# Vintage bikes as a daily using bike.



## jsidney (Aug 24, 2011)

It seems that some of the vintage bike frames are more durable than modern bikes and many of them can be found fairly cheap.

Besides weight, (I am interested in strong bikes so weight is secondary) what am I giving up buying a vintage bike over a modern one?

I am guessing I can get much more for the money. I am pretty sure a vintage bike is much better than what I could get at the same price as it would be the price of a Wall Mart bike.


----------



## paredown (Oct 18, 2006)

The thing about bikes is there has been evolution, not revolution.

A medium sized frame quality bike from the '70s will weigh in at about 21 lbs, one from the 80s maybe 19 and the latest and greatest carbon fiber can easily meet (or get under) the UCI weight limit of 15lbs. 

Gears have gone from 10 (2 front x 5 rear) to 12 (2x6), 14 (2x7), 18 (3x6) to modern systems of 20 (2x10) to 22 (2x11). Shifters have also changed from "friction" (you have to shift and then "trim" to be exactly in gear) to indexed systems where there are click stops and exact shifts. New bikes have combination brake levers/gear shifts, whereas older bikes had simple shift levers on the down tube and brake levers. The newer systems are probably easier to make accurate shifts--but the cost is increased complexity, expense of replacement...

Brakes have improved (dual pivots), better brake pads.

As far as knock-about durability nothing IMO had surpassed the quality steel frames, and when you take into account that the most important thing for getting down the road efficiently is the condition (and weight) of the rider, a used bike can be a great starting place, because if you shop carefully, you can get a wonderful used bike for $250 (and maybe another $50 or so for some maintenance) that will get you accustomed to riding and let you decide if you want to continue in the sport.

There are lots of used bikes sold at excellent prices that have minimal mileage because someone tried the sport, hung it up in the garage and are only now getting around to selling it--this is what you want to find.

If it grabs your interest, you will have lots of time to figure out your real likes and dislikes and then maybe you will want the latest and greatest...

And if you start with a quality frame--you can always (within reason) upgrade the components.


----------



## paredown (Oct 18, 2006)

Forgot to add--there is a wealth of experience and knowledge on this board, so if you see a bike you are interested in, copy the Craigslist or Ebay link, or post pictures and information, and people will offer opinions about value and help you make an informed choice.

The other thing--if you are moderately handy, if you buy a used bike and it needs basic tuning up, it is not that complicated to do, and there is lots of information available here and on the web to DIY.


----------



## jsidney (Aug 24, 2011)

paredown said:


> The thing about bikes is there has been evolution, not revolution.
> 
> A medium sized frame quality bike from the '70s will weigh in at about 21 lbs, one from the 80s maybe 19 and the latest and greatest carbon fiber can easily meet (or get under) the UCI weight limit of 15lbs.
> 
> ...


I am not interested in this as a sport but as a tool.

I do ride daily and will continue to do so.

The bikes I have been using fall apart, things break and today I even bent a handle bar.

A pedal broke when coming back from a town 100 miles a day.

What I am thinking of doing is getting a very tough frame older bike and putting good more modern gear on it. Maybe 105's, Ultegra, and I am even considering Dura Ace on a frame I can't break.

I figure if I am going to go heavy frame I can look for efficiency else where.


----------



## jsidney (Aug 24, 2011)

I should have asked in a different way.

I want to start moving towards better bikes but I am afraid the light weight stuff is going to be too fragile.

I am starting to want a tough non-light weight frame from the past with the technology of today.


----------



## Peanya (Jun 12, 2008)

You'd want a retro bike because of classic design and looks. Older bikes aren't "tougher" than modern bikes. If you get a modern mid-level bike, then you're getting something that'll last just as long. I just built up a '93 Trek that can be used as an every day bike. It'll be able to last me 30 years if I want it to. My 2009 BMC will also last just as long, but it's a little lighter and looks very modern.


----------



## edlouie (Feb 22, 2005)

A steel frame and fork with lugged construction is tough in the sense that it will not spontaneously fail on you, but I wouldn't buy an old frame simply because it is "tougher" and "not light." It is not light because the tubing and construction methods were not as advanced. But in terms of sheer strength, a modern frame with 853 or TT OX will be stronger than an older frame. 

There are other benefits to using an older frame as a starting point (relaxed geometry, lower cost) as well as drawbacks (harder to acquire, refurbishment time) but that doesn't seem to be your primary concern. 

The failures that you mention (handlebar, broken pedal) have nothing to do with the frame. 

I just built up a 1985 Miyata 912 so don't think I'm against what you're doing. However, I have put over 15K miles on my primary carbon framed bike so I don't worry about carbon being fragile. Just ride reasonable wheels and tires, everything else will last a long time.


----------



## jsidney (Aug 24, 2011)

Peanya said:


> You'd want a retro bike because of classic design and looks. Older bikes aren't "tougher" than modern bikes. If you get a modern mid-level bike, then you're getting something that'll last just as long. I just built up a '93 Trek that can be used as an every day bike. It'll be able to last me 30 years if I want it to. My 2009 BMC will also last just as long, but it's a little lighter and looks very modern.


I keep hearing horror stories about thin steel bikes getting cracks in them, aluminum bikes being rough on 100 mile + trips and carbon cracking.

Are these rare events.

Right now I have been breaking a cheaper bike every year.

I started out budgeting 1.5k for bikes but I am going to increase that to 3k.

I was hoping I could get an older almost bullet proof tough as nails frame and build it up modern.

I know I can so it cheaper than building up a modern frame. Are there modern frames that are super tough? Maybe the older ones are not as tough but I remember that I used to not break bikes in the 70's 80's, and 90's but in the 2000's they have been falling apart.


----------



## jsidney (Aug 24, 2011)

edlouie said:


> A steel frame and fork with lugged construction is tough in the sense that it will not spontaneously fail on you, but I wouldn't buy an old frame simply because it is "tougher" and "not light." It is not light because the tubing and construction methods were not as advanced. But in terms of sheer strength, a modern frame with 853 or TT OX will be stronger than an older frame.
> 
> There are other benefits to using an older frame as a starting point (relaxed geometry, lower cost) as well as drawbacks (harder to acquire, refurbishment time) but that doesn't seem to be your primary concern.
> 
> ...


Those where the failures in the last 30 days. 

What about the stories I have been reading on forums about frame failures. Are those exceptions to the rule?

I will try and put a guess to how many miles I ride per year.


----------



## edlouie (Feb 22, 2005)

jsidney said:


> I keep hearing horror stories about thin steel bikes getting cracks in them, aluminum bikes being rough on 100 mile + trips and carbon cracking.
> 
> Are these rare events.
> 
> ...


Thin steel bikes cracking? Steel bends but doesn't crack. 

How exactly are you breaking your cheap bikes every year?


----------



## jsidney (Aug 24, 2011)

My back of the napkin estimate is 6500 miles a year.


----------



## edlouie (Feb 22, 2005)

jsidney said:


> Those where the failures in the last 30 days.
> 
> What about the stories I have been reading on forums about frame failures. Are those exceptions to the rule?
> 
> I will try and put a guess to how many miles I ride per year.


I don't put much weight in frame failures discussed on the forums. There have been manufacturing defects since the beginning of time, only the creation of the internet and forums has created larger communities where more people can share their experiences (or vent their frustrations) than before. 

Equipment failures - modern equipment *seems* less tolerant of user error - if you overtighten your carbon bars, or weigh over 200 pounds and insist on using 12 spoke wheels with 23c tires pumped to 150psi there will be problems. On the other hand, STI's and cartridge bearings are pretty awesome...

From my personal experience I have never had a frame or fork failure in any material over 10 years of road riding. In my riding group of friends, only one person has ever had a frame failure - the weld between the chainstay and the bottom bracket seperated - that was on a steel frame. But it could've been a titanium or aluminum frame, just happened to be steel. 

I wouldn't worry so much. Buy the frame you want.


----------



## jsidney (Aug 24, 2011)

edlouie said:


> Thin steel bikes cracking? Steel bends but doesn't crack.
> 
> How exactly are you breaking your cheap bikes every year?


I have read some posts where people have said that they have had steel frames fail and broke through.

I have had forks bend and have bent frames on walmart bikes and have tons of components failures.

I am wanting bullet proof, something I can't bend, can't hurt if I put weight on the top bar, can handle roughly, and where components do not come apart.

Part of the problem may very well be the price I have been paying for products. I have gone though a number of 125.00 bikes.

I want to spend more money and never replace again.


----------



## jsidney (Aug 24, 2011)

edlouie said:


> Thin steel bikes cracking? Steel bends but doesn't crack.
> 
> How exactly are you breaking your cheap bikes every year?


Here are some examples of cracked steel frames.

My bicycle frame cracked, safe to ride?

Bicycle Frame Repair at Yellow Jersey

Steel Bike Frame Repair? - Yahoo! Answers


----------



## jsidney (Aug 24, 2011)

Some of the things that I have read that in order to get weight down the strength of steel frame bikes has been compromised. I will try and find those comments.


----------



## paredown (Oct 18, 2006)

I can see that cheap bars, or cheap pedals on a WM $125 bike are likely to fail... but as Peanya says, there are good frames and bad, good components and bad, irregardless of when they were made.

Here's an example--Cinelli classic bars--durable aluminum, and best available for decades. They had occasional failures, but a couple of generations raced hard on them mostly without problems. 

But modern bars--take Deda aluminum bars--made from new heat treated aluminum alloys--they are both lighter and stronger than the Cinelli.

For an average rider, which is better? I think the answer is, either would be a big step above whatever comes on a stock cheap factory bike, and both would stand up to the stresses and strains that an average rider would put on their equipment.

As far as frames--I think one of the best values out there are the late '80s Japanese frames (Bridgestone, Nishiki and others)--often Tange 2 or Ishiwata tubing--their technique by that point was as good or better (certainly more consistent) than the Euro makers..

As far as frame failures--as has been said, they are few and far and between IME--regardless of material. Failures of lugged steel frames are very unusual, failure of quality forks (Reynolds, Columbus, Tange) very rare except for impact and crashes.


----------



## paredown (Oct 18, 2006)

jsidney said:


> Here are some examples of cracked steel frames.
> 
> My bicycle frame cracked, safe to ride?
> 
> ...


#1--newish frame (probably 90s)--I'm guessing too much heat while brazing--owner thinks it may be crash-related
#2--The Yellow Jersey makes it clear that it was a manufacturing defect--the brazer forced the frame into position and left it under tension while brazing the head tube
#3--accident damage pure and simple.

The happy thing is that in all cases the frame could be repaired, and no frame material is tough enough to withstand crashing without damage, given the wrong circumstances.

Edlouie says


> I wouldn't buy an old frame simply because it is "tougher" and "not light." It is not light because the tubing and construction methods were not as advanced. But in terms of sheer strength, a modern frame with 853 or TT OX will be stronger than an older frame


I disagree somewhat with this--the way that the tubing was made both lighter and stronger was by thinning the walls or better hardening or both. An Reynolds 853 frame is made from tubing that is theoretically stronger than an older tubing like Reynolds 531--but the material is less forgiving both to errors in manufacturing and to damage in crash situations. 

Larger profile tubes were necessary to maintain stiffness, profiling was added in some cases, but the thinner wall tubing is more likely to dent or deform, and crash damage can be worse--tearing of tubing walls etc. This is true of modern Columbus tubing like EL-OS or Nivachrome. The newest stainless tubing may have squared the circle--where thin, light and tough are together.

Construction methods "advanced" only in the sense that the new tubing required more precise brazing temperatures for example--the famous example is when Reynolds required certification before they would sell you their 753 tubing.

Probably the "best" frame for you would be a late 70s early/early 80s non-thin-wall tubed frame (Columbus SL/Reynolds 531/Tange) from a good maker--with modern equipment. You could build it up to come in around 19-20lbs. Framesaver the steel tubing to prevent rust, take care not to overtighten, do careful yearly maintenance and it could last you a lifetime.


----------



## jsidney (Aug 24, 2011)

Some of the stuff I was just reading was to avoid steel below .32mm thickness but it could be found down to .28mm

I saw something else that said modern frames can handle the stresses of normal use with care.

My concerns are the bumps and bruises of daily life where care is not always easy.

Perhaps when I get better stuff things will be much better and I will have not problems.

If slipping and ending up setting on the top tube of carbon can break it then I will avoid it because with me that will eventually happen. If carbon can take some impacts (not being hit by a car or anything like that) and stresses that are not a part of the riding experiance then that worries me.

Most of my riding is work related, secondary is shopping, third is visiting farms and ranches.

Maybe if I don't go for the lightest that exists in any material maybe that will put my concerns to rest.

I don't expect major crashes but there will be minor impacts quite often.


----------



## onespeedbiker (May 28, 2007)

jsidney said:


> Here are some examples of cracked steel frames.
> 
> My bicycle frame cracked, safe to ride?
> 
> ...


You need to read a little more so you don't assume that steel frames crack; the point being why did they crack? Two of the three cracked because of crashes; expect that you will damage any bike when you crash.The second bike was a manufacturing defect. Had either of the two bikes been carbon or even aluminum, the crash could have resulted in a catastrophic failure. Your best bike for the buck is a middle of the line road bike $700-1000. Your Walmart bikes are designed purely for looks and as you learned, not to be rode aggressively; do so and bike will not hold up. If you want a pretty nice steel bike, Specialized makes a steel Allez with 8sp downtube shifters for about $700.


----------



## paredown (Oct 18, 2006)

jsidney said:


> My concerns are the bumps and bruises of daily life where care is not always easy.
> 
> Perhaps when I get better stuff things will be much better and I will have not problems.
> ...
> ...


I have never babied my bikes--but have always taken good care of them. Countless miles in the rain, rough roads, and I am no longer a lightweight. Lately, I've been riding the mean streets of NY on my Merican and my Simonetti with all of its potholes and broken pavement, toured on the Merician with a decent load--all with no problems.

Raced my original bike, crashed--not often but enough--and the worse damage I have done to any bike was when I dropped a front wheel into a road grate, and the combination of my largish frame , slow speed and the wheel dropping deep, the leverage bent both top tube and down tube. No fork damage, no wheel damage.

We straightened the frame with broom handles originally and I continued to race on that frame. A couple of years later when I had the money together, my shop did surgery and replace the top tube and fine-tuned the down tube (you can still feel the impact ripple under the shift bosses), brazed it back together and I am still riding that bike occasionally nearly 30 years on--and you can still take your hands of the bars and it tracks true...

Good bikes are not fragile--they were meant to be ridden hard, and enjoyed.


----------



## jsidney (Aug 24, 2011)

Ok, you guys have fixed my worries on the durability issue.

I don't trust carbon as I hear some care needs to be taken on impacts and abrasion.

I will trust the better steel bikes to hold up to daily bumps and bruises as well as some unintentional abuse.


----------



## jsidney (Aug 24, 2011)

paredown said:


> I have never babied my bikes--but have always taken good care of them. Countless miles in the rain, rough roads, and I am no longer a lightweight. Lately, I've been riding the mean streets of NY on my Merican and my Simonetti with all of its potholes and broken pavement, toured on the Merician with a decent load--all with no problems.
> 
> Raced my original bike, crashed--not often but enough--and the worse damage I have done to any bike was when I dropped a front wheel into a road grate, and the combination of my largish frame , slow speed and the wheel dropping deep, the leverage bent both top tube and down tube. No fork damage, no wheel damage.
> 
> ...


I just noticed this was a 30 year old bike you mentioned. I feel a little better about newer steel bikes now but would a 2011 steel bike taken the abuse your 30 year old bike took.


----------



## onespeedbiker (May 28, 2007)

jsidney said:


> Ok, you guys have fixed my worries on the durability issue.
> 
> I don't trust carbon as I hear some care needs to be taken on impacts and abrasion.
> 
> I will trust the better steel bikes to hold up to daily bumps and bruises as well as some unintentional abuse.


One question no one has asked is how big you are. Most bike frames are designed for 180lbs riders, and though most will take much more than that, but weight can wear out components pre-maturely. If you are 200lbs plus and and like to bang your components, you may need to upgrade a few things to keep them working.

There is an old saying when buying a bike, spend as much as you can. The reason is upgrading parts later costs twice as much. If you are looking at a high quality used bike, they will probably be spec'd with Shimano parts. While Dura-ace parts works very well, after 105 the parts get lighter and more precise, but not really stronger.


----------



## jsidney (Aug 24, 2011)

onespeedbiker said:


> One question no one has asked is how big you are. Most bike frames are designed for 180lbs riders, and though most will take much more than that, but weight can wear out components pre-maturely. If you are 200lbs plus and and like to bang your components, you may need to upgrade a few things to keep them working.
> 
> There is an old saying when buying a bike, spend as much as you can. The reason is upgrading parts later costs twice as much. If you are looking at a high quality used bike, they will probably be spec'd with Shimano parts. While Dura-ace parts works very well, after 105 the parts get lighter and more precise, but not really stronger.


I am a bit heavy and have a strange build so I think I will be pushing the weight forward quite a bit.

I am 5'8 1/2 with a 30 inch inseam, 34 inch waist and weight 235 pounds. I have a strange build from something couches told me long ago that was not always correct. I wrestled up to the collegiate level. I was told every ounce of weight in the legs was less in the upper body so I developed slow twitch muscles in the legs doing tons of endurance activities such as running cross country and hundred mile + backpacking trips and developed fast twitch muscles in the upper body. I have bird legs with a thick thick back and chest. 

I don't know if the weight distribution affects anything but I am top heavy. I would imagine I put more weight forward than most people of my weight as I also have short legs and a long torso.


----------



## Peanya (Jun 12, 2008)

Go and buy a bikes direct titanium bike, or frameset only. Tough, light, and excellent ride quality. Do regular mIntenance on it, and make sure it's assembled/checked by a local bike shop. 
Get wider tires, 25 or 28(preferred) to reduce wear on other components. Put 25's at no more than 100psi, and 28's no more than 85. 
That should last you 60+ years. Seriously.


----------



## onespeedbiker (May 28, 2007)

jsidney said:


> I am a bit heavy and have a strange build so I think I will be pushing the weight forward quite a bit.
> 
> I am 5'8 1/2 with a 30 inch inseam, 34 inch waist and weight 235 pounds. I have a strange build from something couches told me long ago that was not always correct. I wrestled up to the collegiate level. I was told every ounce of weight in the legs was less in the upper body so I developed slow twitch muscles in the legs doing tons of endurance activities such as running cross country and hundred mile + backpacking trips and developed fast twitch muscles in the upper body. I have bird legs with a thick thick back and chest.
> 
> I don't know if the weight distribution affects anything but I am top heavy. I would imagine I put more weight forward than most people of my weight as I also have short legs and a long torso.


Okay, now what kind of bikes have you been riding. Most of the Department store bikes I see are mountain bikes.


----------



## jsidney (Aug 24, 2011)

Peanya said:


> Go and buy a bikes direct titanium bike, or frameset only. Tough, light, and excellent ride quality. Do regular mIntenance on it, and make sure it's assembled/checked by a local bike shop.
> Get wider tires, 25 or 28(preferred) to reduce wear on other components. Put 25's at no more than 100psi, and 28's no more than 85.
> That should last you 60+ years. Seriously.



The problem is there is no local bike shop. There are more horses here than bikes. More Bison here as well.


----------



## edlouie (Feb 22, 2005)

Peanya said:


> Go and buy a bikes direct titanium bike, or frameset only. Tough, light, and excellent ride quality. Do regular mIntenance on it, and make sure it's assembled/checked by a local bike shop.
> Get wider tires, 25 or 28(preferred) to reduce wear on other components. Put 25's at no more than 100psi, and 28's no more than 85.
> That should last you 60+ years. Seriously.


Did you miss the part where he said he was 235 lbs? I think 28's at max inflation would be a good starting point. I'm 170 pounds, and I ride 25's at 90-95psi. I wouldn't advise him to run 25's at 100psi max.


----------



## edlouie (Feb 22, 2005)

paredown said:


> Edlouie says
> 
> I disagree somewhat with this--the way that the tubing was made both lighter and stronger was by thinning the walls or better hardening or both. An Reynolds 853 frame is made from tubing that is theoretically stronger than an older tubing like Reynolds 531--but the material is less forgiving both to errors in manufacturing and to damage in crash situations.
> 
> ...


I agree with your post. I was trying to point out to the OP that a typical modern steel frame is not fragile. They have equal or greater strength than classic frames at a lighter weight. But, they are less tolerant of poor handling and more likely to take damage in a crash. 

I do think modern assembly technique with TIG welding is more advanced - many more geometry options compared to a traditional lugged frame at the same pricepoint. However, it's extremely rare to see a lug fail. Like you said, I would see the OP on a late 80's Japanese bike with quality tubing if he knows how to build and maintain his bike. A touring model might be a better choice as it has more tire clearance. 

Here's a spec sheet from a Miyata 610, a very good choice IMO. 

img106.jpg (image)

img119.jpg (image)


----------



## Peanya (Jun 12, 2008)

edlouie said:


> Did you miss the part where he said he was 235 lbs? I think 28's at max inflation would be a good starting point. I'm 170 pounds, and I ride 25's at 90-95psi. I wouldn't advise him to run 25's at 100psi max.


No, I didn't miss it. Running 28's at max psi will only cause excessive puncture flats, and be harder on the bike overall. I'm 193lbs, and run 25's at 90~100. I ran 23's at that pressure too without issue. 
Cheap department store bikes have issues because super cheap components, but also they're assembled by people who do NOT want to assemble them. Some people are just hard on bikes too. 
My recommendation is to satisfy the desires of the OP.


----------



## edlouie (Feb 22, 2005)

Peanya said:


> No, I didn't miss it. Running 28's at max psi will only cause excessive puncture flats, and be harder on the bike overall. I'm 193lbs, and run 25's at 90~100. I ran 23's at that pressure too without issue.
> Cheap department store bikes have issues because super cheap components, but also they're assembled by people who do NOT want to assemble them. Some people are just hard on bikes too.
> My recommendation is to satisfy the desires of the OP.


The max inflation for most 28's is between 100-115psi, not much more than 85psi but should be a good starting point for a 235lbs rider. I still think since the OP visits farms and ranches that a wider tire would be a better choice. Here's Michelin's guide to tire inflation for the OP's reference:

Michelin Bicycle USA - A better way forward®

100% agree with you about department store "bikes."


----------



## Peanya (Jun 12, 2008)

Michelin's tire pressure guide is way off. If I used their recommended psi, I'd be broke from replacing punctured tires all the time. 
I've also thought a good choice for the OP would be to get a Gunnar Roadie. Tough, looks great, not super expensive, and can build it up with choice of components. The frames are designed to take wider tires too, so running 28's would be great.


----------



## edlouie (Feb 22, 2005)

Peanya said:


> Michelin's tire pressure guide is way off. If I used their recommended psi, I'd be broke from replacing punctured tires all the time.
> I've also thought a good choice for the OP would be to get a Gunnar Roadie. Tough, looks great, not super expensive, and can build it up with choice of components. The frames are designed to take wider tires too, so running 28's would be great.


I have a Gunnar Roadie. It will take 25's with fenders, 28's without. If OP rides year-round, the Gunnar Sport will be a better choice - takes 28's with fenders, 32's without.


----------



## Reynolds531 (Nov 8, 2002)

jsidney said:


> It seems that some of the vintage bike frames are more durable than modern bikes and many of them can be found fairly cheap.
> 
> Besides weight, (I am interested in strong bikes so weight is secondary) what am I giving up buying a vintage bike over a modern one?
> 
> I am guessing I can get much more for the money. I am pretty sure a vintage bike is much better than what I could get at the same price as it would be the price of a Wall Mart bike.


If durability is your first requirement,then buy a bike (old or new) designed for fully loaded touring or cyclocross.

But I think you are overreacting to bad experiences with low quality bikes. Good quality bikes are tough and durable, and have been for decades. (except those designed to be extremely light weight).

If you have a tight budget find a quality touring or sports touring steel bike in great shape from the late 80's or early 90s. Lots of people bought nice bikes an never put 200 miles on them. I like steel Treks, but many brands had nice steel bikes back then


----------



## T0mi (Mar 2, 2011)

jsidney said:


> What I am thinking of doing is getting a very tough frame older bike and putting good more modern gear on it. Maybe 105's, Ultegra, and I am even considering Dura Ace on a frame I can't break.


You won't gain reliability by going dura-ace or ultegra over 105. You will only lose weight and mostly in your wallet. High end groups cost more because they introduce new techno on them first and save weight by using more expensive materials, like titanium on axle and screws/bolt/nuts.


----------



## jsidney (Aug 24, 2011)

T0mi said:


> You won't gain reliability by going dura-ace or ultegra over 105. You will only lose weight and mostly in your wallet. High end groups cost more because they introduce new techno on them first and save weight by using more expensive materials, like titanium on axle and screws/bolt/nuts.


I have found I can get 5 and 6 year old stuff fairly cheap, yes out of date but fairly cheap.

The problem is I have to go 100 miles south east to get them.

The other thing, If I am willing to lets say spend 1,5k on a new bike is it not the same as getting a used bike and spending the same amount of money?

I probably will not do this but maybe I will.

I am trying to learn as much as I can to make informed choices.


----------



## jsidney (Aug 24, 2011)

One of the reasons that I started looking down the path was possibly a flawed observation from the past.

I seems to me that cheap bikes of today are not as durable as cheap bikes of the past.

The ones I had growing up seemed to take abuse better than what I see today.

I was assuming that the same would be true of the middle level bikes.

One thing I have learned in the non-bike world is that when you improve performance in one area compromises are made in others. I would think that in the efforts we see to make faster and faster bikes you eventually start compromising durability. Maybe that is not true in the bike world.


----------



## icemonkey (Sep 6, 2010)

Having read the whole thread I thought i would add my .02 If tough durability, occasional or regular dirt roads are concerned I would go 90's or modern steel. Definite agreement on a cyclocross or touring frame. But I would go more modern if not new (Surly or Soma) simply because if you have to rely on the interweb for parts, you wont have compatibility issues. Old bikes are terrific and it would be great to get more interest in them, however 1 inch steerers, 120mm or 126mm hub spacing is dead - no matter how sad it is. As you seem to be in the middle of nowhere parts will be awkward to get for an old bike. If budget is your prime concern, you cannot beat a good classic bike - for ride, style and the love of it. But if your going to batter a bike year round - hundreds of miles weekly new steel is better with a decent build is better. Buy good wheels though - spend money there and dont get seduced by utralight low spoke count, you need tough. (neuvation one of the advertisers here does some great deals). Another advantage of a cyclocross frame is that it wont look silly with a mix mash of parts, mine has a mountain bike deraileur, mountain bike hub, brakes and a mix of road parts. Built for strength. on top of that a lot of the parts are available used here or the bay cheap. Good steel is impossible to beat - my no brand steel, Kona Lavadome from the 90's has been ridden off road literally 100s of 1000 of miles HARD. From smashing into a tree in Chamonix (france) 15 years ago to my ejecting from it in Moab a few months ago. Its still straight and strong. Remember components wear out, use your chain like your underwear - keep it clean and replace regularly (a bit of lube is nice now and then), Good Luck!


----------



## itc41 (Oct 27, 2009)

I like the 80''s Raleigh and Trek bikes.
You could get an 80's frame or compleat bike and hook it up with new parts.
Their is a lot of good new, last years parts on amazon and ebay cheaper that the latest stuff at the LBS.
Not knocking an LBS. Also Nashbar has their line of parts that are a little above the lower level Shimano and Sram.
If you over 6 ft tall, I could hook you up with a 1990 trek that just needs a little work, some tires or a modern rebuild.

the only old bikes that I see with cracked frame is the Raleigh with bonded aluminum frame. The aluminum does not age
well, if it gets a scratch in the pain, corrosion can work in to it after a few years. Steel if good, unless if was really abuse


----------



## Jerry-rigged (Jul 24, 2009)

Surly long haul trucker for the win. Straight wall 4130 tubes, built for riding unsupported cross country. Build with 105 and down tube shifters, 32 spoke wheels. Should be bullet proof.


----------

