RE: [CR]restoration question


Example: Production Builders:Peugeot

From: "kohl57@starpower.net" <kohl57@starpower.net>
To: chuck1sd@cox.net, classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
Subject: RE: [CR]restoration question
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 17:25:50 -0400


Original Message: ----------------- From: chuck1sd@cox.net Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 16:45:10 -0400 To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org Subject: [CR]"restoration question"

"I know I will be openng up a can of worms with this one, so here goes! What is everyones opinion on restorations with reguard to components? Do you feel that a vintage bike should be restored with the components it came from the factory with(as a complete bike), or is it justifiable to restore a bike with period correct components which may be upgrades that a person would do if they had only bought the frame and built it."

For me, always as per factory "spec" assuming you collect bikes sold as complete machines rather than a frame. Why? Because it gives you, as the rider, more than a collector (and how boring can it be to collect a bike and never ride it?) the intended "experience" by the original makers and designers of their day. It also prevents one from making a particular bike something it was not intended to be. Like putting dropped handlebars on a rare Raleigh 1975 Super Tourer. Or clincher rims on a PX-10e. It's also a lot easier to take a catalogue list of specs and follow them rather than agonise over what's period and suitable. Then again, specs changed all the time especially in the '70s. And could be vague... Raleigh spec'd something called a "Sprint Alloy" rim for the Professional in the mid '70s... what was that? And confusing.. when you get a bike you KNOW is 100 per cent original and none of it really jibes with the specs. But then again no one said this was easy, just fun and fascinating.

Peter Kohler Washington, DC USA

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .