Re: [CR]Bicycles Are Meant to be Ridden, etc.


Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 12:16:58 +0000 (GMT)
From: gholl@optonline.net
Subject: Re: [CR]Bicycles Are Meant to be Ridden, etc.
In-reply-to: <496976.62380.qm@web60416.mail.yahoo.com>
To: Raymond Dobbins <raydobbins2003@yahoo.com>
References: <a68df3270708280604r2f93586bn439022962b2b4d4e@mail.gmail.com>
cc: Classic Rendezvous <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>

Most bikes are meant to be ridden while some are not. "Show Bikes" and presentation bikes, among others, are best exhibited as they represent the quintessence of workmanship of the maker. This type of bike should be persevered intact at all costs. Other bikes are meant to be raced, used as basic transportation, work horses, etc. Bikes that time and chance hasn't treated well can be restored, while yet others meet another fate-to be chopped-up, sold for their parts, etc. The uses and fates of bikes are as diverse as those of their owners. George Hollenberg MD Westport, CT, USA


----- Original Message -----
From: Raymond Dobbins
Date: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 11:09 am
Subject: Re: [CR]Bicycles Are Meant to be Ridden, etc.
To: Classic Rendezvous Bike List , Daniel Dahlquist


> Daniel, I missed your earlier post, but I agree with what you

\r?\n> say in this one. I have a 1979 Guerciotti show bike that has

\r?\n> never been ridden. Why would I start riding it now, when I have

\r?\n> several others that are already in the riding rotation? I like

\r?\n> having a bike that's never been ridden and I want to keep it

\r?\n> that way. Is that so wrong? :)

\r?\n>

\r?\n> We are a not so small a minority on this list as might seem

\r?\n> from the lack of response to your earlier post. Perhaps its

\r?\n> that this topic has been debated several times before and many

\r?\n> of us don't get as excited about making our point anymore, like

\r?\n> we did the first three or four times. But guaranteed there are

\r?\n> many people on this list who have some bikes to ride and others

\r?\n> to preserve and show.

\r?\n>

\r?\n> Ray Dobbins

\r?\n> Miami FL USA

\r?\n>

\r?\n> Daniel Dahlquist wrote:

\r?\n> Hello Group,

\r?\n> A blacksmith-built boneshaker from the 1860's was meant to be

\r?\n> ridden. If I

\r?\n> were lucky enough to find one of these at a price I could

\r?\n> afford, I would

\r?\n> happily place it in my collection next to my other vintage

\r?\n> bicycles. If

\r?\n> someone were to refer to it as an "ornament," I would not take

\r?\n> offense.Ornaments, like functioning objects, have a job to do. I

\r?\n> would not ride the

\r?\n> boneshaker (except, perhaps, in an occasional parade, and then

\r?\n> only if it

\r?\n> would cause no damage). I have lots of bicycles that I can ride.

\r?\n>

\r?\n> Now I am the fellow who quoted Keats on this list not so long

\r?\n> ago (Beauty is

\r?\n> truth, truth beauty," etc.). I received one lone congratulations

\r?\n> from a

\r?\n> fellow member, so I am sure I am in the minority here. But it

\r?\n> seems clear

\r?\n> to me that there comes a time when a "utilitarian" object passes into

\r?\n> history, and deserves to be preserved.

\r?\n>

\r?\n> Recently I lucked into a 1973 or 4 Fuji Newest on eBay. It was

\r?\n> describedas "near mint" condition by the auction house that was

\r?\n> handling the sale. I

\r?\n> drove several hundred miles to pick up the bike myself to assure

\r?\n> that it

\r?\n> would not be damaged in shipping. When I saw the bike, I could

\r?\n> scarecelybelieve my eyes. It had been purchased new some thirty-

\r?\n> four years ago,

\r?\n> ridden approximately fifty miles, then moved to a spare bedroom

\r?\n> of a well

\r?\n> heated house, where it spent the next few decades leaning

\r?\n> against a wall.

\r?\n> The paint and chrome are nearly flawless. The bike came with the

\r?\n> originalunused Fuji tires (the owner used a second custom set of

\r?\n> Campy wheels),

\r?\n> owner's manual, the clamp-on Sugino water bottle cage and bottle

\r?\n> (which,thankfully, the owner had never attached to the bike!),

\r?\n> warranty card, etc.

\r?\n> (The only thing missing is the original sales receipt, and the

\r?\n> son of the

\r?\n> original owner is looking through his Dad's papers for it now).

\r?\n> Now I have

\r?\n> at least ten or twelve vintage riders, all ready to go. Why in

\r?\n> the world

\r?\n> would I want to start putting wear and tear on this virtually

\r?\n> pristine time

\r?\n> machine? When I am dead and the next guy gets the Fuji, the

\r?\n> decision to

\r?\n> ride or preserve will be up to him.

\r?\n>

\r?\n> At some point every object passes into history. We can debate at

\r?\n> what point

\r?\n> each of our individual bicyles reaches this point. The desire to

\r?\n> preserveis not a loftier, or "better" impulse than the one to

\r?\n> get on the bike and

\r?\n> ride. It is a different impulse. Preservation and the joy of

\r?\n> riding a

\r?\n> vintage bicyle are not mutually exclusive, and I suspect most on

\r?\n> this list

\r?\n> fall somewhere on the continuum.

\r?\n>

\r?\n> Daniel Dahlquist

\r?\n> Galena, Illinois