Re: [CR]Period correct or rideability?

> Obviously, it depends on what you want from your old bike. My goal is
> to recreate the experience of the old days. To try and become a rider
> from the 1940s for a day.
>
> I feel that the experience of a bike is only complete when it is
> period correct. So while sometimes modern components might work
> better, they would spoil the experience. Yes, a Cambio Corsa bike
> doesn't shift as quickly as many others, but that is part of the fun.
>
> Period correctness, in my opinion, includes sizing of the bike,
> rider's clothing, etc. A few things, like tires, often are impossible
> to get correct. Fortunately, replicating the awful roads of the 1940s
> is rather easy these days in the U.S. - any potholed road around here
> will do!
>
> Most of all, I found that most bikes are very rideable even when
> period-correct. Despite what advertisements want to tell us,
> engineering was very well-developed as early as the 1930s. Ball
> bearings were as good as they are now. Various steels and aluminum
> alloys were available and used.
>
> Progress often is associated with changing demands on a machine. What
> I am trying to say is that where we see shortcomings of the old
> machines, it often is because we have different needs than the riders
> had back then. For example, brakes have become a lot better, because
> traffic density (and better car brakes) have made shorter stopping
> distances necessary. (Although the 1950s Mafac Racer, set up well, is
> more than adequate even in today's traffic.)
>
> Another example: as fixed gears fell from favor, riders lost the
> ability to ride at a great variety of cadences, so more gears and
> better shifting mechanisms became necessary. In the days of the
> Cambio Corsa, I doubt people shifted more than every 5 or 10 km. For
> short hills, they probably just powered up them like they did on
> their fixed gears only a few years previously.
>
> In this context, it is interesting to note that cyclotourists, who
> did not have the strength and training of racers, adopted gears much
> earlier. Thus the attitude of the racers for a long time that gears
> were for sissies... (to which the cyclotourists replied that their
> times up the tallest climbs were much faster than even the world
> champion's!)
>
> You could even argue that Campy cranks seem to have broken so often
> in the U.S. than in Europe, because here people use their racing
> bikes to run errands and commute. Europeans ride their city bike (or
> the bus/tramway/subway) to work, and keep their nice bike for the
> weekend. Starting from a standstill puts the greatest stresses on a
> bike, and it just doesn't happen that often in a race. (Plus, many
> American riders are/were heavier and less smooth than the average
> Italian racer.) (The same applies to horizontal dropouts - you rarely
> dislodge a wheel in a race, but it happens easily when starting from
> a light.)
>
> To conclude: I vote for period correct whenever practical. Does that
> mean that I'd spend $ 500 to get the correct logo shifters for my
> 1957 racer? No - that doesn't change the way the bike feels. If I
> could afford it, I might, but my family needs to eat!
>
> And I do wear a helmet, even on the oldest of bikes. It may look out
> of place, but once again, my family depends on me!
>
> Jan Heine, Seattle
>
> P.S.: Don't misunderstand the above: There certainly were faulty
> designs, as there are now. But most of the stuff worked at least
> adequately, otherwise people wouldn't have bought it. And most of us
> put less miles on our classics than they would have seen in their
> prime, so problems like breaking cranks and slipping shift levers are
> less pronounced.