleigh Technium. Mountainbike handlebars make it easy to stand up on pedals and push hard going up hills. http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=424396 The Technium has beautiful Suntour shifters, Diacompe brakes, and Sugino chainrings. Big fat 1-1/4" 90psi Kenda tires on Araya rims. Perfect for bombing around town. It can even handle sidewalks when necessary.

I think it depends on a lot of factors -- one's age, the style of riding you do, the kinds of rides you do. Age is a biggie. I'll be 61 in January and I've been cycling mostly road bikes since I was in college. I seldom ride off road and sold my only mountain bike several years ago. About half of my mileage is from bike commuting, and the other half from touring, riding greenways and recreational rides. I don't race and seldom participate in fast group rides any more. However, I ride a lot -- more than 9,000 miles/year the past two years and well over 8,000 miles/year over the past 5+ years.

I have 5 bikes -- two tourers, a sport tourer, a cycle crosser and an old Italian racing bike. They are all nicely equipped and perfect for my needs. I have absolutely no interest in modern bikes, carbon frames, 10-11 speed gear trains, ultra light component, low spoke count wheels, etc. All of my bikes have steel frames and 9-speed gear trains. I can swap wheels among them if the need arises and most of the components. None of the them weigh less than 20 lbs, but who cares? I don't race and have no trouble keeping up with the groups that I ride with.

A few things I've learned about modern bikes and components:
- Light-weight parts almost always are less durable and reliable.
- Low-spoke count wheels get out of true and break spokes more often.
- Light weight is the most over-rated specification in cycling. Most cyclists are sacrificing durability and reliability by seeking lighter bikes and components.
- Carbon frames/forks can be as uncomfortable and unforgiving as any other material. I have never ridden a bike more comfortable than all steel.
- Bike fit is more important than anything else with regard to cycling comfort, speed and ability to ride long distances.
- There's nothing wrong with riding a bike with higher handlebars, and many cyclists would be much more comfortable riding that way with virtually no effect on speed.
- Planned obsolescence is an integral economic factor for most cycling companies. Most of their changes do not making bikes any better, they just encourage or force cyclists to buy new bikes and parts. A prime example is the number of speeds. A 10 or 11 speed bike does nothing better than an 8 or 9 speed. However, the higher speed bikes have parts that wear out quicker and are often not compatible with older bikes.

What is it with all this old stuff ?
 

It still works .. I have old stuff, I bought New .. :50:

That looks nice. I have made similar switches to a road bike to hybridize it. :)

It is interesting to see, in some cases, some very deeply drawn lines. I believe it would be questionable to argue that the newer bikes are not more efficient, faster, and in some cases smoother. I believe it is just as questionable for many to argue a "need" for many of the new things. That is, most of us our too slow and/or are not racing, and therefore the advantage is limited. I like the newer stuff because I can go farther, faster, and see more. But, that is relative to me, someone with pretty significant injury limitation. I cannot ride all day, no matter the bike under me. In the end, I have the most respect for the opinions that are about what one likes and enjoys, and not near as much when the point is to reduce the likes of others. Functionality, too, varies greatly when your perspective is weekend fun versus daily usage. From what I have read here, I am guessing my appreciation for vintage would increase if a needed to bike versus wanting to bike.

Old steel bikes seem to last forever. That's very appealing. These are possessions that can be passed down from one generation to the next.

1972 Fuji Special Road Racer. An absolute joy to ride ever since I got rid of the drop bars. http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=424417

+1, and very well-stated, tarwheel.

65 YO hear, and only three bikes, I raced briefly in the 70's so have an idea what that was like, then lots of sorta fast group rides in the 90's and 00's. Nowadays my cycling "group" is usually my wife, who is quite a strong rider. We always seem to ride at a very similar pace, and love our long 40-100 mile rides, plus the occasional credit card tour. My new friends over in C&V also seem just fine with a non-race pace, judging from one group ride so far. Hopefully there will be lots more.

My lugged steel bikes just always make me smile, whether it's riding them (and always wanting to go farther), working on them, or just looking at them. Can't say that about most modern CF bikes out there, although that deep cherry red decal-free Calfee I was riding next to yesterday had a certain appeal.

There are certainly those people who spend the effort to get all matching "period" parts. Others who mix and match to get the job done. And, others who desire the looks of the classic frame, but built up with all modern parts.

As far as passing bikes down from generation to generation, the best ones to pass down are the ones that spent most of their lives hanging in a climate controlled area of the residence. And, of course, were nice bikes when they started.

Those that have been out pounding the pavement day in and day out just become worn out old bikes.

One never knows what the future will hold, but I am hoping that my Colnago will be 80 years old before I'm ready to hang up the spurs (although it may be put out to pasture before then).

It is probably one of the earliest of the "good" bikes with many features that are still being used today. However, looking back, I don't think I would want to ride an 80 yr old bike. Today that would put one in the mid 1930's. That might be ok if it was a high-end racing bike, but anything else would be a monstrosity.

On the other hand, had I purchased an 80 yr old bike when I purchased the Colango, that would take one back to the turn of the century. Flip-Flop wheels and single-speed bikes... Hmmm... I suppose what goes around comes around.

Lots of great points, I especially like the last paragraph.

The thing about old stuff is, when it was new, it was an improvement over the OLDER old stuff. That's still true even though it's been eclipsed by the newer, more expensive stuff.

General Cycling Discussion often gets requests for help in finding a bike by someone who has $200-300 or less to spend on a bike. All that gets you these days is an obese mass merchandiser bike with the lowest quality components on the planet. If the person is reasonably mechanically inclined and willing to put some sweat equity in a bike, then a decades old bike will be far superior to anything this person can afford new. I buy new, expensive stuff if it is something I use every day (e.g., the 2013 Catrike 700 recumbent trike I ride) but I have a 1993 Cannondale SM800 MTB (beast of the east) that I paid $20 for perhaps 7 years ago. All it needed was a thorough going through, adjusting, lubricating, and cleaning when I bought and the only items replaced on it since then were tires and tubes. I ride it infrequently so replacing it with a new, more expensive bike would be stupid on my part. The components on it are at the upper end of mid-level and it is lightweight.

I purchased my bikes and have kept them now they are old bikes. If I try to sell them, I don't think I will get much money for them so I keep them. I did give one of my older fully campy record equipped to my nephew since he likes biking and is the same size as me.

My old bikes do the job for a fraction of the cost of the new stuff. Not to mention the more complicated the more expensive the repairs. I only replace chains on my multi speed drivelines every 10,000 miles or so. Newer ones quite often don't last more than half that, not to mention having to replace cogs on a regular basis. My old steel stuff will still be running long after the CF has been broken up and the flimsy chains have failed. Even better are my IGH bikes... I have one that is 43+ years old and still in regular use, 35,000 documented miles and probably closer to double that actually. Bike still rides fine, parts are still available, why get rid of it.

Aaron :)

I must agree. I worked at a bike shop for 3 years before retiring a few years ago. I hated test riding the old bikes (downtube shifters, etc.) after doing repairs, tuneup, etc. Felt kinda scary. I'm happy with my STI brifters and all the new technology.

I am still struggling with this apparent belief that heavy duty last forever is a good thing, if it is equalling heavy, slow, and/or clunky. Now, I know that is not as true of the bikes that were cutting edge in their day (of course the old timers of that era critiqued them much like folks are critiquing stuff in this thread). To me, I would rather replace stuff as needed and have the lightweight stuff. Also, i don't get where the belief that modern CF bikes will be piles of dust when the steel bikes are still riding, steel fatigues, too.

i guess some folks missed the point of the OP, the point is why so many folks like/love the vintage, not what can you say against modern. All is good though, given a similar type of thread on a motorcycle thread would be impossible, given the behaviors that would arise....

I had the opportunity to ride a CF wonder bike... It was nice, but not $5,000 nice to me. The following weekend on a casual ride with the owner of said bike we crashed. I picked my steel bike up, pulled the handle bars back around and cut off the hanging handle bar tape. The CF bike was cracked in two places, not rideable. There were two other guys that didn't make the ride because their "new" bikes were in the shop waiting on replacement parts. Old DOESN'T mean heavy and clunky. FWIW I have a helluva lot more faith in the long term durability of steel frames than just about any other material. I have owned steel, titanium, and aluminum. For general purpose riding steel will always be my first choice.

Aaron :)

Take a look a Yeti testing what it takes to break a CF frame, and maybe you will see that your example was likely an anomaly.

As of yet, I haven't had any modern stuff break on me in the past ten years. And, with my MTB, it gets covered in crud with the local riding conditions and just keeps going.

again, I like my stuff, not because I dislike vintage, but because I like how it works for me.

And I have guys at work that can bend 3/4" stainless steel... That was one bike by one manufacturer. The one that I saw crashed and broken was a Cervelo R3, seat stay and wheel stay were both cracked. Frame is now trashed. I have crashed steel frames bad enough they could not be ridden, but they could be repaired.

Aaron :)

Alot of people just like older bikes, just like alot of people like older cars.

My Modern, German Rohloff Hub has been in Production for About 10 years.