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


Example: Production Builders:Frejus

From: "brianbaylis@juno.com" <brianbaylis@juno.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 00:13:19 GMT
To: paul@wilsondesigns.net
Subject: Re: [CR]Bicycles Are Meant to be Ridden, etc.
cc: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
cc: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org

Paul,

Obviously some of each is the best. I don't have anything that is in the class of too pristine or valuable to ride. I don't expect to end with s omething like that myself; mainly because much of what I have comes my w ay cheap on account of I can fix it myself and actually have something. I generally can't afford to compete for the really pristine stuff anyway . As long as I didn't end up with too many non-riders, I would be happy to just hang something up and enjoy it that way. But thus far, I have no thing like that. If I started in on wall hangers, it would also open up the possibility of owing a bike that isn't my size; which is frequently the best excuse to not lust after a particular item. It's really easy to say "since it isn't my size anyway, I'm not interested". We all use tha t one often enough I assume. Imagine what would happen if none of us car ed what size the bike was! Oh my!

Brian Baylis La Mesa, CA Until recently, small bikes my size were fairly easy to acquire. Now the re are a number of sophisticated small bike connoissuers.


-- "Dr. Paul J.Wilson" wrote:


Hi,

Gotta pitch in on this one. I can't see that one way or the other

should be wrong. "To each his own." For those who get pleasure out of riding their

bikes, then ride your bike. For those who get pleasure out of

admiring their bike hanging from its perch, then look at it often. Some may prefer a combination of riding some of their bikes and

looking at some. I can't see that's wrong either. Who has the right to dictate the philosophy on the format of enjoying

their prized possession?

Paul

At 8:08 AM -0700 8-28-07, Raymond Dobbins wrote:
>Daniel, I missed your earlier post, but I agree with what you say in
>this one. I have a 1979 Guerciotti show bike that has never been
>ridden. Why would I start riding it now, when I have several others
>that are already in the riding rotation? I like having a bike
>that's never been ridden and I want to keep it that way. Is that so
>wrong? :)
>
> We are a not so small a minority on this list as might seem from
>the lack of response to your earlier post. Perhaps its that this
>topic has been debated several times before and many of us don't get
>as excited about making our point anymore, like we did the first
>three or four times. But guaranteed there are many people on this
>list who have some bikes to ride and others to preserve and show.
>
> Ray Dobbins
> Miami FL USA
>
>Daniel Dahlquist <daniel.dahlquist@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello Group,
>A blacksmith-built boneshaker from the 1860's was meant to be ridden. I f I
>were lucky enough to find one of these at a price I could afford, I wou ld
>happily place it in my collection next to my other vintage bicycles. If
>someone were to refer to it as an "ornament," I would not take offense.
>Ornaments, like functioning objects, have a job to do. I would not ride
   the
>boneshaker (except, perhaps, in an occasional parade, and then only if it
>would cause no damage). I have lots of bicycles that I can ride.
>
>Now I am the fellow who quoted Keats on this list not so long ago (Beau ty is
>truth, truth beauty," etc.). I received one lone congratulations from a
>fellow member, so I am sure I am in the minority here. But it seems cle ar
>to me that there comes a time when a "utilitarian" object passes into
>history, and deserves to be preserved.
>
>Recently I lucked into a 1973 or 4 Fuji Newest on eBay. It was describe d
>as "near mint" condition by the auction house that was handling the sal e. I
>drove several hundred miles to pick up the bike myself to assure that i t
>would not be damaged in shipping. When I saw the bike, I could scarecel y
>believe my eyes. It had been purchased new some thirty-four years ago,
>ridden approximately fifty miles, then moved to a spare bedroom of a we ll
>heated house, where it spent the next few decades leaning against a wal l.
>The paint and chrome are nearly flawless. The bike came with the origin al
>unused Fuji tires (the owner used a second custom set of Campy wheels),
>owner's manual, the clamp-on Sugino water bottle cage and bottle (which ,
>thankfully, the owner had never attached to the bike!), warranty card, etc.
>(The only thing missing is the original sales receipt, and the son of t he
>original owner is looking through his Dad's papers for it now). Now I h ave
>at least ten or twelve vintage riders, all ready to go. Why in the worl d
>would I want to start putting wear and tear on this virtually pristine time
>machine? When I am dead and the next guy gets the Fuji, the decision to
>ride or preserve will be up to him.
>
>At some point every object passes into history. We can debate at what p oint
>each of our individual bicyles reaches this point. The desire to preser ve
>is not a loftier, or "better" impulse than the one to get on the bike a nd
>ride. It is a different impulse. Preservation and the joy of riding a
>vintage bicyle are not mutually exclusive, and I suspect most on this l ist
>fall somewhere on the continuum.
>
>Daniel Dahlquist
>Galena, Illinois