the 'upgraded thru the 90's look' build
- Thread starter stew-b
- Start date
Recently did a factory fresh build and it was good fun finding the parts
Also built another early 90's frame with 9 speed XTR although this sort of thing can be a bit unpopular on here
I do agree though that upgrading or replacing worn parts is just bike evolution and think its just as relevant
Maybe the back to original look is becoming harder due to scarcity of parts (and more expensive) hence the added kudos
Also built another early 90's frame with 9 speed XTR although this sort of thing can be a bit unpopular on here
I do agree though that upgrading or replacing worn parts is just bike evolution and think its just as relevant
Maybe the back to original look is becoming harder due to scarcity of parts (and more expensive) hence the added kudos
stew-b":2ux73rl6 said:
You seen my Dave Yates? - Perfect example of this.
Thing is - there's no fun in it. My Dave Yates is (bar a couple of alterations which put it back to 12 months before the last upgrade) "as it was when I stopped using it as I was worried about the seat tube". So there was no "project" to do.
Putting something back to how it was is more challenging as it requires research (if you didn't have the bike from new) and often a lot more fettling.
I think most of us have had bikes like this - and it's easy enough to do.
And they work well enough. They're just not so "interesting".
Only reason I keep my Dave Yates as it last was, is as there are so many personal memories that go with it. It wouldn't win BOTM though.
yeah ive built a period correct cannondale and a few and its hard work getting the correct bits....but my current AMP build is working out a little strange but im going to run with it just for performance reasons really,its got v brakes and 9 speed on a 1991/92 bike 
my kona fire mountain is a bit of an evolution build (see link in sig) but i have tried to keep the parts no newer than 1997 as this is my own self imposed limit of what i consider retro (hope that statement doesnt start another what is retro debate).
the finished bike is pretty much exactly how i would have had it bask in the day had money not been a limiting factor. it is certainly far from a catalogue rebuild
the finished bike is pretty much exactly how i would have had it bask in the day had money not been a limiting factor. it is certainly far from a catalogue rebuild
one-eyed_jim
Old School Grand Master
It's a valid approach. My '56 Mercian is mostly kitted out with '70s Campag justified on those grounds (that the bike would have been ridden for twenty years, and parts replaced as they wore out). I had most of a '70s Record track group, and wanted to make the bike rideable as quickly as possible. I'm still planning a gradual upgrade to more period-correct parts though, but the budget is constrained just now.
With my '92 Stumpjumper, I set out to build the bike I wanted to ride, and it's ended up with a mixture of '90s parts from the mainstream manufacturers: Shimano, Ritchey, WTB, Syncros, Campag, Mavic and Suntour:
The thing is that it feels too modern to me now, and doesn't have the charm a '92 bike should have - 7-speed cassette, quill stem, big chainrings, cantilever brakes...
I'm even considering looking for another frame to build closer to the original.
The other question is, where do you stop? It was common to fit V-brakes to bikes that had been sold with canti's, or to upgrade the freehub body to use 8-speed cassettes, and it's a valid argument that a bike sold in '95 would probably have had V-brakes by '97. But it's a slippery slope! The same bike could have had a 9-speed cassette the following year, a 100mm fork, riser bars and disk brakes in 2002...
Not that there's anything wrong with that...
With my '92 Stumpjumper, I set out to build the bike I wanted to ride, and it's ended up with a mixture of '90s parts from the mainstream manufacturers: Shimano, Ritchey, WTB, Syncros, Campag, Mavic and Suntour:
The thing is that it feels too modern to me now, and doesn't have the charm a '92 bike should have - 7-speed cassette, quill stem, big chainrings, cantilever brakes...
I'm even considering looking for another frame to build closer to the original.
The other question is, where do you stop? It was common to fit V-brakes to bikes that had been sold with canti's, or to upgrade the freehub body to use 8-speed cassettes, and it's a valid argument that a bike sold in '95 would probably have had V-brakes by '97. But it's a slippery slope! The same bike could have had a 9-speed cassette the following year, a 100mm fork, riser bars and disk brakes in 2002...
Not that there's anything wrong with that...
W W Biffta
Senior Retro Guru
- Feedback
- View
well v's are better than canties, but are discs better than v's? is 9 speed really better than 8, or even 7?
i think there are distinct bountaries. if its better, its ok, if its just different for the sake of marketing and fashion then steer clear.
i think the 90s were a golden age for bikes, alot of stuff was genuinely better than it is now, so it makes sense to me to use it.
resoration is for collectors, preople generally with too much time and money on their hands. no offence
i get the appeal of the challenge of the resoration, but the end result is almost always inferior in terms of performance than one that has been upgraded. collectors i dont understand, and not just bike collectors. i guess the restorers and collectors have a nice little symbiosis going,
so im with the original poster, for me bikes should be built up with the best parts that would have been available in period, which generally happens to be from the mid 90s.
lets face it i must be right, or pauls and precision mechs wouldnt get silly money cos they were never original factory parts, whereas nos 200gs parts are only rare cos nobody ever thought anyone would want them in future.
i think there are distinct bountaries. if its better, its ok, if its just different for the sake of marketing and fashion then steer clear.
i think the 90s were a golden age for bikes, alot of stuff was genuinely better than it is now, so it makes sense to me to use it.
resoration is for collectors, preople generally with too much time and money on their hands. no offence
i get the appeal of the challenge of the resoration, but the end result is almost always inferior in terms of performance than one that has been upgraded. collectors i dont understand, and not just bike collectors. i guess the restorers and collectors have a nice little symbiosis going,
so im with the original poster, for me bikes should be built up with the best parts that would have been available in period, which generally happens to be from the mid 90s.
lets face it i must be right, or pauls and precision mechs wouldnt get silly money cos they were never original factory parts, whereas nos 200gs parts are only rare cos nobody ever thought anyone would want them in future.
