Looks like my esteemed colleague Chuck Brooks and I have a slight
difference of opinion, which may make things interesting on some
>In a message dated 6/2/03 7:58:21 PM, email@example.com writes:
><< The newer stuff just works too well to be challenging. :-) >>
>My goodness!!! Does it really come down to this? Are CR'ers just "Two Wheel
>Chuck responded: Remember (we have had this discussion numerous times over the years) we seem
>to agree that bicycles are "functional art."
>I suggest that rigid definitions of "classic" will (cannot?) not endure with
>a functional aspect entertained with "art."
> Let me pick up the thread, with something that Ann Phillips and I have been chatting on-line about: Pioneers and Farmers. Exploring vs. the structure of an annual cycle. I've been "fiddling with" and working on bikes since I was about 12, in the late 50s. Taking apart, putting together, "tuning," and (as Wayne Bingham observed) "hot-rodding" (everything except engine). I used the term masochism as self-mocking, but I think it is true that there wasa bit of a watershed in the 80s. I used to say that the sports of track and bike racing were fundamentally different, since bike racing needed an understanding of the machine as well as the self. I honestly believe that the newer stuff needs less of the "ear" and "feel" that we developed in the 60s and 70s, or later for that equipment. Yes, I have a couple of bikes with indexing (one even with Sachs-no-relation-either integrated levers), and I commute almost daily on a more modern bike that doesn't mind tender loving neglect. I generally ride with clipless pedals. But I do vintage bikes out of passion and love for them, the memories, and the people. They do require more care-and-feeding, but that is part of what I love about them. Cinelli, ASC, pre-war Paramount, all have magic to the eye, the hand, and the feeling of being-with while riding.