Salamandrine 

I don't really have rules, but mostly I don't see the point. I've been riding long enough to know that vintage parts worked just fine BITD, and they still do. Part of the reason I got into cycling is that I enjoyed bikes as little works of industrial sculpture. To my eyes, putting a bunch of modern parts on say a 70s racing bike just looks bad. The presumption by many people seems to be that modern parts are better, but really they are not going to make you faster, realistically. It seems to me that mostly it is a matter of making old bikes more familiar to people who have become accustomed to brifters and index shifting.

If I want to ride a modern bike, I'll ride a modern bike.

That said, I'm not religious about it. For a practical rider, switching in clipless pedals is very reasonable, mostly because you can no longer buy old school cycling shoes that were made for toe clips and straps. Frankly, they used to bother me BITD. I don't really need to relive straps cutting into my feet, literally, on hard steep climbs. For that matter I don't have any great urge to relive doing Eroica type rides, been there and did that for real on friction shift old steel and sewups.

Other components I look at on a case by case basis. Sometimes, if you start from a bare frame, it just doesn't make sense economically to put the "correct" parts back on. In this case, I'd rather put modern retro parts on there, but if someone else prefers to put a full modern group on there, nothing really wrong with that, especially if it encourages them ride the bike more. What I don't like is when people take off the vintage parts and replace them with modern, to ostensibly upgrade the bike.

It sort of depends on the era as well. I'm not really that enamored with any post Tullio Campy, and it doesn't bother me one iota to see racing bikes from the late 80s onward modernized.

TenGrainBread 

Still one of my favorite builds on the forum.

As I plan my '73 Sports Tourer build, that one is in my mind.

For me, modern components that are ok are consumables and comfort items. For example, I've taken to using high-end MTB platform pedals on my vintage builds, even road bikes. They perform great, are light, and let me wear whatever shoes I want. Same goes for wider handlebars, wide-hooded brake levers, etc...

I'm pretty strict about the aesthetics, but I'm not tied down to any specific rules. "I know it when I see it" is basically how it goes.

I'm less strict when it comes to mixing and matching older parts of differing eras. For example, I think putting an early 90s long cage MTB derailleur on a 70s road bike to get a wider gear range is pretty cool. I also like things like putting older French cyclotourist cranksets (TA, Stronglight) onto newer, or even fully modern bikes, provided they are steel and make a good match. Again, I know it when I see it.

There are also a lot of modern parts that are not ugly. For example, any part from Phil, Paul, White Industries, CK, Bullseye, some of the retro stuff from Profile, are really cool and fit well with vintage bikes.

Salamandrine 

Another point that's often overlooked: at least WRT road race bikes, real race bikes were typically frankenbikes. So it's kind of funny to me to hear when people complain that a bike doesn't have the original rims or something. It was pretty common to buy a stack of rims at the start of the year to last you through. Parts got crashed out and replaced also. At least in juniors, most people didn't have a rich/generous parent buying them a new DeRosa, so you scrounged bikes together from whatever you could.

rhm

Yup, that's pretty much it. And that rules out most parts that aren't the natural color of the metal they're made out of.

gugie 

My rule is simple. If modern technology is significantly better than vintage, I use it. My favorite "modern" technology is cassettes replacing freewheels and wider dropout spacing. It essentially eliminates broken rear axles (I broke at least 2 with frewheels) and enabled more cogs in the back, as well as cogs down to 11 teeth. This enabled compact doubles with wide range gearing without the need for a triple up front. No triple, fewer chain alignment issues, better, faster shifting for the most part.

Index shifting is marginally better than friction, but the complexities of keeping it adjusted outweigh it for me. That and I grew up with friction shifting, so it's not worth the extra cost and complication.

gugie 

+1

BITD, if you bought a production bike and kept it OEM, you probably weren't riding much. All of the fully OEM bikes people find are almost always garage queens - bought, ridden a few times, and put away.

jamesdak 

Hmmmm......that has not been the case in my book. Quite a few of the vintage bikes I've gotten still have their OEM setup but the parts are heavily worn. I wish I could find more hanger (garage) queens.

crank_addict

No rules with this guy.

My latest in the planning stage is:

I have an Italian frame made in the 1980s but the company has been around since the 1920s. Its going to get NEW wood rims, and NEW shift mechanism that replicates something from the 1940s. Cheers-

gugie 

I think that's dependent on the period and the parts. When gruppos became the norm, this happened less often. French and English bikes were often spec'ed by cost and price point. Here's my example (posted many times before):

kevincgove

I didn't buy the bike way back when to be a C&V museum piece. And over the last 30 years it has been upgraded several times. Most if not all of the component upgrades have increased performance, my comfort and enjoyment.

obrentharris 

I don't limit myself with any hard and fast rules. My whims are my guides. Some bikes I stay pretty close to period correct. Others I veer off into more peculiar territory.

Example: A few years back I got the notion to put together a bike that would be at home on pavement and on dirt roads and some mild singletrack. I didn't want to spend a lot of money on it because I wasn't sure I'd even enjoy that kind of riding. Without buying a lot of components I put together this bike mostly with parts on hand.

The result was an unqualified success in my mind; But what a hodge-podge of parts! A forty-year-old Motobecane frame cold set to 130mm, TA cranks, Campy Chorus 10-speed shifters, Shimano XT rear derailleur and 8-speed Shimano casette, Shimano Ultegra hubs, Velo Orange rims, SPD pedals, and a Brooks saddle.



Brent

The Golden Boy 

Whoa!

T-Mar

My only criteria for updating is whether it has the potential to make the bicycle more enjoyable. Depending on the bicycle, that may relate to speed, comfort, weight, durability, maintenance, etc. Sometimes things don't work out as planned and it's a step backwards, in which case the bicycle reverts to its previous incarnation.

squirtdad

no hard and fast rule..... try to keep the bike looking as good as possible, but depending on bike will go modern for function, even if the form is not quite as elegant, so I did my de rosa with 105 5800..... I think the black makes it work even if the crankset is not classically pretty.

I am in the middle of building a team miyata as original in intent and look if not 100% original, as an eroica qualifying bike....so Dura Aace, but not trying to find the exact rare (non AX durace from 84) parts. The look will be similar when done... hopefully in a week or so

Here is the de rosa it is an every day rider (commute, weekends etc) and will use the miyata that way also just to switch it up

The Golden Boy 

My "rules" float around to suit my needs and desires and budgets. And my idea of what a good build and even the basic question of 'what is pretty' is has changed and evolved.

I think of when I first started getting into this hobby- I wasn't "purist" old vintage-y stuff- but I was in that direction- I remember being shocked and disturbed that people were replacing perfectly good components in excellent condition and putting on "modern" stuff (and the concept of "modern" was different too). I'm almost 50, but wasn't into bikes in the 70s 80s or 90s. But somewhat level top tubed, thin tubed bikes look graceful and "right" to me. I never got into Campagnolo or "racing" or racing stuff... I had my 87 Schwinn High Sierra- and a lot of what that bike is became "cool" to me- and I eventually figured out that a lot of those elements are what old flagship level touring bikes are.

I got my Trek 620 around the same week forum member robatsu (Fuji Otaku) got his- he did a blog of his build. I remember thinking how absolutely cool his (and MY) bikes were- I didn't understand him changing anything- and I sure as hell didn't understand him adding modern parts. I didn't understand it at all. I remember PMing him and sending him links to old parts that I thought were cool- and he was totally patient with me- 'that's not what I'm going for...' It took several years to sink in what he was doing... and now I find myself doing the same thing. When I initially was putting my 620 together, the way I thought of it is I kind of how someone in 1993 might upgrade that bike...


1985 Trek 620 by Dave The Golden Boy, on Flickr



This bicycle thing is a hobby- I rarely commute anymore. I do make grocery store and gas station runs. This past year I had some health issues that make long distance riding a little sketchy. Riding is strictly fun. No pain, no pain. I get obsessed about different components... Comparing and contrasting components is dorky fun. It also snobs you up. My builds revolve around what I think is cool and pretty- function plays a part- but really, I'm a guy who doesn't really care about riding a 28 pound bike- will the grams saved from an XT derailleur make a difference over a Z series derailleur? No- but XT and XTR look so much cooler. Life's too short for ****ty bicycles. Not that "lower end" pieces aren't great, perfectly functional and even perfect for what you need- I like the cachet of top shelf, really pretty parts.

I guess the importantest thing is things have to match- even if it's just a match in my head. My first build was my 1986 Trek 400 Elance (2nd from entry level Trek). I think I wanted to build the bike around slotted Superbe brake levers and 6400 series tri-color brakes. Someone made mention that the front dual pivot brakes were 6 or so years newer than the frame... but to me, they BELONGED together.


1986 Trek 400 Elance by Dave The Golden Boy, on Flickr



Necessity is also plays a part. In the case of the Trek 400- the Superbe levers wouldn't work with the 6400 calipers (SLR). So I had to get different levers. Additionally, I seriously was basing the entire build around a style of brakes- when the brakes wouldn't reach 700c wheels, I changed the build to 27" wheels. When I rebuilt my Trek 720, I had the worst time getting the Dura Ace 7803 front derailleur to work. It just rubbed on the chain and didn't pick it up. I tried several different derailleurs, all Suntour and I had one Z series Shimano FD. I was sort of OK with using a Cyclone MII and then I was OK with using the Z206- but that's not what I wanted... eventually I got a hella deal on a 7700 double derailleur and it worked PERFECTLY on the triple- I didn't expect that.


IMG_0616 by Dave The Golden Boy, on Flickr


I'm planning a re-rebuild of the 620 this winter. I've got most of the parts put together for it- and I think it's going to be pretty dominant...


620 Build Group by Dave The Golden Boy, on Flickr


620 Build Derailleurs by Dave The Golden Boy, on Flickr

jamesdak 

I don't have any rules I just go with my whims for that bike. Most important to me is functionality since I ride them all and do like going as fast as my legs can take me. I guess for me it's about making each bike as "fun" as I can although "fun"" may mean something different according to each bike.

The Opus stays pretty much original since it's so beautiful. Any changes were to correct an issue. Didn't get the original saddle and the one that came with it didn't like my butt. So new saddle. Then I put leather tape over the original cloth tape since the cloth tape was showing wear. Finally just my normal Keo pedals which work better for me then the original ones. Replacement hoods since the originals died.




This Giordana is sporting a full and beautiful NOS Dura Ace setup, looks perfect and rides great so it stays true to form




On the other end of the spectrum I have nothing against going full modern parts on a bike. The De Rosa is running a brand new Chorus 11 speed setup and modern wheels. Yeah, baby!




Same thing with the 87 Schwinn, brand new Athena 11 speed and Zonda wheels, this is one fun, fast ride!




Then there's the Giordana Antares where I took some liberties with replacement decals. The paint and Dura Ace parts were in great shape but the decals were dry and flaking off. So I got a new set of decals printed up in stock format but with a custom Magenta color that matched the fork ends. Then I added more pink to tie it together. I also left off the decals on the seat tube since I liked the look better without them.




So as you can see, I don't follow any set rules. I do what I want to make the bike more enjoyable to me.

The next two projects I'm considering are my Davidson Impulse and the funky Ribble badged Eddy Martelly bike I scored in the fall. Right now I'm thinking one bike will get a brand new Ultegra R8000 groupset and the other will get a nice Campagnolo Record Titanium 10 speed groupset I have. I just traded the to small for me Bob Jackson for a set up nice Campagnolo Eurus wheels that will be matched with the Record groupset. Now if I could just decide how I want to do these....





So black or black/silver?



I'm leaning towards the R8000 on this, I think all the black would be so cool on it.


Yep, no set rules for me.

jlaw

For me it's function over form. I'm only on my second C&V project but I know myself.

Threadless stem adapters, 130mm rear hubs with 10 speed cassettes, modern dual pivot brakes, 650b wheels on bikes that had 27" originals, unusual handlebars, modern cranks/derailleurs with low gearing, aero levers (but not brifters), maybe even Gevenalle shifters!, etc. Bring it on if it is a comfortable/functional/fun component. However, if an original component works I'll keep it - but modern stuff is simply better most of the time.

I think that modern components on a good vintage steel frame/fork - that fits me well - is the best of both worlds!

RiddleOfSteel

If anything, upgraded componentry allows the frameset's character to be most fully revealed. A good saddle, competent components (aka good gearing, fast and accurate shifting, strong brakes, no anchor weight wheels and tires), and a dialed-in fit help focus me/someone on what the frame is telling me about itself. Some frames can shout who they are through most any setup--this would be my Masi Nuova Strada and Trek 710/716--and others appreciate the help that good pieces bring to the table. From that communication I can build the best bike out of a frame. My Masi is for all intents and purposes, frozen with regard to development. Color, saddle type, gearing, wheelset, tires, brake levers, all of it--she is in her most ideal form and function, and I'm more than satisfied.

Jeff Wills

In reference to my Green Superior:

Thank you!
A neat frankensetup for your Sports Tourer would be early-mid '80's touring setup- either Sugino/SunTour or Shimano 600. I would stay away from the Shimano long-cage derailleurs with the "Hatch-Plate" device, though- mine never shifted the chain correctly and I ended up going back to a SunTour VGT.

However, if I find a 1977 Flamingo Superior in my size... I'm going to do my best to keep it original. One showed up recently (in this thread) but I lost out to a buyer closer to the seller. Shucks!

63rickert

When the attraction of a bike is that it is old, making it half new only takes away.

Every era had good, competent, reliable parts available. The ancients were not riding POS bikes. When I was a kid starting out the old guys on the ride were using bikes they had raced in the 1930s. They were all good bikes.

randyjawa 

When restoring a vintage road bicycle, I always seek to return it to as original as I can. That said, I have rarely achieved a perfect restoration but this 1969 Atala Professional comes close...


As does my PX10...

shuru421

Ergo shifters, ergo, more modern. Cant deny the efficiency of shifting without having to reach towards your downtube.

Salamandrine 

Just to play devil's advocate: if you aren't already on your hoods, you're reaching for your shifters with brifters too...

I question this notion that one needs to reach down to get to DT shifters. Certainly I don't need to move my back position. My hand just moves over a few inches. I suppose it depends on your starting position. Mine isn't particularly aggressive at this point, but it still doesn't require reaching down.

Mapearso

Silver, not black

Crankset needs to look period. So no new asymmetrical stuff, and definitely no 4 spoke new Campy stuff

Wheels need to look period. So no new asymmetrical spoke patterns on bladed spokes or awful decals

I guess everything else is fair game...

Milpool

I'm doing my retro-apprenticeship on a re-badged Miyata 910 with all Shimano 600 gear, so getting used to the downtube shifters. I have to rack up a lot more miles to say I've given it a good crack but I think I will leave it relatively as is. Eventually when that 'right' frame pops up I want to build a steel frame bike with modern parts, some of the bike in the resto-mod thread are absolutely beautiful.

What would you guys say is more cost effective on a middle rung level steel bike, restore or modernise? Seems like stuff like 105 groups are more available, therefore cheaper than restoring to original. Obviously not talking about any top of the range parts new or old though.