# What exactly is it about retrorides that get you?



## Campag12 (Jul 31, 2008)

I built a steel bike--Centurion something,supposed to be second in the hierarchy--a few years back and had the bike stolen. Back then, it had modern a mix of parts with veloce drive train. It was a great bike for riding around school. However, I never really enjoyed the ride as it feels slow(the bike was indeed heavy) and doesn't quite have that comfy feel typical of most steel. In fact, the bike feels very stiff for some reason.

So, I'm going a second round. But in the back of my mind, it just feel like I may replicate the same experience. Hence, I'm going to ask: what exactly is it about retrorides that give you the high?


----------



## takmanjapan (Mar 24, 2004)

*Aesthetics*

For me its the shape of the lugs, crimped or shaped tubing, the paint jobs, and the component design. I think the mid-late 80's were the high water mark for bike aesthetics. There is something about fine paint, fine lines, chrome and that something seomthing when its all together.

Different parts of the world had different aesthetic tradditions and it showed -the British designs were usually pretty staid and timeless, Italians have always had panache and style in spades, Japanese builders were minimalists and kind of sparse. Look at a Raleigh Professional, a Rossin Ghibli, and a 3Rensho. 

takmanjapan


----------



## 89dk (Jul 31, 2008)

Just like today's bikes older bikes had different seat/head tube angles, wheelbases and frame materials. So don't assume because the Centurion felt sluggish that all older bikes will. If you want fast search for one with a tight racing design with shorter chainstays bringing the rear wheel in close to the seatpost. (The addition of a modern straight-blade carbon fork onto most any top-end retro bike will usually tighten up the handling and feel as well.) Also (as always), don't forget about the engine. My local hillclimb PR, set on a Cannondale, has stood for 8 years until I smashed it last year on my 3 pound heavier lugged steel bike. 

dk


----------



## sneyer (Jun 20, 2008)

*tough to say...*

I guess for me it’s a lot like listening to music. I like a bunch of the new tunes, but whenever I hear “Paint it Black” by the Stones, it takes me back to my youth. Whenever I ride my old De Rosa it reminds me of rides I did when I was younger. I always have a good ride on my 20 year old bike, b/c it makes me remember when I first fell in love with the sport.


----------



## Oxtox (Aug 16, 2006)

I really, really dislike sloping top tube frames, to me they're fugly.

Older, nicely lugged steel bikes with quill stems have an aesthetic I find totally pleasing. They remind me of the era when I was discovering competitive cycling.


----------



## Peanya (Jun 12, 2008)

For me, I loved the way my old Lotus looked and rode. My new bike never had that feel. So I'm going back to my "old love" style. It will eventually be outfitted with modern components so I get the best of both worlds. I do also like the lugged look more.


----------



## buck-50 (Sep 20, 2005)

There's something wonderfully spidery and light about the look of an older steel bike.

A new Madone with DA7900 is lighter on the scale, but my steel serotta with DA7400 and DT shifters looks lighter.


----------



## ckilner (Oct 4, 2004)

Like others have said - riding classic steel takes me back to good times.

I didn't start riding until the 70's - bikes I've bought new include: Schwinn Varsity (steel), Ross Grand Tour (4130), Trek 400 (True Temper T1), Nishiki Team Issue (Tange Prestige), Marinoni (Columbus SL), Schwinn Peloton (Reynolds 853). While the first and last lack lugs, I appreciate the style and simplicity of lugs and the refinement of steel bicycle tubes. Bikes made from steel have been refinied for over a century. Other frame materials are lighter, but have only been refined for 20 or so years.

Components, like wheels/tires also affect the ride...so-so wheels can make a nice bike feel slow and dead (which may be the issue with the Centurion) and narrow handlebars and short canks can make a frame feel unresponsive (since it is difficult to get leverage to put power into the bike).

Aluminum bikes are light and good for putting power to the road, but without carbon forks and stays, they usually lack the comfort of steel. Carbon adds comfort, but not in the resilient, springing manner of a good steel bike. I've ridden some comfortable carbon or carbon mix frames (and have a carbon fork on my 853 bike), but prefer the "livelier" comfort of steel in my <$1500 price range.

With unlimited resources, I'm sure I'd find some carbon and Ti bikes that I'd love to ride... but I'll always have a steel road bike in my stable.

As for classic road bikes? In addition to a smooth ride and (hopefully) beautiful lugs, you get durability, versitility, and simplicity - move the friction lever and the derailleur moves the chain - bearings are servicable - it doesn't cost hundreds of dollars to replace a broken brake lever - most have braze-ons for racks and fenders - room for bigger tires - cold-set the stays for different axle widths - adjust the quill stem height in seconds (without readjusting the headset), etc.

But why do I want to take my lugged 6sp '87 Trek or fixed gear '77 Raleigh out for a ride when I could take a newer, lighter 9sp STI Peloton? Well, because I end up shifting gears less (if at all), riding slower, talking to more people, getting a good workout, and having fun. I mean, which is more fun - blowing the doors off the guy who rudely passed you on his new wonder bike with your 9sp STI bike or with your 20-30 year old friction/fixed bike that the guy thinks belongs in a museum?


----------



## ckilner (Oct 4, 2004)

*I thought about it more...*

...I thought about it more over lunch, and I think it really comes down to looks. I like steel bikes generally for their ride, but I ride my retro-bikes for looks....

...the skinny tubes, lugs, quill stems, silver box-section rims, curvy silver hubs, 3X spokes, spidery cranks, DT shifters, chrome fork tips & dropouts, box crown forks, gum-rubber hoods... I love the clean, classic looks, and imagine myself as Merckx, Hinault, etc. However, the bike is as far as I take it...no wool, hairnets, etc. and I still use clipless pedals (so perhaps I need to imagine myself as Lemond?).


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

*Yeah!*

Steel is real, baby. Whacking up a hill, as 89dk found out, it give a little, then springs back, returning your energy. I've attacked many a rube on my 80s lugged SL and SLX bikes, especially on climbs, even though the bikes weight a good 3 or 4 pounds more than the aluminum-carbon wonderbikes of today.

The trick is to find a frame with Reynolds 531 or Columbus SL or SLX or TSX tubing. Tange Prestige would do. These were the lightest, and carefully brazed together with really stiff investment cast lugs, would give that magic quality of comfort and response that carbon technology is still struggling to equal.

Forget the lesser steel formulas, like Reyolds 501, Tange 4130 or "Main tubes Reynolds 531." They were aimed at the recreational market and were machined brazed with stamped lugs that were heavy and clunky, and not as responsive compared to the "pro" stuff. All but the "Tange Prestige" Centurions fell in that category. They were made by Diamondback, mainly a mountainbike and BMX manufacturer.


----------



## jhamlin38 (Oct 29, 2005)

I love the fact they're handmade in a small workshop/studio in some small Italian village by a guy that made frames for pro's one at a time. It said the actual guys name on the tubes. They all had their own idea as to how it would compliment the riders style, or the terrain they would encounter. 
Masi made Masis, Colnago was Colnago, etc, etc. 
The paint and lugwork is visual as much as functional art/engineering. 
You like climbing, get short 39-40cm stays. You're a heavier rider, Masi 3V volumetrica, you ride crits, AND hilly terrain, Gios/Torino Compact. Going to Paris-Roubaix, Vitus, or Geurciotti. You want eye popping flash AND stiffness ANDlonger toptube-Rossin Ghibili. You want an elegant comfortable telepathic ride, Tommasini (sp?). 
I don't mind that todays CF frames are light and stiff. I don't mind that frames are made in China/taiwan. But there are more and more situations where one frame is the same as another. Is there much of a difference from a colnago clx, or a mid level Jamis CF and a pedalforce, or ribble, or focus, etc, etc. You don't really know who's making it, or where its coming from. No heritage, legacy or reputation. 
Older steel frames had those characteristics oozing from them. 
I've ridden many different frames lately. C'dale, specialized, madones, giants, and bianchis. But the Look 595 and Time frames are truely fantastic in comparison to the others, and imo are todays modernday classics that make me "FEEL" something close to perfection. 
As much as I love retros, there are a select few mfgs that are moving into the 21st century with some legendary frames. The Look 585Ultra or 595 or a Lynsky are WAY high on my modern day "Grail" bikes. 
Great topic. Enjoy the day.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

*All that and more.*



ckilner said:


> ...I thought about it more over lunch, and I think it really comes down to looks. I like steel bikes generally for their ride, but I ride my retro-bikes for looks....
> 
> ...the skinny tubes, lugs, quill stems, silver box-section rims, curvy silver hubs, 3X spokes, spidery cranks, DT shifters, chrome fork tips & dropouts, box crown forks, gum-rubber hoods... I love the clean, classic looks, and imagine myself as Merckx, Hinault, etc. However, the bike is as far as I take it...no wool, hairnets, etc. and I still use clipless pedals (so perhaps I need to imagine myself as Lemond?).


Everyone knew when they had to go to fatter tubing so the aluminum and plastic wouldn't break, they were kissing goodbye to comfort, a function of shock absorbsion. I think this is a big reason Colnago has stuck to smaller diameter tubing with his carbon bikes. They absorb shocks better, like the old steel.

Love how maintainable those 32 or in my case, 36 spoked wheels are. Break a spoke? No problem, they'll still clear the stays and you'll make it home. I'm on my third set of box section silver rims on those old Campy hubs from 85. Haven't had to true them in 4 years. Properly tensioned, 36 spokes will make a very stiff, responsive wheel, without giving up the comfort of the box rim.

Back then, it was still form follows function. Saving weight was fine, but not at the expense of strength, so bikes were overbuilt. That's becoming less and less true. I'm still riding with clips and straps on Campy rat traps that refuse to die. I can ride the same bike with street shoes or racing shoes with slotted cleats When Look pedals came out, many racers noticed how they weren't quite as stiff as the old rat trap cages, and robbed energy. Since then, the shoes have improved, though, to solve that problem. Or have they? Keirin racers still use those rat traps, because of rules on equipment, including lugged steel bikes with old fashioned spoked wheels, so that no competitor has an advantage not based on his physical prowess and strength. But I wonder how many of these guys actually prefer those gossamer cages over the new clipless stuff?

I could go on. The varied handling characteristics of fork crowns depending on their shapes, the nice short cable runs of DT shifters and their reliability, those cold-forged spidery Campy Nuovo and Super Record cranks. Not to mention the awesome crash resistance of Cinelli handlebars, how those gum rubber hoods fit so well in the crock of the hand, how easy it is to move around on those old leather saddles with no stitching or cut-outs.


----------



## brewster (Jun 15, 2004)

I've found myself pondering the same thing.....(when day-dreaming apart from the realities of daily life!) I've had modern frames, carbon, aluminum in the past and still come home to my steel bikes. My favorite is my 1991 Tommasini Diamante (Columbus MS) and the other is a 1990 Rossin Prestige (Tange Prestige). I guess I love them because it takes me back to my glory days, life was simplier, the races were harder and the heros were bigger....not to mention I was a lot faster. 

After 17 years of looking at my Tommasini, I still admire it, the lugs, the chrome, the details in the construction and in the hand painted finish. They were works of art made by a craftsmen who put his sweat and experience into making the frame. New bikes just don't have the personality for me at least...most assembled by a machine...perfect and repeatable.....sterile. 

I have a modern De Rosa frameset hanging on the wall in the basement. It's a fine bike by all the technical standards, I have nothing to complain about and most people drool over it, but it just doesn't inspire me like the other two. I know the only people that would understand what I'm saying are people who would read this thread.

When climbing, the biggest difference is that spring you feel when you're out of the saddle pumping back and forth and it feels like the frame is kicking back at you to keep the rhythm going. I didn't feel that on my previous Trek 5500 or the aluminum De Rosa. Whether it's any faster or not, I don't know, but I just like the feeling. It makes me feel good and fast (er).

brewster


----------



## Guest (Oct 2, 2008)

They speak to me


----------



## merckxman (Jan 23, 2002)

*That's what attracts me*



brewster said:


> They were works of art made by a craftsmen who put his sweat and experience into making the frame. New bikes just don't have the personality for me at least...most assembled by a machine...perfect and repeatable.....sterile.
> brewster


Personality like this:


----------



## Dave Hickey (Jan 27, 2002)

Ride quality, aesthetics, history, and a little snobbery....

I wouldn't say it in the general forum but I'll say it here...boy o boy are some of the new bikes ugly...The new carbon frames have these HUGE head tubes. they look like a chunky, bloated, beached whale... 

I'm not bashing carbon...I really like bikes like the C-40/50, Calfee, or older LOOKs...same said for an aluminum Vitus or Alan..

Given my choice, I'll take the looks of a nice lugged frame anyday


----------



## Guest (Oct 3, 2008)

merckxman said:


> Personality like this:


Oooohhh Baby!

One of Dave Moulton's works of art!!

Find me something modern that matches that.


----------



## Buonarroti (May 1, 2005)

steel, skinny tubes, lugs, flat top tube, chrome forks and stays.


----------



## steelisreal2 (Jun 26, 2006)

*The 1980's was voted the best decade for a reason......*

When I started cycling in the early 80’s Columbus or Reynolds steel was the material of choice. The only aluminium and carbon frames I recall were Vitus’ – with the distinction they handled like “wet noodles”.

Your choice of steel frame and colour scheme was an expression of your personality. I remember a couple of friends having their custom Bosomworth frames painted to match their favourite Formula One team cars, Benetton (Green/Blue/Red/Yellow) and Williams-Rothmans (Red/White/Blue/Gold). 
My personal favourite was the “Net-fade” paint work which featured on a couple of Kenevans’ I owned. Lugs and tubing shapes offered a classic beauty to the frames, giving them personality and uniqueness. Your selection of componentry (Suntour/Campagnolo/Sachs/Shimano/Gipiemme), handlebars/stem (Cinelli/3ttt/Modolo), saddle (San Marco/Selle Italia/Avocet/Cinelli), rims (Wolber/Mavic/FIR/Ambrosio), right down to your choice of handlebar tape (Benotto/Ciclolinea/Ambrosio/Cinelli) were forms of self-expression. 










The 80’s also brought us products like Ciclolinea Shade handlebar tape and A'ME coloured brake hoods, some riders had questionable combinations of both?

As _takmanjapan_ says “80's were the high water mark for bike aesthetics”.

Some of the Italian manufacturers from the 80’s – Battaglin for example (Steven Roche rode them to wins in the Tour De France, Giro and Worlds in 1987) seem to have lost their way in the modern (error) era. I loved the Battaglin’s the Carrera team rode in the mid 80's, especially their time trial bikes with double discs and their ionic Red/White/Blue paint jobs. 

Fans of steel bikes will always remained loyal 

– Steel is real


----------



## Richard (Feb 17, 2006)

steelisreal2 said:


> Some of the Italian manufacturers from the 80’s – Battaglin for example (Steven Roche rode them to wins in the Tour De France, Giro and Worlds in 1987) seem to have lost their way in the modern (error) era. I loved the Battaglin’s the Carrera team rode in the mid 80's, especially their time trial bikes with double discs and their ionic Red/White/Blue paint jobs.
> 
> Fans of steel bikes will always remained loyal
> 
> – Steel is real


You had to remind me, didn't you. The biggest bicycle related "kick myself in the ass" episode in my life was selling my Carrera Team Replica Battaglin. I got it at Marina Del Rey Cycles early in 1988 for a ridiculously low price. It had been a display bike at the recently concluded Interbike in Long Beach.

It was full DuraAce 7400 (not Campy Record C so I guess it wasn't a REAL replica) on Mavic GP4's. Cinelli bar and stem and a Concor SL saddle in white. Not real fancy as the lugs were simple and the badging was mostly vinyl lettering over the paint. But it was Columbus SLX, lovely chromed fork and rear triangle, with that beautiful red/white/blue fade paint job.

The ride and handling were exceptional and noticeably stiffer than my Bob Jackson 753 that I had at the same time.

Why oh why did I sell it? Because I'm an idiot.


----------



## function (Jun 20, 2008)

Clearance for full fenders.. I'm afraid that's it


----------



## Kuma601 (Jan 22, 2004)

Retro riders are stuck in a vacuum-head in sand syndrome.  Just kidding. 

That said, having bought a CF Ultegra level bike some months back...I've put more miles on the '1990 built, 6spd Atala. It isn't a high end piece like some of the above but I find myself drawn more to ride it. 

I ruined it by updating the bars, stem and saddle last fall. This winter it will get a Sram '09 Rival drivetrain and new wheels. (I had intended to update to 9 spd DT shifters but brifters won me over.  ) Gone are also the original Mavic/Look pedals replaced with Speedplay Zero's. Even the vintage Lotto shoes got changed for DMT's with the new pedals. I like the buckle-Velcro shoes but the lace-up Lotto's (real leather too) fit better. 

I like the look of small diameter tubes and lugs also.


----------



## jamesbrowm (Jan 24, 2007)

It gives me an excuse for every Tom,Dick and Harry,and lets not forget Jane that passes me.


----------



## frpax (Feb 13, 2010)

Personally, I think that a classic, lugged, steel race bike with traditional geometry (horizontal top tube) is the sexiest thing on 2 wheels. That include vintage as well as modern.

Then there is the "intangible" end of it. It's how they make you "feel"

I liken vintage bikes to vintage guitars or vintage cars. Yes the modern stuff might do the job more efficiently, but the vintage stuff has "soul", That's how I feel about them.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

jamesbrowm said:


> It gives me an excuse for every Tom,Dick and Harry,and lets not forget Jane that passes me.


And every once in awhile, I can shake off the cobwebs, tuck in behind the guy, and hang for a spell! :biggrin5: Just for old time's sake.


----------



## martinrjensen (Sep 23, 2007)

*yes*

I'm with ya about a thousand percent


Oxtox said:


> I really, really dislike sloping top tube frames, to me they're fugly.
> 
> Older, nicely lugged steel bikes with quill stems have an aesthetic I find totally pleasing. ...snipped....


----------



## crossracer (Jun 21, 2004)

Hey, not all 80's classic bikes are steel. Some of us lusted after the specialized 8 tube carbon series. 











And why do i ride retro? I have nice new bikes, but the retro rides take me back 20 years and i love that. I have 22 years of riding, and that means lots of "ghosts" that i like to revist from time to time. 

I hope that i continue toride this bike another 20 years. And if something happens then i will have it fixed and hang it on my wall and look at it as a piece of art.

Honestly unless you have some serious time under your belt you really cant "get" what a retro ride really means. But maybe you will look back in twenty years and fondly recall sram rival, or ultegra SL and want to ride it again. 

It will be interesting how many of todays carbon wonder bikes will still be ridden in 20 years. 20 year old steel frames still ride great today and with care should last another 20-40 no problem. Carbon, well i'm not sure todyas frames will last 5 years let alone ten to twenty years. Even some of todays parts are suspect. 

But every time i throw a leg over that specialized, i really do enter a time machine and go back 20 years to rides and riders who now only exist in my heart and memories. 


Bill


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

That's a sweet bike, Bill! Built when lugs were still considered the best way to do it. Interestingly enough, Colnago and DeRosa among others, have stuck to that method. Make the tubes skinny. They absorb shock better than the tin can structures of monocoque frames. Strengthen the frame at the joints, preserving the magic of the old steel. :thumbsup:

I rode my "vintage" DeRosa this afternoon. Like an old love, it just behaves so well jamming up the hills in 42-22! No fighting that bike. I polished it up this evening. It glitters like it did 25 years ago, not looking at all like its got 70,000 miles on it.


----------



## Mapei (Feb 3, 2004)

In my experience it has nothing to do with function. It's all stylin'. Though that's no small thing, of course. As firpax says, stylin' makes you feel good!


----------



## spookyload (Jan 30, 2004)

I love retro bikes because they take me back to when I was riding them. I highly doubt I would want a retro bike that isn't something I didn't ride in the past. Nothing would be more fun than to go out with a Peugeot Carbon frame like I used to race and listen to Starship singing "we built this city" on a ride with no computer or time to be somewhere. Second only to my Serrotta Nova Special with Super Record. In fact, could someone please tell me why I sold those bikes (Peugeot was a team bike and had to go back I guess)?


----------



## nayr497 (Nov 8, 2008)

Old thread, but this is too good of one to miss out!

What I like is easy - thin tubes, lugs, horizontal TT, silver parts (not anodized black junk), low profile rims, chromed forks and rear triangles.

Those are all in the looks department. I love riding my steel bikes, both the vintage and retro-modern. They are smooth and stable and just fun to ride. If I'm not doing a fast group ride, I'll always pick one of my steel bikes over my modern carbon bike.

Sure, technology is good, but a nice, quality steel bike with good components is fun to ride, fun to stare at and reminds me to just have a good time riding my bike and forget about miles, avg. speed, how much I ate, how many miles I've put in that week...blah blah blah.

I ride for fun, but can forget that in the middle of the summer when I'm doing group rides all the time. 

Now that fall is here...ooh, I love getting out on one of my steel bikes and just riding, not overthinking anything, and enjoying the leaves and cool air!


----------



## nayr497 (Nov 8, 2008)

Oh, and I forgot to mention quill stems! Miles and miles ahead of threadless stems in the looks department.

I also like that one of my bikes was the top-of-the-line bike in 1990, what the pros were riding. I like sitting atop a piece of history, part of the evolution of bicycles. It's also amusing to pedal around a heavy steel bike and wonder how guys raced on them.

I simply don't have the money (nor do I think I would, if I did) to ride what the pros currently ride. Some of those bikes, if set up with carbon race wheels, are closing in on $8000 or even more.

I _can_ afford a used top-o'-the-line steel bike from the 1980s though

A road bicycle just doesn't get any sleeker and sexier looking to me than a mid-80s steel frameset with chrome, a nice paint job, low profile rims, traditional round bars, and a quill stem. Oh, plus plenty of shiny metal parts!


----------



## Richard (Feb 17, 2006)

nayr497, I couldn't have said it any better myself.


----------



## Mapei (Feb 3, 2004)

I have no problem just happily cruising around on my modern carbon, brifter-ed bike; never looking at the speedo and never trying to beat myself to a pulp.

Twenty-five years ago, when my Italian Columbus SL/Campy Record bike was brand new and State of the Art, I had no problem just happily cruising around, either. 

It's not the bike. It's how you ride it.


----------



## nayr497 (Nov 8, 2008)

^ I would not disagree with this at all, Mapei. It sure it about mindset of the rider; my bikes aren't possessed and don't hold power over me (oh wait, my Tommasini might)

I just tend to get in the "gotta go fast" mindset on my newer, lighter bikes but when I pull down my older, heavier bikes I think, "I'm going to just have fun cruising today!"


----------



## Peanya (Jun 12, 2008)

This sure is an old thread bump!


----------



## Unica (Sep 24, 2004)

nayr497 said:


> my bikes aren't possessed and don't hold power over me (oh wait, my Tommasini might)


Hehehe - the Tommasini spell!

For me, a lot is to do with the fact that these bikes were state of the art when I was getting started in cycling. I've said it before, but I maintain that the 'golden' age of any sport is around the 2nd or 3rd year that you were _really_ in to it (1987 onwards in my case).

I would kill to own an '89 Bottecchia in red and white with Mavic SSC groupset, one of the Carrear's already mentioned, a Concorde Squadra in PDM colours, a Reynolds Pinarello - the list goes on...

I've got steel, al, carbon, steel/carbon. I keep going back to the steel because I like the way it feels and (as already said) takes me back to a time when I didn't have the worries I have now. I don't race any more, but still enjoy going as hard as I can when I want to (which is as often these days!) and it'll be far cheaper for me to lose 4lbs than it would be to lose it off the bikes.


----------



## icemonkey (Sep 6, 2010)

As a new person on this forum and someone who has very little personal nostalgia to the 80's (my best bike was a cheap peaugeot that I rode to death under the wheels of a ford after 10s of thousands of irritating miles) I was terrible and my bikes were appalling. But they were a part of a time with more grit, more intensity and quality. The truth is that old bikes dont ride as well as equivalent new ones, but good ones do have a certain ride quality that is hard to put a finger on. Aesthetically they are far more attractive to my eye as well as being repairable and made to last. I love my old bikes and the camaraderie that goes along with them.


----------



## ChrisA70 (Sep 13, 2010)

I have looked for a few years for an old 87 Trek 700 Tri series like I had... I never see them. Or my Trek 400. Love those old steel bikes. I also owned a Raleigh steel racing frame, don't know what it was, but it was lima bean green and it was a hell of a bike...

I just bought a carbon/aluminum 1994 Trek 2120, because I love the look of the old frames. I think the slanting top tube is purdy ugly too. All these strange looking frames made. I used to think Cannondale back then was a very odd company... As far as cycling, after not doing it for 19 years, I guess you can say I am stuck in the 80's... LOL.

It's funny, I have a friend who works at a Trek store, she was pretty happy when I told her about the Trek I bought(the 2120). When the owner was walking by she said to him how I got the bike and asked him if he heard of the 2120 series, he looked puzzled. Then I told him it is a carbon aluminum frame, he went on about how those were the first carbon frames Trek made and they were heavy old bikes. OK, like I need a $12,000 carbon Trek Madone..... He said I should use it to trade for a Trek 2 series. How about NO!!!! If I wanted to look like everyone else out there, I would have bought a 2 series... I would take an old Trek 400, 500, 700, or any brand steel frame from the 80's over a new aluminum bike. Seriously. I am out to ride, not go out for a fashion show.


----------



## r26loki (Sep 24, 2010)

For me its the ride quality of good steel. I bought my San Rensho in 86 and it is the bike i always go back to all the others have come and gone but it is the best to ride and it is pure joy to look at.


----------



## Fai Mao (Nov 3, 2008)

For me it is almost a philosophical thing.

Is a non-retro bike going to make faster? Maybe. Is that good thing? Not necesarrily.
Is a non-retro bike going to make me enjoy riding more? Not possible.
Is a non-retro bike going to improve my self image? No
Is a non-retro bike going to let me keep up with someone 1/2 my age? I already pass bunches of those guys. I feel it is good to give them a fighting chance. There is a tremendous amount of evil joy in passing someone on a Trek Madone when I am riding a Sam Hillborne with panniers

Most of the riding I do no is commuting. I need a comfortable bike that I don't have to worry about. I don't want to have fork snap or worry about damaging the tubes if I lock my bike to a pole. I have to carry a change of clothes, a clean set of cycling togs to ride home in, a laptop, lunch, repair gear and the other assorted things commuters pack. Having a bike that is 3 pounds or even 5 pounds lighter is simply a useless expense. 

The two bikes that I commute on are 8 speed because the chains, cassettes and such are less expensive. One indexes Shi(t)mano and the other one, the one I ride most of the time has Suntour XC_Pro derailleurs and shifters that are set to friction. The Shimano equipped Vitus does not have fenders and is quite a bit lighter than the Sam Hillborne. I sometimes ride the Vitus on clear, windy days because fenders really catch the wind and make the ride more difficult. But the Shimano parts don't shift as well as the non-indexing Suntour. But it is a good change of pace and I enjoy riding it.

I also have an old Battaglin made from Columbus SL tubing that is completely (except for the bottom bracket and freewheel) Suntour Superbe Pro 7 speed with command shifters. It is simply a wonderful bike with Mavic 280 GL rims and tubular tires. The bike weighs less than 20 pounds. I can't ride it much here because the slots in the storm drains I have ride over are wider than the tires. But there are a couple of routes I can ride on the week ends. It just floats. I have a friend who is a big time triathlete who rode this bike once and was simply amazed at the feel. It rides lighter than his 15 lb wonder bike.

I also have an unidentified aluminum frame that is 10 speed Micro-Shift but I seldom ride that bike. I built it up just a couple of months ago. I might sell it or give it away. Maybe I'll just recycle the frame sell the components


----------



## Howzitbroke (Jun 1, 2005)

For me it is a love for the machines that I started on and grew up on. My first real ride was a 1986 lugged Fuji with Suntour 12 speed. I mowed lawns and bought it when I was 15 just after school let out. I rode 4000 miles the first six months I owned it.  A few years later I picked up a Bridgestone RB-1 and rode it until 1998. Best riding years of my life. I put nearly 30k on the Bridgestone. I am a sucker for lugs, steel tubes, panels, subdued paint and striping, polished aluminum, traditional curved handlebars, 32 spoke wheels 25c tires and downtube shifting.


----------



## Fai Mao (Nov 3, 2008)

ChrisA70 said:


> y... As far as cycling, after not doing it for 19 years, I guess you can say I am stuck in the 80's... LOL.



Not necesarrily a bad place to be stuck


----------



## p.blz (Dec 3, 2009)

Finally, somewhere I fit in!

I've just recently (2 years ago)taken up pavement riding thanks to a new rail-trail that joins my house and work almost perfectly. I'm already starting to assemble quite a collection (I can only imagine what it might be like in 10 years). I just love riding sweet old steel bikes, and i work in the second hand sporting goods sector, so...

Part of it for me is the excitement in finding and putting to use a beautiful piece of precision equipment that may have sat dormant for years or even decades. Not to mention the value that can be found if you are persistent and saavy (and maybe a little lucky).

This miyata is a good example:









I found it and a matching "hers" of it a a garage sale for next to nothing. these bikes were a little weathered but appeared to have less than 100km.of riding in the last ~30 years! the smaller one is my current commuter and rides like a dream..what a bike, and two of them for less money than I spend on beer some weeks.

Anyways, on to the bike that got me hooked...I bought this from the original owner for what I now know is a song. He figured he'd put about 3000 miles on it over a few years in the late 70s and it pretty much sat since then. This thing is pure pleasure to ride and is now likely my most prized possession (I'd certainly be far more devastated if this was stolen than if my modern $3k mtb was stolen.) :


----------



## martinrjensen (Sep 23, 2007)

Surly bikes. Brand new, fender clearance and eyelets on certain models. Kona and Salsa also


function said:


> Clearance for full fenders.. I'm afraid that's it


----------



## PlatyPius (Feb 1, 2009)

For me, it's all about the looks and the "story". I never had a cool bike back when I was a kid. There weren't any bike shops around, and we were poor anyway. But I lusted after them.

I probably offend the true retro people though, in that I love looking at period-correct componentry, but I hate using it. My 80s steel bikes have always had brifters of some sort (or bar-ends...) I didn't grow up using DT shifters, so I don't have the skill borne from years of use, nor do I desire it.

But to look at.... I have a 600 Arabesque group, a partial Sante group, a Superbe group, and a Golden Arrow group. Not because I will use them...because they're gorgeous. Same with my Campy bits that I have. 

Framesets though; those are definitely used by me. I love the way older steel rides, and I love the way it looks. Now that Raleigh is making some "New-Classics", I can have my old steel look without having to offend anyone by using modern components.


----------



## waldo425 (Sep 22, 2008)

I like the classic lines of a lugged frame. I love the look of the component groups (especially, Suntour Superbe/ Superbe Pro.) The ride quality of a well built steel frame is great. Unfortunately, my needs as a racer require an ultra stiff track frame and unless I want to spend a ton of cash (which as a poor racer I simply don't have) on a vintage steel frame: I need to stick with newer materials and frames. I wish that I had the cash/ ability to buy vintage frames and gear but my priorities are different at the moment.


----------



## Richard (Feb 17, 2006)

If you're not in a hurry, take some time, hang around other cyclists who have stuff to trade, check the internet sources, Craigs List and Fleabay (just don't get into "bidding wars") one can put together a very nice "retro-ride" for a reasonable amount of money.

I'm almost (emphasize "almost") embarassed as to how cheaply I built my Bertoni. Yes, I work in a bike shop and have access to wholesale prices (particularly getting the NOS frameset at "1991" cost+10%), but the great majority of the build came from eBay and other sources. All told, this bike cost me less than $1500.


----------



## dkerlin (Oct 20, 2011)

"..but my steel serotta with DA7400 and DT shifters looks lighter."

Absolutely, I agree 110% -- my 1985 Serotta Nova Special, equipped with one of the classic pinnacles of perfection in gruppos, (the 7400 with DT shifters, plus of course a pair of excellent tubulars), isn't actually lighter, in fact it's about 5 lbs heavier than my lightest bike! But it always makes me FEEL lighter, FEEL stronger, and even THINK I'm faster than when I'm stuck on some boring carbon fiber thing, no matter how little gravity the CF lightweight uses to keep it on the ground. Somehow, carbon fiber, amazing material that it is, JUST DOESN'T FEEL REAL! And I ride because of how good, and how "real," riding makes me feel. Don't you?


----------



## Richard (Feb 17, 2006)

I'll tell you what "retro rides" do for me.

Ordinarily, the Sunday "club ride" I do is populated with a lot of guys and girls who are relatively well to do (there's a lot of carbon Cervelos, Specializeds, Pinarellos, Colnagos, Cannondales, a lot of exotics like Calfees, Storks, Serottas, Bassos, etc. Even a few Treks (yes, I'm biased.)

Southern, affluent Orange County, CA. I usually ride my recently acquired Trek Madone 6.9 as it is light, efficient, and has gearing (compact) that can get me up some of the tougher climbs that are often the part of the Sunday routes.

So when I show up with my recently restored Falcon (had it for 23 years, mind you), everbody goes "ga ga" over "what is that?" Reynolds 531P with full Campy Record Titanium 8 speed. And I just put a new KMC super light gold chain on it. Seemed to be the point of interest - a GOLD chain.

No, I can't climb like I can on the "Mad One." (And I only take out the "retro" when the routes aren't mind-boggling steep - 39/23 low).

But I love riding this bike (it fits, handles, descends like it was tailor made for me) And I never had anybody insist on taking a picture of the drive-train on any bike I've ever had.

All things considered, if anybody put a gun to my head and said pick just one of my bikes to keep, it probably would be this Falcon.


----------



## lnavarrete (Aug 11, 2011)

I think that it is the appreciation not only of what now days is considered simple, but also the history and heritage associated with a classic bicycle/frame.
For me for example, I appreciate today's bicycle racing and today's versions of large events like the French Tour, but I still find myself amazed by the achievements of the sport's previous generations. Those athletes didn't ride carbon/aluminum/titanium or other "exotic" materials, they rode steel, but I am not saying that retro is better than new or the other way around, but that our love is based on what stands behind that retro bike/frame that we can't keep our eyes away from.


----------



## pro from dover (Jul 5, 2010)

oh, you know, this and that
















and this and that
http://forums.roadbikereview.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=3632295
















and of course this


----------



## Trower (Apr 28, 2009)

lnavarrete said:


> I think that it is the appreciation not only of what now days is considered simple, but also the history and heritage associated with a classic bicycle/frame.
> For me for example, I appreciate today's bicycle racing and today's versions of large events like the French Tour, but I still find myself amazed by the achievements of the sport's previous generations. Those athletes didn't ride carbon/aluminum/titanium or other "exotic" materials, they rode steel, but I am not saying that retro is better than new or the other way around, but that our love is based on what stands behind that retro bike/frame that we can't keep our eyes away from.


Agreed! I still can't get over that until 1937 the Tour de France did not allow derailers, and even then most of the early systems were quite hard to use! The two earliest systems, Campagnolo Cambio Corsa, which allowed you to loosen the rear nut and rail the chain manually, and the Simplex systems (that were anything but simple) that had tension springs running all the way to the BB shell, both had their disadvantages, but increased the average speed of road races considerably in their time. 

1948 Tour de France winner Gino Bartali shifting his Campagnolo Cambio Corsa:thumbsup:


----------



## old_fuji (Mar 16, 2009)

Having owned a '78 Fuji and a modern Nashbar/105 bike, I can say that the Fuji felt much better to shift. Yes, the brifters "feel" and shift easier, but there's just something about non-indexed shifting and how direct it feels.

Also, I love fixing old stuff up...finding an old bike with rusty chrome, then polishing it up until it shines...awwwwww yeah...


----------



## Tucson_2011 (Nov 10, 2011)

A well made road bike frame from the 80's has a lot of style to it, pleasing shape to the lugs and a finished look to the original paint if it is still in good shape. Repainting them and doing away with the stickers makes them look like works of art to me. A little polished metal really completes the image in my mind. The best ones were never stamped out of a big machine or baked in an oven but put on a jig by a craftsman with hand tools who worked on it until he was done. All I can say about the components on an old good bike to begin with is I always upgrade the brakes with carefully selected more modern stuff that is getting harder to find. 

And then there is the ride quality, the best steel frames turn and climb with a smoothness that is hard to match for under $3000 today IMHO, and a few resto bikes I have had rule on a gravel road. And lastly, I am a fairly heavy guy and steel parts just simply hold up well for me over time.


----------



## onespeedbiker (May 28, 2007)

It is way more fun to upgrade with older parts than newer parts.


----------



## Tucson_2011 (Nov 10, 2011)

onespeedbiker said:


> It is way more fun to upgrade with older parts than newer parts.


Oh I totally agree, and it can take a long time browsing in a lot of bike shop backrooms and swap meets to find just that part that fits and complements. The older modern brake parts I like best are the 90's XTR polished ones, the Ultegra and Durace ones that are polished, and the odd Campy part of every year that will play fair with the others. I had an early 70's Peugeot that drove me nuts finding the right brakes that worked well. Haven't acquired a classic bike that demands only the original parts, I know those bikes when I see them and passed them by to let another collector to take them on!


----------



## olmo65 (Nov 14, 2011)

Retro steel + tubulars = Smooth ride with great cornering on fast descents.


----------



## hookydoo (Jul 23, 2008)

I have to say it... they're cheap!! not that I wish to offend, but i mostly ride mountain (hence why this is my first post over here). I don't seriously ride road, but I got a hold of of a1988 centurian for beans and I love it. 
unlike the OP, I think mine gets around pretty quick and have no complaints (and it's ballin' pink and yellow ). 
I do have one problem, I was silly and didn't feel a need to take a look in the rear hub when I got it. I now have a rear split axle and I think it's been running on the original grease from 1988. This leads to a question, anyone know what dimensions the axle is in a 1988 shimano 105 rear hub? It's been like 6 months and I'd like to get it working again..


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

hookydoo said:


> I have to say it... they're cheap!! not that I wish to offend, but i mostly ride mountain (hence why this is my first post over here). I don't seriously ride road, but I got a hold of of a1988 centurian for beans and I love it.
> unlike the OP, I think mine gets around pretty quick and have no complaints (and it's ballin' pink and yellow ).
> I do have one problem, I was silly and didn't feel a need to take a look in the rear hub when I got it. I now have a rear split axle and I think it's been running on the original grease from 1988. This leads to a question, anyone know what dimensions the axle is in a 1988 shimano 105 rear hub? It's been like 6 months and I'd like to get it working again..


Hey, take the pieces to a bike shop that's been around since the 80s and see if they have a replacement. The axle threads are standard, I believe, and the axle length would be 126 mm. Check to see if the cones are pitted. They're pretty standard too.

Much easier to break a rear axle on an old freewheel hub. The right bearing is too far away from the dropout. Pull the chain in a low gear hard enough, and the axle can give way. Cassettes solved that problem by placing the right bearing right next to the dropout. The torsional force is transferred from the axle to the cassette hub. Much stronger.


----------



## hookydoo (Jul 23, 2008)

I see. wouldn't that cause it to break at the bearing though? mine broke perfect in the center. funny thing is it still spun smooth, just had a wobble like loose bearings.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

*Had the same experience.*



hookydoo said:


> I see. wouldn't that cause it to break at the bearing though? mine broke perfect in the center. funny thing is it still spun smooth, just had a wobble like loose bearings.


Well, I'm thinking if the chain pulled the axle forward from near the middle instead of out on the end, there would be greater torsional force on the axle, which could cause it to break in the middle. That would be the weakest spot. The bearing cone and lock nut would be pretty resistant to torsional loads. The axle between the bearing and drop outs is too short to "stretch." So what's left is the middle of the axle.

That's where I broke one once. Yeah, a Campy Record. Heard a "Snap!" upon standing up on a climb. When I got home, noticed a slight wobble in the wheel just like yours, but it wasn't even hitting the brake blocks. When I took the wheel off, the axle fell out on both sides! The axle was so stiff, it broke like an egg shell.


----------



## hookydoo (Jul 23, 2008)

Fredrico said:


> Well, I'm thinking if the chain pulled the axle forward from near the middle instead of out on the end, there would be greater torsional force on the axle, which could cause it to break in the middle. That would be the weakest spot. The bearing cone and lock nut would be pretty resistant to torsional loads. The axle between the bearing and drop outs is too short to "stretch." So what's left is the middle of the axle.
> 
> That's where I broke one once. Yeah, a Campy Record. Heard a "Snap!" upon standing up on a climb. When I got home, noticed a slight wobble in the wheel just like yours, but it wasn't even hitting the brake blocks. When I took the wheel off, the axle fell out on both sides! The axle was so stiff, it broke like an egg shell.


Ha! yea thats pretty much what happened. I'll get have to get it fixed soon so I can get back on the rode. I miss riding it


----------



## Kuma601 (Jan 22, 2004)

pro from dover, let's see more pics of your Atala.
I know they are out there and would like to see what other riders have them configured these days.


----------



## blamester (Dec 14, 2011)

I like retro cos once i was young and very fast and that's what i rode retro now, new then.
I have just changed bike from an old gitane with dts ( indexed ,function and form) weinmann
side pulls (rubbish) non aero.Beautiful tight geometry It sang along the tarmac and i mean 
it hummed as you pedalled and it was so pretty.The new bike is better but i am old and slow


----------



## SevensRacer (Dec 14, 2011)

I developed deep respect for vintage bikes when I began using my father's 1976 SR Gran Course. Early November, I had it tuned and began using it for exercising and training, and wow, it works great! Despite the age, it handles very well, brakes solidly and, overall, feels quite light on its feet (I even passed several riders using pricey, carbon fiber bikes that cost 10-20 times more). I should also add that the downtube shifters are a joy to use, much more so than the modern shifters on my mountain bikes!

I am planning to get another another road bike, but I am starting to lean towards a vintage instead of a modern bike. Plus, I will keep the SR and probably give it a fresh paint job.


----------



## Richard (Feb 17, 2006)

You know, I just have to post one last thing about "retro rides". It really isn't about how old the bicycle is, or what the "gruppo" adorning the "classic" (or not so classic) ride it is. It's really about how much we love bicycles. I love my plastic wonder bike (a 2008 Trek Madone 6.9 with mostly Campy Centaur components) as much as I love my late '80's Falcon, recently restored with Record 8 speed, my early '90's Bertoni with Centaur 10, my Dave Moulton Fuso permanently converted to a fixed, as well as my 1972 Raleigh Supercourse SS commuter.

I just don't understand why people have to weigh the "value" of one bike over another. I simply enjoy riding all of my bikes (isn't that what it's all about?) My bikes aren't better or worse than the next guy's or girl's bikes. They're just my bikes, and I love them all.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

*Yeah, love.*



Richard said:


> You know, I just have to post one last thing about "retro rides". It really isn't about how old the bicycle is, or what the "gruppo" adorning the "classic" (or not so classic) ride it is. It's really about how much we love bicycles. I love my plastic wonder bike (a 2008 Trek Madone 6.9 with mostly Campy Centaur components) as much as I love my late '80's Falcon, recently restored with Record 8 speed, my early '90's Bertoni with Centaur 10, my Dave Moulton Fuso permanently converted to a fixed, as well as my 1972 Raleigh Supercourse SS commuter.
> 
> I just don't understand why people have to weigh the "value" of one bike over another. I simply enjoy riding all of my bikes (isn't that what it's all about?) My bikes aren't better or worse than the next guy's or girl's bikes. They're just my bikes, and I love them all.


Pegoretti makes a bike with "Love" on the down tube. I fixed up an old Schwinn steel bike, 36 spoke aluminum wheels, 28C tires, down tube shifting. Nothing special. But it rode really fine, silky smooth! The kid I gave it to remarked he liked the way it rode better than my custom steel mount with Campy all over it.

Bikes all have personalities. That's what makes them fascinating. I'm sure if I had a Trek Madone, I'd just love it to death! All I have are my two 80s steel bikes, alas. But I love them so much, I couldn't think of replacing them with anything else. I've gone through three cars since I bought those two bikes. Loved each of those cars, too. But they wore out. Bikes don't do that, fortunately, if you keep them fixed up. The love can last. :ihih: And grow. So it's always something to talk about!


----------



## SevensRacer (Dec 14, 2011)

Richard said:


> You know, I just have to post one last thing about "retro rides". It really isn't about how old the bicycle is, or what the "gruppo" adorning the "classic" (or not so classic) ride it is. It's really about how much we love bicycles. I love my plastic wonder bike (a 2008 Trek Madone 6.9 with mostly Campy Centaur components) as much as I love my late '80's Falcon, recently restored with Record 8 speed, my early '90's Bertoni with Centaur 10, my Dave Moulton Fuso permanently converted to a fixed, as well as my 1972 Raleigh Supercourse SS commuter.
> 
> I just don't understand why people have to weigh the "value" of one bike over another. I simply enjoy riding all of my bikes (isn't that what it's all about?) My bikes aren't better or worse than the next guy's or girl's bikes. They're just my bikes, and I love them all.


It all really depends on what you want out of your biking experience.

For me though, sure I enjoy riding bikes too, but I enjoy it even more when my proficiency is at the same level of the bike. For instance, in cycling, like the Madone, there are bikes that can go for $10k or even more. If I am going to spend that much on a bike, I want to make sure that my proficiency in riding a bike is at the same level of the bike, because if isn't, I am not using all of the bike's full potential. Not being able to fully utilize something's potential is an experience I hate, but again, we are all different.


----------



## mtnroadie (Jul 6, 2010)

Retro rides hmmm… the lugs, the tubing, the pantographed goodies all around, the thrill of the chase, they are unique amongst the hoards of plastic bikes out there, and above all else their classy look and the classy feeling I get when riding one. I am fairly certain that my neo-retro rides kitted out with modern group sets are truly one of a kind and comfort is second to none.

Just about anyone can go out there and buy a carbon bike, they are a dime a dozen. However riding vintage steel shows impeccable taste, appreciation for the art of frame building, and the colorful history of cycling.

I love my 15 lb carbon bike, its faster than all my other bikes, yet my vintage rides are not too far behind. Carbon bikes are like rice rocket or flashy supercar they are super fast and make allot of noise. Vintage steel is like a Austin Martin or Bentley, you still haul @$$ but in style, comfort and class baby! 

Moreover it is nice to know that in the event of a crash I can count on the frame not disintegrating under me.


----------

