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

[GoldenEraMTB]

Would like to get an idea of what people value most, when putting together a vintage/retro mountain bike. Period correctness is a given, so the choices will be between creativity or cost (as in spending the most for the most chichi parts) or groupset uniformity?

Let's have it

 

[BerthaPog]

Was torn between Creativity & Groupset conformity, but went for the former.

I like to see a bike that's has some of the owners thoughts/imagination in it. Few bikes came with a consistent groupset through out - upgrades to rear mech being a common factory fit, and once they'd been used a bit, upgrades as parts were replaced always happened on mine.

 

[NeilM]

I like to see the nut'n'bolt perfect restorations, I think they show a lot of dedication and skill, but, that's not for me.

My preference is with creating something to function and ride. I like to have a theme throughout, even if that's just the colour, and the bike must be aesthetically pleasing but at the same time be as capable of hitting the trails as anything else in my garage.

As I'm on a British bike kick at present, I also like to use as many home grown components as possible, which is a lot harder these days, but that's nothing new, as I started using Hope, X-lite, Middleburn and the like back in the 90's.

Each to their own and vive la difference.

 

[Tad]

Function over form so none of the above.

 

[Barneyballbags]

I think that it very much depends on the bike being built, and what the bike will be used for once it's completed.

If someone is building a garage queen Klein, for example, then I'd prefer to see it with the original, period correct kit throughout.

If someone is building a bike which was originally sold as a frame only/custom build, then depending on whether it'll be ridden or looked at, I'd like to see it with good, functional kit chosen by the builder to suit his/her tastes, or top-end blingy loveliness with no expense spared respectively.

Sometimes I'll look at a bike and it'll seem all wrong to me. For example, I think an Alpinestars E-Stay looks far better with the original kit on it than it does when it's built with non-original stuff, no matter how expensive it is.

On the other hand, I think a Zaskar is a good example of a bike which can look great no matter how you build it.

 

[FluffyChicken]

Of the three, creativity for me.
I like to see it cleanly built (cables lengths etc.) and it all work well together, but with a bit of what the person likes even if I don't.
I do get board of the must have PACE on a Orange bike when I know plenty that didn't BiTD. Certainly wasn't a 'rule' around here.

Spending money for naff (er chichi, assuming that's similar to chic, flashy) parts that cost a lot would never have been good BiTD so cannot see why it is now. Well unless of course it has a reason.

 

[unkleGsif]

Re: Vote Now! What's more important when building an old bik

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

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

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


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

G

 

[ishaw]

I think it rarely matters in terms of period correctness tbh unless it's a museum piece or homage. I've built up a lovely team rts with what was the last 9 speed xtr kit, fox forks and other modern niceties and I think it looks ace and rides like a dream. Conversely I have a period correct glf rascal with m900 and cooks which would never look as good with modern kit on it.

I think it's horses for courses so of the options, creativity.

 

[widowmaker]

Creativity for me


But as long as a bike is ridden then thats the main thing.

I am building a GT Timberline at the moment and having sleepless nights trying to keep it completely original :? , on the other hand i am also going to be building an early 90's Raleigh mtb which will be build purely for practicality, from my parts bin and with some individual flair

 

[Neil]

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

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

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

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

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