wxflyer

I like the way they ride, the responsiveness and "feel" of steel. And I loved the way they looked back in my youth, which also holds true today in my "experienced" years. Oh, and usually they're cheaper than new bikes that lose their value the day you ride them out the LBS door.

calamarichris

Two words: Steampunk girls.



If I could find a bronze boneshaker, I'd probably get it.

Flying Merkel

Yabba-dabba-doo-me. They're probably fake but definitely cute. And I'm not talking about the stockings.

I got into vintage bikes because of flipping bikes. I'd ride them ones that fit around a bit, then sell. Bike-boom 10 speeds are a weakness of mine. They're great buys & fit my casual riding style. My permanent collection include a Univega Super Strada, bought new in 85. Full Dura-Ace AX, it's still a gorgeous & classy ride. Also have a '64 Varsity turned 26" coaster-braked beach cruiser, a Schwinn home brewed hybrid from the early 80's, and a 1982 Univega Gran Turismo- my personal favorite. Except for the Super Strada all were bought off Craigslist for $25-$40. Unbeatable value.

1tuffsr5

I don't know if my newly acquired '91 RB-T is a classic going by some of the years in this thread, but it's something that as a 12 year old I drooled over and now as a 32 year old finally own. The way it looks, rides and brings back good memories is something you can't buy.

jimmuller 

As a 12 year old I would have drooled over a steampunk girl (if I'd known about any) but at 63 I still don't know any, let alone own one. (Not that I'd actually own someone, steampunk or not...)

calamarichris

Glad you didn't own that stock during that particular crash. Girls who get into the habit of wearing constrictive corsets don't hold their value as well as everyone else. The boys who do too, probably.

look171

I only like a certain ones from a certain time period. That's the period of my youth doing all the local club rides and racing. You knew everyone who go fast but for the most part, you knew them by their bikes. "You know that dude that never takes a pull, blond hair, mid 30s, and rides a red Rossin on the Wed. ride?" We know exactly who it is. I now like looking at these bikes more then anything else. In terms of riding, I grab my carbon bike or alum Torelli all the time. those Gios and Mottas will always have a place in my heart. Like most here, it was something I really wanted but could only afford one back then.

calamarichris

"Whatever kinda music was popular and playing on the radio when you lost your virginity--that's it; it's locked in as your favorite kinda music for the rest of your life." -Chris Rock (paraphrased clumsily)

gl1000honda3

I like riding vintage because I can....and because I love the look of an older Raleigh or Pug...thin, svelt, beautiful alloy and minimal graphics...I own seven bicycles all types and all vintages...The older 70's stuff just makes me smile when I ride them. Brings me back to a time when life stood still, just for a moment. That's why I ride vintage...Take care Ride Safe

Stan Heinricher

Yes, I enjoy riding my 1978 Serotta road bike, which is outfitted with a combination of old components + new that look old, like a Nitto bar & stem.
Although I'm not into racing anymore, I am curious about the carbon vs steel question "How much faster is a carbon road bike than the old steel frames?"
Salesmen at bike stores assure me that carbon is very advantageous when it comes to speed. Of course, he wants me to buy a new carbon bike.
I'm looking for feedback from old riders like me who have ridden both kinds of frames.

iab

Your question is irrelevant. Salespeople want to sell.

iab

8 years later, answer hasn't changed.

clubman 

Since you're not into racing anymore, it's no faster, at all. There's a lot of pride and prestige in vintage bike, both owning and riding them. I sometimes spit up a little when I see the price of modern bikes. It's a joke. Bikes happen to be one of the most utilitarian inventions and choosing to ride a single speed roadster, a 3 speed Raleigh or any generation of old road bike is both satisfying and honourable in my eyes.
Let alone how much fun it is.

Fahrenheit531 

I recently picked up a 2008 Trek Madone (with a pricey upgraded wheelset) to see what the big deal was. My vintage rides are ~23lbs, the Trek was almost exactly 16lbs, which is a pretty substantial difference. I absolutely covered the same routes more quickly on the modern bike. I also experienced vastly diminished enjoyment -- it was a soulless, uninteresting machine -- and I sold it a few months after acquisition, curiosity satisfied.

randyjawa 

In truth, I don't like riding my vintage bikes as much as I like riding my Marinoni...


But I don't like my Marinoni nearly as much as I like my vintage bikes...

justcynn

rode a 1986 schwinn world as a 12 yo kid, rode it all over the countryside. that bike was freedom! Did bike build quality actually improve after about 1989? Aluminum then Carbon frames, more expensive- but were./are they actually better? sure the group sets maybe got better, but overall - I like the 80's steel bikes better than anything I could go buy today at the LBS and for a lot less money, even the really "nice" ones. Also I'm a bigger guy, 260 lbs - I trust the steel a lot more than some of the super lightweight models out there

Kilroy1988 

Sometimes I'm quite sure I don't actually like riding vintage bicycles simply because they're vintage... I love the ride quality of the vintage bicycles of my choosing, but would much prefer to own a brand new bicycle with similar qualities, which I could ride without the hassle of tired springs and old bearings and weak spokes and fatigued alloys, etc... But I typically can't afford a brand new bicycle that mimics the qualities I enjoy most, so I stick with the classic steel and put up with the extra care and maintenance.

History is in the past and you cannot bring it back. It's very likely that the classic lightweights I enjoy riding most felt more like the brand new steel bicycle that I yearn for to the men who rode them 60 years ago, compared to any remaining resemblance between the bicycle's former glory and current state.

-Gregory

merziac

Tell him you'll buy the wondercrap carbon if he gives you full inflation adjusted collector value for the Serotta.

Kilroy1988 

I'll chime in along the same lines as a couple of previous replies... My modern bikes were absolutely beasts out of the saddle compared to any of my vintage steel, which typically feels like riding limp noodles compared to modern carbon frames with their hugely reinforced down tubes, bottom brackets and chain stays. If speed is what you're going for then you can trust that well-equipped carbon frames are going to put much more of your power directly to the road than vintage steel. But if you're after an enjoyable ride, that's totally subjective... And I always lean towards the steel!

-Gregory

merziac

Really don't think there's a question here.

BFisher

No interest in carbon fiber. No interest in electronic anything. The bikes I have all work great. Biggest limitation is the engine, and I gave up motorcycling years ago.

The truth is that for the vast majority of potential users, the bicycle has been as close to perfected as possible for a very long time, and more than enough have already been made. It was said that sellers want to sell, and that's the name of the game. I don't really play that game.

Plus, I'm cheap. I can take a piece of junk out of the garbage and turn it into something that not only rides great, but gets noticed and complimented by complete strangers.

I smile - they smile. Everybody smiles.

iab

If you want to troll the 41, start a thread asking for evidence that stiffer is faster. And for the sake of argument, let's say a new carbon bike is faster. By how much? 10 minutes over a 3 hour ride? An average of 1mph faster? Things only noticeable to a clock, not a human. So again, why is this relevant?

mackgoo

Do you think some guy in Taiwan proudly holds up every frame he makes with a grin from ear to ear?

Kilroy1988 

Well, back when I used to ride 300-400 miles a week when I went out for a long ride on my Raleigh Super Course I could average about 18-20mph, while on my Trek Madone I could do 22-25mph. It seemed pretty relevant then, and even more so when I threw some climbing or sprint intervals into the mix. I could keep the Madone rolling at 35-38mph for a few hundred yards while I'd be lucky to ever get the Raleigh up to that sort of speed. Top end gearing was very similar so that certainly wasn't the issue - but seeing the tall 531 frame noticeably flexing in either direction under heavy wattage probably contributed something to the difference!

I could ride that Super Course forever. Did several rides over a hundred miles and never felt uncomfortable. But I could ride that Madone for 50 miles at 25mph, and such a feat was and has remained impossible for me to do with any vintage steel bike I've owned. For me, it was very noticeable.

However, I've also had quicker vintage steel bikes than that Super Course, and the gap would be much closer indeed between them and the few totally modern road bikes I've owned, though I have to say that for maintaining sheer speed over time I've still not come close to that Madone... Every bit of its design, down the integrated seat post and OS internal BB, to the rock solid Ultegra group set, were probably contributing factors in that case.

-Gregory

Yelbom15

This is gorgeous.