- Feedback
- View
Every now and then amongst the 'stuck seatpost' and 'what colour valve cap' threads one of these gems occurs. Who'd would have predicted it would be an overpriced Mustang frame.
Sure the Mustang was awful but also kind of iconic in a misguided and infamous way, so I can understand the novelty of owning one to some extent. But certainly not at that price...
The whole retrobike scene exists due to a huge dose of nostalgia. Nostalgia is a fabulous liar though, and seeking out past memories can justify many seemingly odd pursuits.
If one were to step back and rationally evaluate our shared desire for old bikes it would of course seem pretty ridiculous. Afterall they are just old bikes. (Just ask your wife or girlfriend...)
But people have very different reasons for owning the bikes that they do, from childhood nostalgia, form/function experimentation, the pursuit of unicorns, historical significance, to owning shiny bright colourful things.
Each of these is equally valid, even if it sometimes irritates the sensitivities of others.
As long as the intent is clear then I'm happy to share in what people bring to the forum. For example I love to see old bikes re-united with previous owners after many years, despite how low-rent they are.
Retrobike as a phenomenon does appear to becoming more popular, and owning or building up old bikes seems, dare I say it, fashionable. This means that there has probably been an increase in new members posting up whatever they have dragged out of a shed, looking to us for some sort of validation, or in many cases a valuation.
This however does mean that there are an increasing amount of fairly 'average' looking bikes appearing, often in poor condition or with an 'interesting' selection of components thrown at them. Should these be derided or guided...?
With a bit of research, a bit of nurturing and a bit of a clean, many of these bikes can really blossom.
Personally I'd much rather see a nicely restored understated period correct low to mid-range bike than an ill conceived high-end build/train wreck.
As a community I believe that we shouldn't be afraid to politely point out areas we believe could be improved on bikes posted in build threads. I always try to offer constructive criticism and appreciate it when others make suggestions on my bike builds.
As such I do agree with much of Pete's posts, especially in terms of being able to be critical but constructive rather than just being nice and non-committal all the time.
It's also important to remember it's impossible for anyone to be aware of the complete history of cycling and it's various bikes, brands and riders. Many people have returned to the sport after some time, and I suspect that others are discovering older bikes for the first time.
Sure we all make mistakes and we all appreciate help and assistance from time to time, but no-one likes a slap in the face for the trouble.
Sure the Mustang was awful but also kind of iconic in a misguided and infamous way, so I can understand the novelty of owning one to some extent. But certainly not at that price...
The whole retrobike scene exists due to a huge dose of nostalgia. Nostalgia is a fabulous liar though, and seeking out past memories can justify many seemingly odd pursuits.
If one were to step back and rationally evaluate our shared desire for old bikes it would of course seem pretty ridiculous. Afterall they are just old bikes. (Just ask your wife or girlfriend...)
But people have very different reasons for owning the bikes that they do, from childhood nostalgia, form/function experimentation, the pursuit of unicorns, historical significance, to owning shiny bright colourful things.
Each of these is equally valid, even if it sometimes irritates the sensitivities of others.
As long as the intent is clear then I'm happy to share in what people bring to the forum. For example I love to see old bikes re-united with previous owners after many years, despite how low-rent they are.
Retrobike as a phenomenon does appear to becoming more popular, and owning or building up old bikes seems, dare I say it, fashionable. This means that there has probably been an increase in new members posting up whatever they have dragged out of a shed, looking to us for some sort of validation, or in many cases a valuation.
This however does mean that there are an increasing amount of fairly 'average' looking bikes appearing, often in poor condition or with an 'interesting' selection of components thrown at them. Should these be derided or guided...?
With a bit of research, a bit of nurturing and a bit of a clean, many of these bikes can really blossom.
Personally I'd much rather see a nicely restored understated period correct low to mid-range bike than an ill conceived high-end build/train wreck.
As a community I believe that we shouldn't be afraid to politely point out areas we believe could be improved on bikes posted in build threads. I always try to offer constructive criticism and appreciate it when others make suggestions on my bike builds.
As such I do agree with much of Pete's posts, especially in terms of being able to be critical but constructive rather than just being nice and non-committal all the time.
It's also important to remember it's impossible for anyone to be aware of the complete history of cycling and it's various bikes, brands and riders. Many people have returned to the sport after some time, and I suspect that others are discovering older bikes for the first time.
Sure we all make mistakes and we all appreciate help and assistance from time to time, but no-one likes a slap in the face for the trouble.
