Classic vintage with modern kit

[pawl]

Last summer a couple came alongside me.I looked at both there frames.Both were riding immaculate flying gate frames.Both frames we’re equipped with Shimano Ultegra group set.I assumed the frames were a restored .Apparently these frames are still being made to order available through TJ CyclesThe owners had thought about equipping them with retro equipment but decided that modern equipment would do more justice to the frame .Certainly didn’t look out of place

The finish paint work was immaculate

 

[Profpointy]

Di2 and 1x11 on a pre-war Raleigh Record Ace, anyone?

It's fine on a Raleigh Chopper though isn't it?

 

[mjr]

It's fine on a Raleigh Chopper though isn't it?

Only on a CS-RF3 hub if you can figure out how to fit it in!

 

[Kempstonian]

I see nothing wrong with fitting newer parts to an older frame. We did that back in the day and if I still had my old bikes they would by now have modern bits on them. Unless you are doing a restoration job to get the bike in 'fresh out of the factory' state, there's no reason not to 'improve' it with new gear. The examples shown on the last page look great to me.

 

[raleighnut]

Most of my bikes have modern drivetrains although they date from the 60s to the 80s, not a fan of 'brifters' though even my 2x10 speed bike has bar end shifters,

 

[SkipdiverJohn]

I don't generally find changes to the cranksets, brakes, and gear mechs to be that jarring on the eye myself. What I really don't like to see on vintage frames are modern wheelsets plastered with garish stickers, carbon forks, ugly brifters, or threadless stems. Most modern bikes look pretty ugly to my eyes, so I have no desire to replicate this ugliness on a nice looking vintage machine. It's quite possible to update an old bike without making it look like a dogs dinner, so long as the rider avoids turning it into a mobile advertising hoarding.

 

[Gunk]

I don't generally find changes to the cranksets, brakes, and gear mechs to be that jarring on the eye myself. What I really don't like to see on vintage frames are modern wheelsets plastered with garish stickers, carbon forks, ugly brifters, or threadless stems. Most modern bikes look pretty ugly to my eyes, so I have no desire to replicate this ugliness on a nice looking vintage machine. It's quite possible to update an old bike without making it look like a dogs dinner, so long as the rider avoids turning it into a mobile advertising hoarding.

It’s about the newer components enhancing the bike not clashing with the original look. I agree about wheels, I usually pull the decals off the rims so they blend in.

 

[SkipdiverJohn]

It’s about the newer components enhancing the bike not clashing with the original look.

Exactly, and a tastefully modernised older steel bike is not actually that obvious unless someone points things out or you start to look very closely at it. The ones that are immediately noticeable are usually so for the wrong reasons; i.e. they look horrible!

 

[avecReynolds531]

I like "brifters" - make life easier, and safer for me , on busy roads.

+1
...having grown up with a 5 speed (Huret) Raleigh, then a 10 speed (Simplex, later improved with Suntour) Peugeot, I then had a long break via mountain bikes.

When given the chance to try a roadbike with ergolevers, it was a different world. After 20 years plus, I like the safety, comfort and efficiency of changing gears this way.

It's nostalgic to change gears via downtube levers once again, but each time I'm out on the 531, I catch myself wondering how well this bike would ride with the wheelset & Campagnolo set up from my road bike? It may be the best of both worlds...

 

[Gunk]

I've been riding my recently rebuilt 1962 CB which I've kept as authentic as possible, so it doesn't have any modern upgrades and there is a real charm to it, the 60 year old 5 speed Campag friction gear change has a lovely mechanical feel and the brakes are a bit weak on steel rims but if you pull both it does stop.

I suppose it's a bit like owning a classic car, lovely and charming to own and ride but you wouldn't want it as your only bike. The benefit of modernising an older steel famed classic bike is that it could be your only bike.

 

[avecReynolds531]

The benefit of modernising an older steel famed classic bike is that it could be your only bike.

+1... particularly as a road bike set up well for a younger person, after many years, begins to cause a challenge regarding flexibility & getting older...(I reckon I don't need the handlebars to be 10 feet lower than the saddle anymore).

I also like the idea of having one less bike, or having a bike that is more versatile.

 

[Gunk]

I also like the idea of having one less bike, or having a bike that is more versatile.

I quite like the idea of one more bike!

 

[SkipdiverJohn]

a road bike set up well for a younger person, after many years, begins to cause a challenge regarding flexibility & getting older...(I reckon I don't need the handlebars to be 10 feet lower than the saddle anymore).

If you don't ride drop bar bikes with undersized frames, then achieving a comfortable bar height with a standard quill stem should not be a problem. On my 23 1/2" Raleigh Royal, which like all proper steel road frames has a horizontal top tube, the bar height is only about half an inch below the saddle, which is set fairly high as I've got long legs. i could ride a smaller frame with a long seatpost, but the set up would end up horrible with too short reach and bars too low even at the min insertion safety line.

 

[avecReynolds531]

I quite like the idea of one more bike!

Yes, a winning lottery ticket and a US style garage wouldn't be turned down! The N + 1 is a powerful draw.
More broadly, it's a fascinating subject: how many bikes a person needs, or wants? That's another thread discussion.... like this: https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/one-bike-only.230682/

If you don't ride drop bar bikes with undersized frames, then achieving a comfortable bar height with a standard quill stem should not be a problem. On my 23 1/2" Raleigh Royal, which like all proper steel road frames has a horizontal top tube, the bar height is only about half an inch below the saddle, which is set fairly high as I've got long legs. i could ride a smaller frame with a long seatpost, but the set up would end up horrible with too short reach and bars too low even at the min insertion safety line.

I'm a signed up member of the horizontal top tube club too, though I acknowledge Mike Burrows was radical & highly influential with his TCR design at Giant.
Michele Bartoli was considered to be of the first pros to promote the idea of riding a tiny frame, showing metres of seat post, with a handlebar stem position as low as possible. That's ok if you're a professional road racing cyclist with decent flexibility...
Back in the real world, it quickly became very popular with the bike shops & gullible* amateurs like me. Who, after a decent 90-95 miles out on a Sunday with a club, would end up hardly able to walk, like Champion in the brilliant Belleville Rendezvous (from 0.43 in the clip):
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=be_eolFDZTo


Ironically, it was the opposite fashion in the early eighties when we chose the biggest frame available and had the saddle set at the seat cluster

I like the adjustability of a quill stem - the bars can be set above, level or below the saddle. Gran Compe's XL or Nitto's Technomic offer extended range.

Either I start a lot of yoga/ pilates and try to continue to enjoy a wonderful racing bike (over 14 years ownership), or transfer the wheels & gears to the 531 (to be cold set to 130mm) which will realistically fit well into older age, and take 32mm tyres with mudguards...

*Kudos to the writer at Wikipedia for a fantastic definition: 'Gullibility is a failure of social intelligence in which a person is easily tricked or manipulated into an ill-advised course of action' - sounds like an exact description of how I was in that situation!

 

[Paulus]

Yes, a winning lottery ticket and a US style garage wouldn't be turned down! The N + 1 is a powerful draw.
More broadly, it's a fascinating subject: how many bikes a person needs, or wants? That's another thread discussion.... like this: https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/one-bike-only.230682/


I'm a signed up member of the horizontal top tube club too, though I acknowledge Mike Burrows was radical & highly influential with his TCR design at Giant.
Michele Bartoli was considered to be of the first pros to champion the idea of riding a tiny frame, showing metres of seat post, with a handlebar stem position as low as possible. That's ok if you're a professional road racing cyclist with decent flexibility...
Back in the real world, it was very popular & quickly taken on by shops & gullible* amateurs like me. Who, after a decent 90-95 miles out every Sunday with a club, would end up hardly able to walk, like Champion in the brilliant Belleville Rendezvous (from 0.43 in the clip):
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=be_eolFDZTo


Ironically, it was the exact opposite fashion in the early eighties when we got the biggest frame available and had the saddle set at the seat cluster.
I like the adjustability of the quill stem - the bars can be set above, level or below the saddle. Diacompe's XL or Nitto's Technomic offer extended range.

Either I can start a lot of yoga/ pilates and try to continue to enjoy a wonderful racing bike, or transfer the wheels & gears to the 531 (to be cold set to 130mm) which will realistically fit well into older age, and take 32mm tyres with mudguards...

*Kudos to the writer at Wikipedia for a fantastic definition: 'Gullibility is a failure of social intelligence in which a person is easily tricked or manipulated into an ill-advised course of action'

I, like you are a member of the horizontal cross bar, (when did they become top tubes?) I do own a compact frame bike, and it is very comfortable to ride. But my last purchase was a Columbus SLX framed traditional geometry bike from Condor, and I love riding it, and just looking at it.