Retro Build: Bling vs. Manufacturer Spec

[Ollytron]

Either, doesnt matter....

Bikes are meant to be ridden, so ride them...
Pictures are meant to be hung on a wall

Build your bike how you want... upgrade it how you want

Personally, I view my bike as being one, continual evolution from when I got it in 1997 when it was a stock Marin Palisades (the grey and chrome one), which I slowly upgraded with XT and XTR parts keeping just the frame and bars until the frame cracked. Then I replaced the frame only with an interim 2000 Hahanna which then was replaced permanantly with a 2001 Kilauea.... however, as most of the parts have been on all 3 frames, I see it as one long evolution of the same bike

Thats just me tho.... each to their own as they see fit.. just ride them

G

I agree with this, it works out exactly the same with my trials bikes in that I see the frame as another component. When it gives in I'll replace it but the bike as a whole will still be the same.
The whole topic has been something on my mind in the past few weeks as I'm currently rebuilding a frame from around 1995. I did plan on making it a retro mid 90's build as I had it all those years ago but as I've been buying bits there's some newer stuff slipping through mainly because of the price but also because I'd rather have a bike build I want than a bike build that I can live with as it fits in with the period.

Me too, i'm going for a GT LTS and i'm trying to stick to 95/96 but build it out of parts i always wanted at that time like XTR M950, Judy DH forks.
I'm finding it fun trying to get the parts from the correct year in good condition but when it's done it wont be a factory correct, it will be how i want it and then i'll go and ride it.

 

[24pouces]

A bike could be bling and correct period.
For answering to your question : it depends the bike and the period.
For a bike before 90, you didn't have a big choice for upgrading a bike. We have to wait the end of 80ies, beginning of 90 for seing some bling parts, anodized or exotics.

Some example :
A "Team america" klein attitude : the framest is beautifull with its neon colors. A classic built fits better than a christmas tree built : what is important: the frameset or the parts on it ? I tried many built on mine but I return each time on classic.
A cannondale omega, 1990. The cook bros crank or the grafton brakes were on the catalog. Building an omega, you need to respect the catalog,, but with bling parts

 

[brocklanders023]

If it came fully built up in a certain way I tend to prefer them restored as such (e.g original GT RTS1 had full XTR and quite sober looking finishing kit). If they were sold more often then not as frame/fork (e.g Yo Eddy, Merlin Ti, other posh stuff) then go for your life.

Doesn't apply after around 1994 as I don't really care for the 'modern retro'

 

[LeeDevelopment]

Me personally bling...
I build my bikes for me, if people don't like it too bad

Ditto

 

[ez054098]

After reading a lot of the posts to this discussion, I have changed the title to "Retro Build: Bling vs. Manufacturer Spec." I feel it is more of what I initially meant.

 

[halaburt]

I think "bling" is a misleading term too -- as it's probably too associated with the color-anodized parts (i.e., not silver or black). It leads to a perception that in the 80's there weren't upgrades or high-quality aftermarket parts available.

Nothing could be further from the truth. I would argue that in the 80's the "bling" was all about FUNCTION and not just looks/colors. In fact, most every high-end bike was sold as frame-only and you had to work with you shop on a build spec.

Take a look at this 1985 catalog for instance from one of the top local shops in northern California:

http://www.pointreyesbikes.com/Point_Reyes_Bikes/Archives/Pages/1985_Catalog.html

 

[ez054098]

I think "bling" is a misleading term too -- as it's probably too associated with the color-anodized parts (i.e., not silver or black). It leads to a perception that in the 80's there weren't upgrades or high-quality aftermarket parts available.

Nothing could be further from the truth. I would argue that in the 80's the "bling" was all about FUNCTION and not just looks/colors. In fact, most every high-end bike was sold as frame-only and you had to work with you shop on a build spec.

Take a look at this 1985 catalog for instance from one of the top local shops in northern California:

http://www.pointreyesbikes.com/Point_Reyes_Bikes/Archives/Pages/1985_Catalog.html

Very true. I used "bling" for lack of a better term. It should encompass all after market upgrades. Since I could never afford a bike fully decked out with XT or XTR, I usually had no choice but to upgrade. I always viewed replacing the standard cranks that came on the bike with Cooks, Syncros, Bullseye, etc as a better option than a XT crank, IMO.

 

[FST4RD]

I a big fan of full groupsets especially if it's good stuff like DX, XT or XTR

Some bling is okay on certain bikes i.e Cooks Bros cranks on Fats and Syncros on Rockys but a lot of it (kooka for instance) is just not my cuppa.

I agree, I like my groupsets to match.
Although back in the day normally the whole groupo would match, and the rear de would be a model higher ie. full xt groupo and xtr rear mech.
Or else it would be full groupo and the cranks would be one down ie. full XTR with XT cranks.
Seen plenty of those.
Hell even my new bike has XT rear mech and deore everything else.

 

[CAPIN]

BIKE vs RIDE

Its funny how the collectors approach is totally different from riders approach in building bikes.
When you treat a bike as an item in your collection, the only right approach imo is PC.
By that you "freeze" time, so you can clearly see the era and the state of technology of that particular year or two.
Its exciting and the only way to go to for really passionate collector trying to create builds with some value... The most important is the BIKE.

..But for mountain biker in any era it has actually always been the opposite. Most important in the end was always the RIDE.
Thats why we all upgraded to V brakes, moment they came to market in 96 and didnt care that our frames still had cantilever bosses. Every technical enhancement has been always welcomed, cause it made better RIDE.

(Personally, In the last year i felt these two approaches colliding inside of me when riding retro bikes. I decided radically separate retro from riding.
Building retro for maximum beauty and love of history and riding modern for full satisfaction.. I still dont know how i feel about that decision, but thats perhaps for a differend thread)

In terms of aftermarket vs catalogue, i think the spirit of our sport was always in individuality, and being enthusiastic about new things, technologies, materials.
So bling for me, but i can see sense in doing some catalogue builds..
Its mostly sentimental value for me since it perhaps brings better memories from the shops and shows

 

[Lid]

The spec was done by snottylittlemoney guys. So specking your bikes years and years later to some slm's list on paper is daft.

I agreetha