What is your favourite type of build?

[JustKev]

I do try and be period correct with the builds but the big driving force is building bikes to the spec that I wrote in the back of my Maths book back in 1989-1992 to while away the hours....

+1 (except it was my A-Level Biology folder)

 

[perry]

when did bike get replaced with build :?

i like bikes put together to serve a purpose , build implies showing off and there will be another " build " along later once that months trends have appeared

i like bikes that make the owner proud because they have a nice bike , usually honed over time . not because they have bolted together something to apease the notion they should have done it a certain way

basically bikes with a shred of personality

 

[tintin40]

Don't really care too much, as long as its a rider not a garage queen.

My thoughts too. I like to have some vintage kitt if poss. But only if I can get the spares for it. And then ride

 

[messiah]

i like bikes that make the owner proud because they have a nice bike , usually honed over time . not because they have bolted together something to apease the notion they should have done it a certain way

basically bikes with a shred of personality

Agreed.

I really don't get the building a bike to win a BOTM competition thing.

I love reading the parts lists from those who add history to each part expaining the history and upgrades etc.

A bike should have a life and a soul not just a wish list of box ticking wonder items... all IMHO of course

But I like them all anyway... I can't help it... I like bikes.

 

[fredgassit]

Not really bothered about 100% period accuracy. It's all about the bike looking 'right', with a spec that makes sense.

 

[dbmtb]

Factory spec is fine if the bike is meant to look like it never got used.
Race replica is a sin I am guilty of with the Gios - and for which I don't apologise but generally it's not my thing.

"Period correct" factory build with favorite upgrades/replacements is good for me - if only from a gut feeling rather than any technically justifiable standpoint. Of course Period correct with stuff that costs an arm and a leg, means a bike you daren't use, so I don't go down that path very often..

 

[mootsguy]

Not really bothered about 100% period accuracy. It's all about the bike looking 'right', with a spec that makes sense.

I agree, the parts should be appropriate for the bike. I am a fan of "retro" frames because I think they look better and are made with more craftsmanship than the current crop of hydroformed tube sets. I am also a fan of the more modern components for the simple reason they work better and usually are more dependable (although I am guilty of continuing to use some Grafton brake levers that are stunning looking). As an example, on most of my mountain bikes I now run thumb shifters made up of Pauls mounts and dura-ace bar con shifters because they look very good on my rides and they just plain work better.

 

[Stick Legs]

I like bikes built as close as possible to what I remeber BITD.

Even the best bikes change their spec so there is little point in trying to build a race replica as some team bikes changed from am to pm on the same day (almost anything with an onZa sticker should count as a Herbold replica!).

Factory fresh is something I have considered, but TBH I would always have chosen something different for myself. The only exceptions are 'total bikes' like the RC100's etc. which were not generally availible as bare frames.

Oh well done those who pointed out that build is a somewhat soulless term. Bikes have soul. Build implies toys that have never been taken ut of their boxes type collectors.

If that last sentence makes no sense go and watch 'Toy Story 2'!

 

[BikesINPortlandOREGON]

I like seeing all types of builds. I prefer a RETRO look to it.

 

[sunchaser]

Don't really go for factory fresh cos' I always changed most of the parts over time anyway. I do quite like to keep'em period correct'ish if I can though