Vote Now! What's more important when building an old bike

[merckx]

where is the "period correct" option! :shock:

 

[Neil]

where is the "period correct" option! :shock:

You did read the op, didn't you?

 

[barry2017]

Does it go nicely? That's all you need. That, and not having anything so perfect you're afraid of damaging it.

I'd go modern in a second if I could have what I wanted from a modern frame.

 

[GoldenEraMTB]

.....Period correctness is a given......

Why?
Rigidly sticking to period becasue its "the done thing" is I think, narrow minded.

Yes, its difficult to build non period parts into a bike whilst not mnaking them look out of place or daft, but it can be done to great effect. Just look at the white CinderCone (I think it was a CC) that the chap build with completely new wheels, forks, controls, groupset and finishing kit on here recently... stunning


For me, garage queens and catalogue builds bore me.... a bike is made to be ridden, and should reflect the individuality of the person riding it. A bike should be built for the person riding it, not for board or peer approval either....

G

G, thanks for the response, but period correctness is essential to why were frequent this site, so that's why I say it's a given. Not close minded in the least, but even hot rodding should be done with an eye to what someone would've done over the years. There is really no point to taking an old/classic/vintage frame and fitting it with 2x10 sram or a 160mm sus fork. Anyone can do that, and while I don't flame on people who do, I don't think it's special or in the spirit of why we have this site, hobby, or passion.

where is the "period correct" option! :shock:

For my pole purposes, that's not an option.

Function over form so none of the above.

So what are you doing here? No way you can argue that we are choosing function ahead of form or nostalgia, with old builds. Unless, you are speaking of strictly apple to apples, as most functional for the period, and if that's the case, than perhaps you should choose, groupset uniformity, as some parts were made to only place nice with parts made by the same mfg. Creativity sometimes led to genius and optimum performance or absolute failure, but it was fun, and fun should be a big part of this thing, we do. Fun, but period correct

I like to see period sympathy - not particularly bothered about catalogue spec - it can be a nice touch, but I'm more interested in the parts being about right.

Subtle touchs are nice - not loads of bling or ano - functional, tasteful, unobtrusive.

Just throwing money or high-end groupsets leaves me cold - especially if the parts are aimed higher than say the frame.

I quite like it when there's a change from the norm - like kitting a bike out with Suntour kit, when normally it would be Shimano.

Attention to detail and truly thorough, obsessive builds I find interesting - like WD Pro's Bear Valley build.

I like the cut of your jib; sail on!

Early on, I was a groupset conformity guy; never could afford to be a chi chi guy, though I dabbled with highend boutique parts, and now, I find myself looking for ways to change it up; getting creative, but staying within the time period, like borrowing a part from a tourer or bmx bike, especially with early to mid 80's builds.

Good question Rob.

I'm a bit obsessed with period correct groupset builds but also need my bikes to be very functional. I shy away from ultra-lightweight, fragile, boutique bling because I tried that BITD and most of it broke.
This has the added side effect or benefit that I'm rarely drawn to spending huge sums of money on individual parts or bikes. Thankfully.

So as well as a eye for durability and reliability, I usually have a strong leaning towards aesthetics especially where colour is concerned. I spend alot of attention on details like cable length/routing and crimps etc as well as lining up valves with tyre markings. The usual mild OCD stuff.

Ultimately I like to have period correct or period sensitive bikes which look good and perform well. Each bike has it's own subtle variations in keeping with it's character and original place in a range.
That is to say that, if it was originally a mid-range bike in 1993, I'll build it up as a mid range bike from 1993.

Personally I don't see the point of homogenising an old bike by building it up with modern parts.
I've enough modern bikes to fill those requirements.

Thanks, Paul, and again, I agree with where you are going. I like attention to detail, but it seems we've seen a million catalogue bikes. We've also seen a ton of throw-cnc-ano-$$$ at it, and lately I've been digging the sensible, smart, and creative, period build, with a bit of patina.


Thanks, to everyone for taking time to comment; I appreciate all the thoughts and votes. I voted creativity, and mostly because I've grown bored with the same old, same old, but still need to keep it period. Something tell me I'm not alone.

 

[andrewl]

The bikes that appeal to me the most were (and still are) only ever available as framesets and so I value the creativity in building up these frames into bikes and I love the different takes on how a bike should be.

If I choose a bike of mine which I know Rob is familiar with (my 94 Yo) I would never have considered building up a Yo like it is but the mix of parts the original owner built it with really work for me and I won’t ever change it.

I've done a catalog build too and I admire the effort people put into them but they just aren't my thing...

 

[andrewl]

Having said all that I do love a good expensive bling build too with stupidly expensive parts that largely don't work

 

[GoldenEraMTB]

If I choose a bike of mine which I know Rob is familiar with (my 94 Yo) I would never have considered building up a Yo like it is but the mix of parts the original owner built it with really work for me and I won’t ever change it.

Yes, the first and only owner prior to you, loved that bike, and it shows in his build; good mix of bling/quality/creativity/period correctness.

Having said all that I do love a good expensive bling build too with stupidly expensive parts that largely don't work

Hmmm, I do get a kick out of seeing one, every now and then, but I wouldn't use the word love.

 

[retroyetirigid]

Of the three options available, I'd have to go with creativity, as I'm a skin flint and would never intentionally spend big money on a build, and I don't really go for matching everything (hell, I use Suntour XC pro thumb shifters with XTR mechs, mix match wheels and tyres and even had one red and one yellow grip on something once ).
More important to me is how its going to ride, not what it looks like or how much its cost, cause its GOING to get ridden not going to be sat there looking pretty :roll:

 

[Yog Sothoth]

I like a bike to look good and be rideable, even if it's only fit to ride to the pub. Period correctness, high end parts, matching groupsets etc, aren't bothered at all, as long as it looks great and is rideable.

That's not to say I don't admire faithful restorations: I do, absolutely, but probably wouldn't do one myself. I probably couldn't afford it, and I tend to be lured by bright colours (the colors man, the colors!) and end up buying parts because of that, rather than their vintage or even quality (although I try and avoid cheap crap, unless it's decent cheap crap, which some is).

I ride in the Peak mainly. I have a full sus Norco for that. For easy rides, I have a hardtail Saracen I built up in mostly period-sympathetic parts (though not all across the board), in purple and yellow, and I like the fact that people see it and go WOW!, irrespective of whether they mean WOW! that's fugly, or WOW! that's lovely. Ummm...I like hawaiian shirts, and bikes to match.

I like coloured tyres, simply because they're coloured.

 

[GoldenEraMTB]

I should have said ride-ability is given, as well, since I doubt anyone sets out to assemble a bike, that can't be ridden.

Though some are more rideable than others depending on one's creativity