# Practicality vs. sentimentality



## lucifer (Sep 27, 2004)

This may sound like blasphemy but I am seriously considering selling my 2 vintage mtbs and replacing them with 1 newer do everything kind of bike.

Right now I have the nuke proof hardtail which is pretty awesome in every way (ok I'm not totally in love with the sid fork but at least it's light) and the all NOS buck shaver singlespeed which is also super awesome in it's own right. Pictures of both are in the VRC gallery

There are basically no issues with the bikes only issues with how they fit me and my lifestyle.

The nuke proof is so rare, so minty, and so perfect in it's components that I honestly worry a little bit that I am riding around on a bike that should be in a museum somewhere. It cost a pile of money...
Also the full on race nature of it was a better fit for me at 21 than it is at 35. 

With it and the fat I have been thinking lately that the frames are a bit small for me. I prefered 18s or mediums when I was young and racing but now that I am older I am tempted to get something bigger for longer range comfort on more adventurous rides.
I am thinking longer top tube, more tire clearance, 650b or 29er etc. 

The thing is I just don't get to go mountain biking often enough to have three bikes. Most of my fitness riding is done on my IF crown jewel. 

I have been adjusting every other aspect of my life towards a voluntarily simplistic type of existence. Going from two mountain bikes to one seems like a logical next step.

Has anyone else pondered this? I know some of you have more modern bikes as well but with a wife and 2 kids that also ride there really isn't any more room in the garage so I cant keep everything.

To those of you that do have newer stuff is it really any better? Are discs still unreliable or have they got the issues worked out? I know new suspension forks are stiffer and plusher for sure. How about UST? is the ride worth the weight?


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

Ooh...really tough call.

Personally, a well built modern (medium travel) full suspension bike is hard to beat. For do anything all day comfort or aggressive riding, they're great.

My modern bike would be one of the last to go.


With out droning on...

a) will you have sellers remorse of any kind?
b) could you hang the Nuke Proof frame on the wall so at least its there should things change?


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

i want the buckshaver.


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

colker1 said:


> i want the buckshaver.


Vulture!


----------



## lucifer (Sep 27, 2004)

Rumpfy said:


> Ooh...really tough call.
> 
> Personally, a well built modern (medium travel) full suspension bike is hard to beat. For do anything all day comfort or aggressive riding, they're great.
> 
> ...


By all means drone on when you have the time.

a) probably, the nuke proof was my dream bike when I was in college. And over the years I have perfected it. Well I still havent found the perfect tires or fork but anyways.
I love the way it looks and the ride is fine too. The only worry is that crashing it will lead to a fruitless search for matching replacement parts. The fat is just a really cool ride. I wanted to try singlespeeding and always wanted a fat so I killed two birds with one stone so to speak. I love the geometry, except that it is too small and doesn't take modern forks.

b) I probably could but again I have an aversion to having stuff around that I am not using.
I have considered just upgrading the fork and tires on the NP trying a slightly shorter stem and just living with it.


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

Sounds like selling the NP is a non-option. Just make it as modern as it needs to be so that it is entirely usable as your only MTB.


----------



## klein nerd (Apr 9, 2008)

*cost vs reward.*

Why get rid of your old bikes. How much room do they really take up? You will regret selling your bikes. You think they are worth a pile of money but used bikes are never really worth selling. How much are you going to get for that nuke proof? Just buy and new bike and then hang them from the rafters and tell you wife you got rid of them. She will never look up.


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

klein nerd said:


> Why get rid of your old bikes. How much room do they really take up? You will regret selling your bikes. You think they are worth a pile of money but used bikes are never really worth selling. How much are you going to get for that nuke proof? Just buy and new bike and then hang them from the rafters and tell you wife you got rid of them. She will never look up.


Haha!

Agreed.


----------



## lucifer (Sep 27, 2004)

klein nerd said:


> Why get rid of your old bikes. How much room do they really take up? You will regret selling your bikes. You think they are worth a pile of money but used bikes are never really worth selling. How much are you going to get for that nuke proof? Just buy and new bike and then hang them from the rafters and tell you wife you got rid of them. She will never look up.


I said it cost a pile of money. I have no illusions that it is still "worth" that. 
In my philosophy a bike that isn't being ridden often is basically worthless. Once you adopt that mindset the notion of a "collection" seems wholly ridiculous.

The reward of selling them would be to get them to people who would use and enjoy them. And it would help to defray the cost of the new acquisition a bit I guess.

The wife isn't an issue. She would think it was ridiculous to have 3 mountain bikes but she wouldn't protest.


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

lucifer said:


> I said it cost a pile of money. I have no illusions that it is still "worth" that.
> In my philosophy a bike that isn't being ridden often is basically worthless. Once you adopt that mindset the notion of a "collection" seems wholly ridiculous.
> 
> The reward of selling them would be to get them to people who would use and enjoy them. And it would help to defray the cost of the new acquisition a bit I guess.
> ...


It may have cost you a pile of money...but its unlikely you'll get out of it what you put into it.

While I understand your view on collecting...but quite a few people here would not share that view. I want all my bikes to be riders...but the occasional show piece doesn't suck.


----------



## lucifer (Sep 27, 2004)

Rumpfy said:


> It may have cost you a pile of money...but its unlikely you'll get out of it what you put into it.
> 
> While I understand your view on collecting...but quite a few people here would not share that view. I want all my bikes to be riders...but the occasional show piece doesn't suck.


That's what I meant by I have no illusions. I would never expect to get back out of my bikes the money that I had put into them. Even if you could get it back dollar for dollar 10-15 years of inflation would still make it a losing investment.

I go back and forth on the collecting. I find my bikes aesthetically pleasing. The idea of bicycle as art is not strange to me at all. Like you I just prefer my art to also carry me down the mountain.


----------



## IF52 (Jan 10, 2004)

Collecting just makes for more baggage of life. Physically and mentally. I also wish to live a more simple existance and bikes are one of my few weaknesses. I don't want to eliminate them entirely because they help me keep fit as I get older, and give my wife an me something else to do together. But adding to the heap just doesn't benefit me in any way. My wife gets annoyed and I get distracted from other junk I need to get done around the house. Beside, I can't ride more than one bike at a time, right.

Sell 'em. Or at least sell the Buck. It's not NOS anymore anyway if you've already ridden it.


----------



## lucifer (Sep 27, 2004)

IF52 said:


> Collecting just makes for more baggage of life. Physically and mentally. I also wish to live a more simple existance and bikes are one of my few weaknesses. I don't want to eliminate them entirely because they help me keep fit as I get older, and give my wife an me something else to do together. But adding to the heap just doesn't benefit me in any way. My wife gets annoyed and I get distracted from other junk I need to get done around the house. Beside, I can't ride more than one bike at a time, right.
> 
> Sell 'em. Or at least sell the Buck. It's not NOS anymore anyway if you've already ridden it.


Sounds like we are in the same place.
I'm not quitting riding. Just trying to simplify.


----------



## bushpig (Nov 26, 2005)

Sell the buck to me so I can antagonize you and Colker by not riding it.


----------



## klein nerd (Apr 9, 2008)

*Bikes should be last to go*

I can see wanting to simplify your life but really, bikes are not that cumbersome. It sounds like you were reading some book on a religion while sitting on the potty and now you want to be a bad American by selling your stuff. You should go move to some remote country where there are no bikes and eat clay and leaves for dinner. This is the country of excess. I get a lot of fun out of bikes that I only ride a couple times a year. However, you can send your bikes to me if they must go. What else do you have? I could use some nice furniture and a plasma TV and any nice copper cookware that you won't be needing on your new life journey.  Do you have nice iron and marble patio table perhaps.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

bushpig said:


> Sell the buck to me so I can antagonize you and Colker by not riding it.


get off my trading here will ya... i am a real mountain biker and you are just a central park poseur.


----------



## doctor-bond (Sep 8, 2008)

> a bike that isn't being ridden often is basically worthless.


As I read this I thought - 'that's the truth'; but on reflection, there's more to include.

A bike that's hanging on the wall has a price and a value: people get a kick out of gaudy objects that took some making, picasso or breeze. So the garage queens aren't valueless or worthless.

But, a bike that isn't being ridden often does need some further explanation: i.e. there's something not quite right about the concept. So what is it that's troubling?

Here it is. A bike that isn't being ridden often isn't ... a bike.

It's become an object that belongs to a different order; an order that has value and emotional resonance - like a painting or grandad's ashes on the mantle shelf - but not one that is kinetic, or, more accurately, one that has any relationship to the reason why some skilled person made the thing in the first place.

Picasso made paintings to be displayed - typically on a wall. So it doesn't matter how priceless or museum-bound they become, they are still doing what they were made for: if you like, they are still being ridden.

The unridden bike is at best a shadow of its true meaning; like someone putting a painting in a safe.

But a bike in motion is not only full of worth, but also alive with credible meaning: it's doing what it was meant to do, and also part of an emotional moment: i.e you are on it. If that bike happens to be rare or light or beautifully brazed then further dimensions are added to the experience, but none so crucial as the act of riding.

So, one allrounder or several niche rides? Get as many as you have rafter room for and ride em: there's no such thing as an all rounder.



post script. Here's a thought: what if you never ride your bike but do constantly rebuild it? Is that a decent pass time?


----------



## klein nerd (Apr 9, 2008)

*I have an entire structure devoted to bikes*

I like that last semtiment. Get as many as you have room for. If you live in a small apartment, yeah, five bikes is crazy unless you are, say, 19 and single. Take a look at some of the bike room pics recently posted. You can cram ten bikes into a 4 foot by 8 foot space. However you cant collect everything in life. I think most people here keep the collecting to just bikes.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

doctor-bond said:


> As I read this I thought - 'that's the truth'; but on reflection, there's more to include.
> 
> A bike that's hanging on the wall has a price and a value: people get a kick out of gaudy objects that took some making, picasso or breeze. So the garage queens aren't valueless or worthless.
> 
> ...


sorry... but that's bs. Picasso? give me a break.Why not an old expensive steak you didn't eat but kept at the fridge?


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

doctor-bond said:


> As I read this I thought - 'that's the truth'; but on reflection, there's more to include.
> 
> A bike that's hanging on the wall has a price and a value: people get a kick out of gaudy objects that took some making, picasso or breeze. So the garage queens aren't valueless or worthless.
> 
> ...


FSP?

You'll have to excuse Colker, he gets fired up about art vs. vintage mtb comparisons.


----------



## bushpig (Nov 26, 2005)

colker1 said:


> sorry... but that's bs. Picasso? give me a break.Why not an old expensive steak you didn't eat but kept at the fridge?


Oy vey. But while we are on the topic, if you are even in NYC, I recommend the steaks at Wolfgangs. http://wolfgangssteakhouse.com/


----------



## doctor-bond (Sep 8, 2008)

> Why not an old expensive steak you didn't eat but kept at the fridge?


Exactly. Even the bovine metaphor works: the steak eaten and remembered for being tasty [maybe because it was expensive] is good and true.

The steak left uneaten in the fridge because it is so expensive is strange and troubling.

Steak. Picasso. MTBS. Doesn't matter as long as you do with them what they were designed for. And better an eaten rump than a sirloin in the fridge. :thumbsup:


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

Rumpfy said:


> FSP?
> 
> You'll have to excuse Colker, he gets fired up about art vs. vintage mtb comparisons.


the comparison is moronic. that's all. it's like discussing cunningham brakes w/ an art dealer; he is pretty ignorant of the subject.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

bushpig said:


> Oy vey. But while we are on the topic, if you are even in NYC, I recommend the steaks at Wolfgangs. http://wolfgangssteakhouse.com/


hmmmm... steak!


----------



## stan4bikes (May 24, 2006)

*how do you know that?*



colker1 said:


> the comparison is moronic. that's all. it's like discussing cunningham brakes w/ an art dealer; he is pretty ignorant of the subject.


Thats a pretty broad conclusion to make. Awfully narrow minded, can only Mountain Bike people appreciate bicycle craftsmanship being an art form?


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

colker1 said:


> the comparison is moronic. that's all. it's like discussing cunningham brakes w/ an art dealer; he is pretty ignorant of the subject.


To you maybe. There really are too many variables. Its not as black and white as you make it seem.


----------



## IF52 (Jan 10, 2004)

stan4bikes said:


> Thats a pretty broad conclusion to make. Awfully narrow minded, can only Mountain Bike people appreciate bicycle craftsmanship being an art form?


In my experience, yeah, pretty much.


----------



## Retro MB (Oct 13, 2007)

Rumpfy said:


> My modern bike would be one of the last to go.


Rumphy owns a modern bike?


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

stan4bikes said:


> Thats a pretty broad conclusion to make. Awfully narrow minded, can only Mountain Bike people appreciate bicycle craftsmanship being an art form?


art form my ass.
i am talking value. i could not care less for the sensibility or how narrowminded you think i am.
a picasso is worth 20 million because it is good art. 
bikes have only sentimental value and that's why wives tell us to get rid of excess. discounting the odd cunningham or cinelli it's worth peanuts. bikes are guys' toys. not culture as paintings are.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

Rumpfy said:


> To you maybe. There really are too many variables. Its not as black and white as you make it seem.


pretty simple: don't compare machines to paintings. 2 entirely different things.


----------



## bushpig (Nov 26, 2005)

Art is cool.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

IF52 said:


> In my experience, yeah, pretty much.


not even roadies appreciate mountain bike craftamanship.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

bushpig said:


> Art is cool.


Danien HIrst... last i heard he is worth 800 million pounds. and 40 something.


----------



## IF52 (Jan 10, 2004)

klein nerd said:


> You should go move to some remote country where there are no bikes and eat clay and leaves for dinner. This is the country of excess.


Are you kidding around or are you really that much of a dork? This is also the country of free choice. If I or my friend Lucifer (boy that reads funny) chose to strive for a simpler existance what is wrong with that. Light and fast. Unburdened. I own things that I need and things that I want, but I don't want to become some compulsive idiot that digs himself into a hole he can't get out of by letting my desire for material thing get the better of me. That's what has cause, for example, the mortgage crisis.


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

colker1 said:


> art form my ass.
> i am talking value. i could not care less for the sensibility or how narrowminded you think i am.
> a picasso is worth 20 million because it is good art.
> bikes have only sentimental value and that's why wives tell us to get rid of excess. discounting the odd cunningham or cinelli it's worth peanuts. bikes are guys' toys. not culture as paintings are.


Ah, so we're back to this again. Because bikes don't fetch what some art is worth, they can not be considered an investment or art themselves.

I love that logic.


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

Retro MB said:


> Rumphy owns a modern bike?


Hells ya! Its a fast bike.


----------



## stan4bikes (May 24, 2006)

*well then....*



colker1 said:


> art form my ass.
> i am talking value. i could not care less for the sensibility or how narrowminded you think i am.
> a picasso is worth 20 million because it is good art.
> bikes have only sentimental value and that's why wives tell us to get rid of excess. discounting the odd cunningham or cinelli it's worth peanuts. bikes are guys' toys. not culture as paintings are.


I guess the master has spoken


----------



## doctor-bond (Sep 8, 2008)

Smashing shark.

How much is that mass-produced urinal that Duchamp signed worth these days? And should we consider Tracey Emin's tent and her bed as expensive art or girls' toys?


----------



## stan4bikes (May 24, 2006)

Rumpfy said:


> Ah, so we're back to this again. Because bikes don't fetch what some art is worth, they can not be considered an investment or art themselves.
> 
> I love that logic.


Sorry Rumphy, until now I thought YOU were the most narrow minded person here


----------



## hollister (Sep 16, 2005)

stan4bikes said:


> I guess the master has spoken


F dat!

when I look at some machines, I see art. YMMV, but I see art


----------



## Guest (Sep 11, 2008)

colker1 said:


> art form my ass.
> i am talking value. i could not care less for the sensibility or how narrowminded you think i am.
> a picasso is worth 20 million because it is good art.
> bikes have only sentimental value and that's why wives tell us to get rid of excess. discounting the odd cunningham or cinelli it's worth peanuts. bikes are guys' toys. not culture as paintings are.


you love art and put a monetary value to it in the same sentence?

Carsten


----------



## chefmiguel (Dec 22, 2007)

Get a bigger garage and don't regret it. Remember one day one of your kids is going to need more bikes too!! Hey Colker that steak in a fridge? It's called dry aging, and thats what makes it tastier!!


----------



## IF52 (Jan 10, 2004)

colker1 said:


> art form my ass.
> i am talking value. i could not care less for the sensibility or how narrowminded you think i am.
> a picasso is worth 20 million because it is good art.
> bikes have only sentimental value and that's why wives tell us to get rid of excess. discounting the odd cunningham or cinelli it's worth peanuts. bikes are guys' toys. not culture as paintings are.


I agree except for the Picasso comment. A Picasso, or any other well known artists' work, is worth what it is worth because speculators drive the price up. Nothing pisses me off more about art then some numbnut throwing up some conceptual piece of crap and going on an on about how great it is. Art is about creating something people want to look at and lose themselves in. I hate the sh!t that artists started to create in the 50s and 60s that make you feel like you have to be privy to some joke to understand. I don't want some psuedo intellectual pinhead to tell me what is or isn't good art. I wouldn't p!ss on a Rauschenberg if it was on fire.

6 years of art school down the drain because I couldn't stand sniveling art partron dumba$$es.


----------



## IF52 (Jan 10, 2004)

doctor-bond said:


> Smashing shark.
> 
> How much is that mass-produced urinal that Duchamp signed worth these days?


Nothing, because it doesn't exist anymore. What you might see these days is a copy after the original was destroyed. Duchamp was making fun of art. Pretty much in everything he did.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

Carsten said:


> you love art and put a monetary value to it in the same sentence?
> 
> Carsten


absolutely! as warhol said: making art is wonderfull but selling art is better.
economic value doesn't lessen it's integrity or sentimental value. on the contrary. it asserts the importance of thought and spirit over evertyhing else.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

IF52 said:


> Nothing, because it doesn't exist anymore. What you might see these days is a copy after the original was distroyed. Duchamp was making fun of art. Pretty much in everything he did.


yes. not only making fun but making sure art was abut the thought process and not the handmade object.
duchamp was also a smart art dealer. he knew art and market needed each other.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

IF52 said:


> I agree except for the Picasso comment. A Picasso, or any other well known artists' work, is worth what it is worth because speculators drive the price up. Nothing pisses me off more about art then some numbnut throwing up some conceptual piece of crap and going on an on about how great it is. Art is about creating something people want to look at and lose themselves in. I hate the sh!t that artists started to create in the 50s and 60s that make you feel like you have to be privy to some joke to understand. I don't want some psuedo intellectual pinhead to tell me what is or isn't good art. I wouldn't p!ss on a Rauschenberg if it was on fire.
> 
> 6 years of art school down the drain because I couldn't stand sniveling art partron dumba$$es.


i agree w/ you.... but Picasso is good stuff. the millions are an economic operation. if is valued that high that's great.


----------



## bushpig (Nov 26, 2005)

IF52 said:


> I agree except for the Picasso comment. A Picasso, or any other well known artists' work, is worth what it is worth because speculators drive the price up. Nothing pisses me off more about art then some numbnut throwing up some conceptual piece of crap and going on an on about how great it is. Art is about creating something people want to look at and lose themselves in. I hate the sh!t that artists started to create in the 50s and 60s that make you feel like you have to be privy to some joke to understand. I don't want some psuedo intellectual pinhead to tell me what is or isn't good art. I wouldn't p!ss on a Rauschenberg if it was on fire.
> 
> 6 years of art school down the drain because I couldn't stand sniveling art partron dumba$$es.


ha ha. I agre except that I like Rauschenberg. In fact one of his works is on the wall just down the hall.


----------



## IF52 (Jan 10, 2004)

bushpig said:


> ha ha. I agre except that I like Rauschenberg. In fact one of his works is on the wall just down the hall.


Well I'm not p!ssing on it if it catches on fire. I might want to erase it though.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

Rumpfy said:


> Ah, so we're back to this again. Because bikes don't fetch what some art is worth, they can not be considered an investment or art themselves.
> 
> I love that logic.


bikes are not art because they are something else. bikes are usefull, tools. art is not usefull. end of story.
the value thing just makes it simple to explain the difference: art is at the epicenter of society. bikes are a fringe thing.. now if you can find a buyer for that old technologically outdated aluminum bike, good for you... it's not a


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

stan4bikes said:


> I guess the master has spoken


and i could teach you bikes as well.


----------



## stan4bikes (May 24, 2006)

*no thanx..*



colker1 said:


> and i could teach you bikes as well.


although I'm sure you are knowledable, I don't think I'm interested in that offer.

I'm done with this foolishness.....off to more productive threads.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

stan4bikes said:


> although I'm sure you are knowledable, I don't think I'm interested in that offer.
> 
> I'm done with this foolishness.....off to more productive threads.


it's not foolishness. it's a good discussion. bye bye.


----------



## IF52 (Jan 10, 2004)

Ahha Gilbert, this conversation's going nowhere


----------



## lucifer (Sep 27, 2004)

klein nerd said:


> I can see wanting to simplify your life but really, bikes are not that cumbersome. It sounds like you were reading some book on a religion while sitting on the potty and now you want to be a bad American by selling your stuff. You should go move to some remote country where there are no bikes and eat clay and leaves for dinner. This is the country of excess. I get a lot of fun out of bikes that I only ride a couple times a year. However, you can send your bikes to me if they must go. What else do you have? I could use some nice furniture and a plasma TV and any nice copper cookware that you won't be needing on your new life journey.  Do you have nice iron and marble patio table perhaps.


LOL
this is funny because I am a total nonapologetic atheist.
Don't hold your breath on me sending you anything.
Excess possessions are a prison


----------



## lucifer (Sep 27, 2004)

doctor-bond said:


> As I read this I thought - 'that's the truth'; but on reflection, there's more to include.
> 
> A bike that's hanging on the wall has a price and a value: people get a kick out of gaudy objects that took some making, picasso or breeze. So the garage queens aren't valueless or worthless.
> 
> ...


All good points, especially the last one. 
For me the answer would be yes. I love building bikes. I love the process of selecting components and refining things until they are just right. I even like searching out rare parts even though it can be frustrating at times. In fact I think that is part of the appeal of old bikes for me. It's like a quest to put them together.


----------



## PaintPeelinPbody (Feb 3, 2004)

I've got a double edged sword on my wrist now...

I've got two bikes, both were my Dads. He got me into bicycle riding more than anyone, he always supported me and funded my projects when I was younger. He died of complication from a heart attack in April and I've got his 80's Razesa and 1990 Team Marin. I can't bring myself to get rid of these bikes, even I hate early MTB geometry and never ride road. 

So I guess I sell my other vintage rig (95 GT Zaskar) and my more modern fun bikes.

I will however, ride both of his bikes until they break, at which point he would approve of their reuse in some other means.


----------



## bushpig (Nov 26, 2005)

On the weekends I like to lay all my bikes down on the floor and then I roll around nekkid on them to enjoy them. Is that art?


----------



## lucifer (Sep 27, 2004)

PaintPeelinPbody said:


> I've got a double edged sword on my wrist now...
> 
> I've got two bikes, both were my Dads. He got me into bicycle riding more than anyone, he always supported me and funded my projects when I was younger. He died of complication from a heart attack in April and I've got his 80's Razesa and 1990 Team Marin. I can't bring myself to get rid of these bikes, even I hate early MTB geometry and never ride road.
> 
> ...


For what its worth I think your father would probably rather see you riding a bike that you love. I hope you can see that it was his encouraging you to ride that has lasting value. His bikes are just that, his bikes, and hes gone now.


----------



## lucifer (Sep 27, 2004)

bushpig said:


> On the weekends I like to lay all my bikes down on the floor and then I roll around nekkid on them to enjoy them. Is that art?


Umm maybe performance art. Please don't post video of this to youtube....


----------



## PaintPeelinPbody (Feb 3, 2004)

but he hate to see me waste a perfectly good bike.

and that's the thing, if I were to sell either of them I'd think they'd go to waste because I wouldn't be able to replace them.

My Cannondale is nice, but it can sit for the days when I need it.

I've got the Marin for the smooth rolling challenge days when speed isn't a factor. The Razesa for the road ride. The Cannondale for the days when I need to stick with the group or its really rocky. Also building a cyclocross, but ditching the GT and DJ bike.


----------



## lucifer (Sep 27, 2004)

PaintPeelinPbody said:


> but he hate to see me waste a perfectly good bike.
> 
> and that's the thing, if I were to sell either of them I'd think they'd go to waste because I wouldn't be able to replace them.
> 
> ...


Around here a decent used bike never has to be wasted. We have bike recycling programs, craigslist, ebay, goodwill. I wasn't saying you had to landfill them.


----------



## klein nerd (Apr 9, 2008)

*I despise practicality, and practicality is unamerican.*

There have been countless posts on the merits of an ample and diverse quiver of bikes. I you only care to keep up with you buddies on the saturday ride and keep in shape buy a new five inch travel bike that weighs 26 pounds. You can't beat it. It wil ride better than an old bike in every situation accept the road. But if you want to experience cycling for all it has to offer you have to have al least five bikes. Bikes are functional art, they don't go bad like food in the fridge left to long, and they don't take up much space. There is no reason to not own many bikes. Owning one bike is like eating the same thing every day, day after day. Or reading the same book over and over. Lets talk about art, how many people only have one painting on their walls. If I just had one picture hanging on my walls I think I would get tired of looking at it. Unless, of course, it was a picture of me.


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

stan4bikes said:


> Sorry Rumphy, until now I thought YOU were the most narrow minded person here


I'm an a$$hole. Thats different than narrow minded.


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

colker1 said:


> end of story.


Amazing. :bluefrown:


----------



## stan4bikes (May 24, 2006)

Rumpfy said:


> I'm an a$$hole. Thats different than narrow minded.


Well, sometimes you're a narrow minded a$$hole...but not as much as I thought :thumbsup:


----------



## sq_root_of_2 (Sep 7, 2008)

*More input and please continue the discussion...*

This is an interesting discussion. Keep it going and try to find some answers.

I have posted a longer response with a similar question about using something that was once considered an everyday object and is now appreciated as a fine object as an everyday object.

That is why 'collectibles' (things made just for collectors to put on a shelf and look at, (any limited edition tat), really don't hold value in any sense. Fine things meant to be everyday objects may become rare because of misuse and disposal can become things that are appreciated over time.

Similar examples to a bike could be Tiffany lamps, and Stickley furniture, etc. An object goes through periods of; being new, being used and either replaced with more advanced modern models, therefore out of fashion, getting thrown away, rediscovered, found to be rare, lusted after.....old mountain bikes.


----------



## sq_root_of_2 (Sep 7, 2008)

*Bikes are not art. Bikes are not art?*

I bought a mountain bike in 1989. At the time I also had a 1960's Ferrari and I compared the two as fine machines. The design of the Ferrari was by Pininfarina, a beautiful car. The bike was designed by Tom Ritchey, a beautiful bike.

Shortly after buying the bike, I remember showing some friends the bike, rubbing my hand over the welds and saying this is like a work of art. Got strange stares&#8230;apparently not a guy thing to say. 

I appreciate fine workmanship and love design. I think it is fair to look at bikes as design objects and not fine art, They can be compared to other functional things, chairs, lamps, etc. Designers such as Philippe Starck, Achille Castiglioni, Tiffany, Le Corbusier, etc. do not necessarily make art, they design beautiful objects that we can use. I would not trash anything that I owned by these people any more than I would trash a fine bike. But I would use it and maintain it carefully.

I still have the Super Comp and because I moved shortly after I bought the bike it has been in my flat in Montreal and is nearly new and 95% original.

Now I see people are appreciating and collecting older MTB's I don't know whether to sell it, use it, or hang it on the wall. I still enjoy riding but now I am feeling it would be like using my vintage Ferrari for an everyday driver. So I have a similar dilemma that started this thread.

Thanks for reading and I welcome constructive replies and more thoughts.

Rocco


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

bushpig said:


> On the weekends I like to lay all my bikes down on the floor and then I roll around nekkid on them to enjoy them. Is that art?


yes...
but you need to post a pic or video.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

sq_root_of_2 said:


> I bought a mountain bike in 1989. At the time I also had a 1960's Ferrari and I compared the two as fine machines. The design of the Ferrari was by Pininfarina, a beautiful car. The bike was designed by Tom Ritchey, a beautiful bike.
> 
> Shortly after buying the bike, I remember showing some friends the bike, rubbing my hand over the welds and saying this is like a work of art. Got strange stares&#8230;apparently not a guy thing to say.
> 
> ...


i go along w/ what you wrote.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

bushpig said:


> On the weekends I like to lay all my bikes down on the floor and then I roll around nekkid on them to enjoy them. Is that art?


there is a fellony somewhere on that act.


----------



## sho220 (Aug 3, 2005)

colker1 said:


> a picasso is worth 20 million because it is good art.


hahahaha!!!! That statement is f'ing hilarious! Picasso founded an entire movement on being...well...not very good...:thumbsup:


----------



## redwing24 (Aug 16, 2008)

I find great pleasure in having nice things, bikes, furniture, cars, tv's, stereo's...... But at the same time only having very few of them. There is nothing wrong with living as simple as you can, and at the same token making sure the things you have are the things you want and need. Life is very short so make yourself happy. So if your a type of guy that needs to have things to make you happy, do it. And if your the type that re-evalluates your life and possessions then get rid of the bike. Your kids cost more money than your bikes do and you wouldn't sell them off. well maybe if you could you might. Either way you have stuff that someone else wants, you can always sell it, so buy the new bike then make the decision on keeping it or not.


----------



## IF52 (Jan 10, 2004)

sho220 said:


> hahahaha!!!! That statement is f'ing hilarious! Picasso founded an entire movement on being...well...not very good...:thumbsup:


Well I wouldn't go so far as to say that. Picasso was actually a very clever and talented artist. If you go back and look at his VERY early work you can see that he had ingredible rendering skills. But philosophy of the time as well as the camera brought a radical shift in drawing and painting, which carried over to all things 'art'. Picasso, Braque and others attempted to break the image down into other, simpler terms maybe. It was very experimental and at times incomprehensible. With his art I don't feel like I am left out of something typically. I generally like what I see.

Picasso worked backwards in a way. There is a quote, I don't remember exactly, where he said something about how it had taken him his whole life to learn to draw like a child


----------



## sho220 (Aug 3, 2005)

IF52 said:


> Well I wouldn't go so far as to say that. Picasso was actually a very clever and talented artist. If you go back and look at his VERY early work you can see that he had ingredible rendering skills. But philosophy of the time as well as the camera brought a radical shift in drawing and painting, which carried over to all things 'art'. Picasso, Braque and others attempted to break the image down into other, simpler terms maybe. It was very experimental and at times incomprehensible. With his art I don't feel like I am left out of something typically. I generally like what I see.
> 
> Picasso worked backwards in a way. There is a quote, I don't remember exactly, where he said something about how it had taken him his whole life to learn to draw like a child


Even his early stuff, where it seems he's attempting to render, say hands or a face accurately, something just seems a little off. Seems like he just said screw it, I can't get it right, so everything is cubes and angles from now on!


----------



## IF52 (Jan 10, 2004)

sho220 said:


> Even his early stuff, where it seems he's attempting to render, say hands or a face accurately, something just seems a little off. Seems like he just said screw it, I can't get it right, so everything is cubes and angles from now on!


I'm not sure what you are looking at. There is another story about Pablo's talent as a child. It goes that his father, and artist himself and an instructor at an art school "was so overwhelmed by his son's talents [by the time he was 13] he gave the boy his own palette and brushes, vowing never to paint again."


----------



## doctor-bond (Sep 8, 2008)

I'm loving the range of stuff you cover on this forum. Here's more grist:

No doubt Picasso was a good draughtsman [by which I mean he could do representational stuff, not that he designed bridges]: look at some of the drawings - even the sketches capture the thing with alarming ease.

But he used his skill to explore ideas: let's be Pablo: e.g. "What if I depict this still life from different angles on the same 2D canvas; Interesting - now I'll try it with a person. That exagerates some parts over others; a bit like those 'primitive' artifacts I saw at the museum. It's also emotionally charged depending on which point of view I promote. What if I used this technique to depict a modern event - like a civil war? Does that get closer to a representation of the whole experience of the event than a picture or a photo ever could?"

To me, that is art: technique applied to ideas about how we experience the world.

Now can we apply that to bikes? It takes a bit of doing: is the frame builder building a machine to move a person through space efficiently or trying to change our perception of the world?

Although I wouldn't rule it out altogether, when the world of design moves toward the latter aim, we often end up with the trite outlook of bad advertising: 'this car takes you to places beyond the every day, where perception and movement combine in a unique harmony of desire. Buy the Nexus M5000 and you too will harness the true spirit of movememt" etc.

Like one of the previous posts mentioned, bikes primarily belong to the world of design: cars, sextants, planes, chairs, astrolabes. They are functional, can be beautiful and highly valuable; but if they aren't used for what they were designed for, then they lose much of what makes them special: Shaker chairs in a museum go up in value and offer an educational opportunity, but putting them there goes against the very design ethos that made them beautiful in the first place (functionality, efficiency, lack of clutter).

So love your bike/s - prize them, (roll on them naked if you must) but ride them regularly, even if not often. (And if you're like me, you'll chuck in a bit of stripping them down and rebuilding between rides.)


----------



## bushpig (Nov 26, 2005)

Say an artist, seeking to create a statement about human power, beauty, simplicity and longing, were to bring together a group of objects, let's say handmade mountain bikes, and put them on a shelf - an ironic placement which undercuts the ideas that each object represents - tools made useless - or useful only as symbol/sign. Would that be art?


----------



## IF52 (Jan 10, 2004)

bushpig said:


> Say an artist, seeking to create a statement about human power, beauty, simplicity and longing, were to bring together a group of objects, let's say handmade mountain bikes, and put them on a shelf - an ironic placement which undercuts the ideas that each object represents - tools made useless - or useful only as symbol/sign. Would that be art?


Perhaps, but the bicycles themselves would not. No more so at least than a glob of paint on a canvas. They would merely be an element in a mixed media assemblage


----------



## doctor-bond (Sep 8, 2008)

> Would that be art?


Sure - as long as somebody saw it and got the idea, the medium he used wouldn't matter. The debate would be, 'how good is it as art?'

But what if he just put it on the shelf [or in the fridge] and no one else knew .......?


----------



## muddybuddy (Jan 31, 2007)

What about the hand painted goats and Kleins and similar bikes? Are those art. Or is the paint on the frame art and the bike itself is just the canvas. I think the issue here is the difference between something that is created artisticly and something that is created with craftsmanship. You can't always draw a line and say that there is no overlap between the two. And to say that something that is "art" *can't* have any functional purpose is really narrowing the definition to the extreme.


----------



## crconsulting (Apr 11, 2004)

*Thats an easy one....*



sq_root_of_2 said:


> Now I see people are appreciating and collecting older MTB's I don't know whether to sell it, use it, or hang it on the wall. I still enjoy riding but now I am feeling it would be like using my vintage Ferrari for an everyday driver. So I have a similar dilemma that started this thread.
> 
> Rocco


Easy one.....
Do what you did with the Ferrari

Hang on to it!!! What was the Ferrari worth when you bought the Super Comp?
What is it worth today? Nice appreciation eh???

two comments: 
a) I hope it has a v12:thumbsup: 
b) I hope its RED 

I owned a 512BB for a while, had to sell it after I lost my license.......

twice 

miss that car......


----------



## klein nerd (Apr 9, 2008)

*almost anything can be art*

Why did I spend $200 on a hand made english tea pot? Is it art? I think so. Why do I have a 1000sq foot living room with 16' ceilings? I think it is art. Why drive an old black 91 Saab 9000 turbo instead of an accord? Because it is art. Every possible aspect of life can be lived in a practical way, or it can be done in an outlandish artistic way. Name one thing that doesn't have these two sides?


----------



## sho220 (Aug 3, 2005)

IF52 said:


> I'm not sure what you are looking at. There is another story about Pablo's talent as a child. It goes that his father, and artist himself and an instructor at an art school "was so overwhelmed by his son's talents [by the time he was 13] he gave the boy his own palette and brushes, *vowing never to paint again*."


What an overdramatic donkey...He vows never to paint again...haha...too funny...It would have been more convincing if he'd cut off his hand...


----------



## muddybuddy (Jan 31, 2007)

Its probably like the Abe Lincoln/cherry tree story. Never really happened.


----------



## sq_root_of_2 (Sep 7, 2008)

*F cars and MTBs*

I did sell the Ferrari. It was a red 250 Cabriolet, 1960. V12 of course.

I like the bike a lot but am spending most of my time in the UK and it is just sitting in Montreal. Can't decide whether to sell it or ship it.

I like the 512s they were sweet cars. I am sure we both miss shifting into 4th gear at 105+ mph or so.


----------



## azjeff (Jun 3, 2006)

OK, what about the bike and rider making art? Not talking about tire tracks in the mud... who has not had one of those rides, or a part of a ride, or even a small section or a move, that was just near perfection..poetry in motion. Not talking the popular buzzword FLOW...flow is trail design. Talking that moment or few moments that you remember clearly a year later. Now that's art.

Must be how Picasso felt when he finished the Sistene Chapel and looked up. Then jumped in his Ferrari and got a ticket. 

edit: I've got a Ferrari. Red. Testa Rossa. Seriously. 1:18 scale. In a box somewhere.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

sho220 said:


> What an overdramatic donkey...He vows never to paint again...haha...too funny...It would have been more convincing if he'd cut off his hand...


ain't you a smart guy.


----------



## doctor-bond (Sep 8, 2008)

> Why did I spend $200 on a hand made english tea pot?


because you couldn't afford a good one?
or
because it had Klein-esque glaze (and was just as fragile).

Couldn't resist. 

I once spent a simillar amount on a pair of pedals, and this is the first time I've been able to admit it. This showing off, I mean, sharing is cathartic ....


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

IF52 said:


> Well I wouldn't go so far as to say that. Picasso was actually a very clever and talented artist. If you go back and look at his VERY early work you can see that he had ingredible rendering skills. But philosophy of the time as well as the camera brought a radical shift in drawing and painting, which carried over to all things 'art'. Picasso, Braque and others attempted to break the image down into other, simpler terms maybe. It was very experimental and at times incomprehensible. With his art I don't feel like I am left out of something typically. I generally like what I see.
> 
> Picasso worked backwards in a way. There is a quote, I don't remember exactly, where he said something about how it had taken him his whole life to learn to draw like a child


Picasso could paint, draw, sculpture, litography.. he could do anything and he would do it fast. he dealt w/ buyers and dealers controlling the prices of his work. Picasso was the most complete artist of last century although maybe not the most important.


----------



## Cycleshark (Jan 21, 2004)

bushpig said:


> Art is cool.


hhm.....damien hirst's tiger shark fetched $17,247,538.88 on a london auction yesterday 

...I have a bunch of little plastic sharks somewhere....they might be worth a fortune! :ihih:


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

doctor-bond said:


> I once spent a simillar amount on a pair of pedals, and this is the first time I've been able to admit it. This showing off, I mean, sharing is cathartic ....


What bikes do you have in your collection?


----------



## p.doering (Aug 1, 2008)

Rumpfy said:


> FSP?


Nope.


----------



## Eastcoaster (Feb 13, 2004)

*I'm in the same boat as Lucifer.....*



Rumpfy said:


> Sounds like selling the NP is a non-option. Just make it as modern as it needs to be so that it is entirely usable as your only MTB.


Done as much as I can to "update" my "vintage" rig as my only/main mtb ride. Decided just this year to dump my OH so buttery smooth Marz Z-2 Bomber from 97,...coil and oil..and get an updated 4 inch fork. Didn't bother the geo. much as the HA was 72 to start with and the frame is burly built. So, I didn't worry about the travel increase from 70 to 100 and probably less once sag is figured in or the increased stress on the frame.

I shortened my stem a touch, gone to wider bars with a scad more rise, and switched to Cane Creek Direct Curve Fives for V brakes to solve some old cable routing problems/get more powerful rear rim brakes without altering the frame to have disc tabs added.

The chang(es) were immense! I'm a decent rider as far as I can tell. But yet my riding improved. Was my climbing/fitness level different? NO. But, I could hang with my buddies MUCH better when they were on their 5" dually trailbikes. What? With only those few changes? Yes.

So, it got me thinking. I don't own a "stable" of bikes. Well, there's my Smorgasbord, (Love that frame too.) etc. but nothing modern. No disc brake bikes. What would a modern bike do for me with my limited riding time? Was I trying to do too much? Riding to the limit of my equipment? As much as I LOVED it? And, searched for so long to buy/have it?

I have the same as you Lucifer. Job, home that I pay no one to take care of (yard, cleaning, etc.), wife and two young daughters.... I love to ride. Get those rides in whenever I can. My wife is GREAT and understands my addiction to mtb, I love my daughters and wouldn't trade anything for every second that we're together as a family....but it's always a compromise to get riding time in. But, when I do go ride? I'm in a WAY better mindset to come home, relaxed, and be a better Dad/Parent!

I'm not getting younger...I ride less often but at a level where I did a few years ago. I come home so SORE. 
So...wouldn't a "modern" bike let me have more FUN on the limited time that I have riding? I've decided so. Will it be the "ultimate"? Nope. I'll still have good rides and bad rides. Just different rides on a modern rig.
I'm just having trouble with the "cheating" feeling that I have toward my beloved, current and main mtb! Sounds stupid...but it's true.

I'm working on a new frame and pick the parts build before the year's out!

BTW, my cousin left his front wheel at a trailhead parking lot out here in PA. He's still crying at the loss of his front (From his front and rear set) NP SuperFly hub....


----------



## azjeff (Jun 3, 2006)

Great post Eastcoaster:thumbsup: Riding a VRC bike is it's own reward on a lot of different levels that we all enjoy. That said there's nothing wrong with riding and enjoying a state-of-the-art MTB either. Discs? Absolutely. Dually? Why not! I see you're in eastern Pa., so you know the joy(panic ) of a winter stream crossing followed by ZERO brakes the next time you need them. Never happen again with discs. The not getting any younger part is reality, with a dually you can ride hard but not come home feeling like you were beat all over with a bat. 

Get something good and ride them both


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

azjeff said:


> Great post Eastcoaster:thumbsup: Riding a VRC bike is it's own reward on a lot of different levels that we all enjoy. That said there's nothing wrong with riding and enjoying a state-of-the-art MTB either. Discs? Absolutely. Dually? Why not! I see you're in eastern Pa., so you know the joy(panic ) of a winter stream crossing followed by ZERO brakes the next time you need them. Never happen again with discs. The not getting any younger part is reality, with a dually you can ride hard but not come home feeling like you were beat all over with a bat.
> 
> Get something good and ride them both


I love the old bikes as much or more than anybody I'd bet, but I also thoroughly enjoy the new stuff. It isnt all just marketing hype, its fun stuff that works well. Both are fun.


----------



## Eastcoaster (Feb 13, 2004)

AND....my Woods would make a GREAT singlespeed! 
Heck, I might even be able to get a nice chainline by making it a single with those 15.9" chainstays!  

That way, I'd still have an excuse to break it out and ride it now and again as I do frequently take rides with two friends who often opt to bring their singles. Currently, I don't have a choice and always have to bring my 1 X 9!

Get a new rig, yet re-create the classic bike with a new purpose!

Sounds like a WIN/WIN!


----------



## doctor-bond (Sep 8, 2008)

> What bikes do you have in your collection?


Collection is too grand a word for what I have.

I've got a 1988 Team Stumpjumper [Japan-built with chainstay U brake] which I bought in 1989 and have used ever since. Everything has been replaced a few times and it's nowhere near concours. I'm currently running it as a 2 speed with a Paul tensioner and 2 chainrings up front. Shifting done manually (by finger on chain at the top or bottom of the hill as appropriate).

Recent "completion" is a 1985 Mt Fuji Ltd. Shipped over from the states chiefly because the exchange rate was good and I couldn't resist the Nitto/Suntour XC Power components, especially the roller-cam brakes. It's heavy as a bus but more than the sum of its parts. When I add a ladies leather saddle it will be a sound pub bike.

In progress is a 1947 Hobbs Superbe: hand cut lugs and thin-wall steel tubes. The plan is to keep the original Patina and set it up with a 2 speed intrernal gear/coaster hub. No cable runs to spoil the lines, maybe use it for bike polo if I can stir my stumps.

On the shelf is a 1957 Claud butler road frame: still arguing with myself whether to turn it into a fixie or sell it.

The pedals are campag pista and are still waiting a suitable build.

I'd probably swap em for that '92 Potts custom that you posted on Retrobike though


----------



## lucifer (Sep 27, 2004)

9 months on and I still have my bikes. Probably will keep them. Probably will get something newer as well for travelling and what not. 

I am thinking ti.with modern geometry and s and s couplers. Any suggestions?


----------



## midtnSS (Apr 26, 2004)

*Similar situation here*

I sold my Bonty last year and built up a more modern race bike, a 99 Litespeed with 99 XTR and SX Ti. Thats my new bike but almost retro now. The 93 Steelman cyclocross bike is safe. But I sold my singlespeed and am building a vintage as a singlespeed to fill the vintage and SS roles. My wife limits me to three bikes, or attempts to.

No holds barred I would replace the Litespeed and maybe others with a Monstercross / 650B nonsuspension corrected rigid do everything bike but still keep a vintage MTB also. Learned my lesson.

Blacksheep, Lynskey (1 hour away), DeSalvo, IF would be on a short list.


----------



## al415 (Mar 17, 2007)

I'm down to one vintage ride, a 1990 Fat Chance. The only trails on which it comes up short are the vicious rock gardens that weren’t even considered ridable when the bike was built. Modern suspension bikes have made these places viable, so I’m building a modern suspension bike. Other than that, and for 90% of the (buffed-hardpack) trails that are local to me, the Fat Chance is as good now as it ever was. So that I wouldn’t have to consider selling the Fat I bought a used FS frame, a Yeti 575. I’m building it with used parts and other bits and pieces that are just gathering dust in my basement. Heck, it’ll probably end up with a 1 x 8 campy’ drive train and thumb shifters!


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

al415 said:


> I'm down to one vintage ride, a 1990 Fat Chance. The only trails on which it comes up short are the vicious rock gardens that weren't even considered ridable when the bike was built. Modern suspension bikes have made these places viable, so I'm building a modern suspension bike. Other than that, and for 90% of the (buffed-hardpack) trails that are local to me, the Fat Chance is as good now as it ever was. So that I wouldn't have to consider selling the Fat I bought a used FS frame, a Yeti 575. I'm building it with used parts and other bits and pieces that are just gathering dust in my basement. Heck, it'll probably end up with a 1 x 8 campy' drive train and thumb shifters!


pics, asap.


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

al415 said:


> I'm down to one vintage ride, a 1990 Fat Chance. The only trails on which it comes up short are the vicious rock gardens that weren't even considered ridable when the bike was built. Modern suspension bikes have made these places viable, so I'm building a modern suspension bike. Other than that, and for 90% of the (buffed-hardpack) trails that are local to me, the Fat Chance is as good now as it ever was. So that I wouldn't have to consider selling the Fat I bought a used FS frame, a Yeti 575. I'm building it with used parts and other bits and pieces that are just gathering dust in my basement. Heck, it'll probably end up with a 1 x 8 campy' drive train and thumb shifters!


Nice! Thats the way to do it.

Modern bike to rail, vintage bike to keep you honest.


----------



## Vlad (Feb 7, 2004)

I didn't read the whole thread, but why don't you put some modern parts on the Nuke Proof and ride the sh!t out of it? I'm talking about good modern tires, a Fox F80X, comfortable riser bars...... That's what I've gradually done with my 1998 Curtlo. It's a mish-mash of parts but rides better than ever.


----------



## Farmfield (Jun 27, 2009)

About art...

1. Cicciolina & Jeff Koons - don't google it if you're under 18 :devil:

2. Brittish artist Banksy: http://www.banksy.co.uk (*)

And finally...

3. American motorcycle builder 'Indian Larry': It's the machine that is beautiful!

(*) Banksy: "Anyone supporting the death penalty should be shot!"

Oh, and about 'modernizing' an old bike:
Modern XC-fork, but lower it to 60mm
Mech. diskbrake in front, V-brake in rear
Hybrid pedals, flat & clipless combo's​Take the minimalimodernist'ish approach...


----------



## lucifer (Sep 27, 2004)

Vlad said:


> I didn't read the whole thread, but why don't you put some modern parts on the Nuke Proof and ride the sh!t out of it? I'm talking about good modern tires, a Fox F80X, comfortable riser bars...... That's what I've gradually done with my 1998 Curtlo. It's a mish-mash of parts but rides better than ever.


I've actually been working towards that. Its up to a 2002 or so fork (sid race) which I don't really like. It's light but it doesn't handle as well as a fox and isn't as plush. I need to find some new tires I like too.

I have never owned a full suspension bike so I guess some of it is just curiosity.


----------



## lucifer (Sep 27, 2004)

BREAKING NEWS UPDATE!!

I caved.
I ordered a modern frame last week.
It should be here wednesday.
It may take a while to get built up.

The deciding factor was actually sizing. Every time I get on my NP I feel like it is somehow too small. Same concerns on the fat.

One or both of my vintage rides may be up for sale / parting out soon. :yikes:


----------



## Eastcoaster (Feb 13, 2004)

Yeah...my Pro-flex is heading out the door this Friday to a rider in California. He's part of the idriders dot com. So, it's nice that someone with an appreciation for the bike/brand is getting it.....still, makes me a little sad....


----------



## lucifer (Sep 27, 2004)

The retro rides are officially for sale as soon as I figure out how much to ask for them. If they sell to an MTBR VRC person I will make an appropriate site donation. 
Classifieds to be posted as soon as I have time.


----------



## mainlyfats (Oct 1, 2005)

lucifer said:


> BREAKING NEWS UPDATE!!
> 
> I caved.
> I ordered a modern frame last week.
> ...


Kick 'em to the curb. Life's too short...


----------



## lucifer (Sep 27, 2004)

*Resurrecting this classic thread with an update.*

This was one of my favorite discussions ever on this forum (even with the tangents).
Here is what ultimately happened.

In the fall of 2009 I built myself this.









It's bigger than my 2 retro bikes were and it really does fit a lot better. I didn't ride the old ones anymore once I got it.

I sold the buck shaver off in pieces. Hopefully helping lots of other VRC nuts in the process.

I also sold most of the rare VRC bits off the nuke proof (I still have the frame, sid fork, headset, brakes, and seat collar) I was thinking of selling the frame too but my kids really like it and it was my dream bike back in the day (too bad I didn't know more about bike fitting back then). Plus nobody would give me what I thought the frame was worth anyways.... 
Also on the side of keeping it, I realized that with it in the garage I will basically have one mountain bike in each size top tube from xs to large. Chances are one of my kids will need that size at some point.
So the plan is to rebuild it on the relative cheap for the kids to grow into or as a loaner for friends. It is good for this purpose because it has such great standover clearance.

In related news my new mountain bike made me realize that my road bike was too small as well. So I built this to replace it.









My IF crown jewel is now for sale as well. (ads on road bike review and fat cogs).

In hindsight I don't regret selling what I sold one bit. And while I know some of you don't believe in all rounders I think my new 2 bike stable covers my needs very very well (I don't race on the road but I do lots of social road rides.)


----------

