At 5:37 PM -0400 5/19/02, GPVB1@cs.com wrote:
>Just for everyone's edification & grins, after my first post on this issue, I
>received one negative response (Brandon's), which interestingly was on-list.
It was a rebuttal to a post on the list and wasn't really just for Greg. Plus I don't like to take good debates off list. Greg just specifically listed in order many myths that folks have a tendency to use as justifications to like old bikes. I see to often on the list people poo-pooing anything new without having any real facts to back them up. I'm not trying to be "negative" think of it as constructive criticism.
Face it folks we love old bikes because they look good and hold a lot of history for us. Just like vintage collectors of cars, radios, and toasters it's about heart felt feelings associated with the object. It's not about qualitative performance. As myself and numerous others on the list have pointed the arguments of most people are apples to oranges, or more like apples to artichokes. When we hide behind myths of performance and construction we take away from the reality of style difference. I like old bikes because they look good, I'm not too proud to admit it. I like slacker angles, level top tubes, and subtler paint just to look at. I do also like the way classic steel bikes ride since they're a little more forgiving ride and and more stable at slower speeds. Mostly it's about the look. Again I'd also add that as a hobby historian the history of the bikes really interests me too.
Central Coast Calif.