Classtime 

‘57 before support is provided on TDF and I could look cool with tubulars over my shoulders.

bikingshearer 

I'd think pretty hard and then choose the '57 because because of the 1950s version of "racing geometry," so it has longer chain stays, longer wheelbase and slightly slacker angles than the shorter, more upright geometry of the 1970s. It would probably be a flatland-only bike; there is no way a Campy Gran Sport derailleurs and a Magistroni crank will give me the kind of gearing I need to get my carcass up the hills around here, but it would cool as hell for shortish rides to a coffee shop. If ithe Universal Extra brakes are the center-pulls that are similar t the later 61s, they would be okay. If they were the sidepulls (and therefore Univerrsal 51sm which will stop you in a week and a half), I would find a way to make Mafacs fit on it instead, which might be a challenge thanks to that weird Italian fixation of the period with short-reach front brakes and long-reach rear brakes.

I'll be interested to see why iab is asking.

bikingshearer 

I just checked the Kennedy Bros. 1977 TdF book (great photos, impenetrable writing, like most of the Kennedy Bros offerings of the era). Thevenet's bike had MAFAC 2000 brakes, basically Competitions with wheel guides and a smoother gold-anodized finish.

Here's a set of 2000s.


And here's a set of Competitions. (Ignore the arrow; that was for a several year old question that has long since been answered.)

RustyJames 

‘57 all day. A ‘77 would ride like a nice bike but the ‘57 would be a unique experience unlike what you would get in a more modern bike.

I’m basically in-line with obrentharris

merziac

The 2000's are far nicer than the Comps, the arms are thicker, rounded, stronger, with a more refined finish.

These in silver were my first brake upgrade purchase, very nice and fantastic performance.

Millstone

'57 because older hence more special.

I mean, if you are going to spend that much, make it something really unique. I doubt that there are a lot of good bikes left from that era.
1977 is still doable.

Provided that you know what you are getting into I guess (I think you do).
Maintenance might be more difficult for the older bike? I dont know. Something to consider perhaps.

So 1957! And we need pictures somewhere along in this thread.

CliffordK

For me it is a tossup. The answer would depend on one's goals.

I'd likely choose the '77 as a bike that I could just hop on and ride.

Yet, there is also some attraction to the older more rare vintage frames.

smontanaro 

1957. Much less pedestrian build. And I already have a bike with first gen SR bits.

smd4

'77 for me. Better geometry and probably better tubing.

USAZorro

1957.

1. Much rarer
2. Magistroni cranks are art
3. I already have 16 examples of 1970s bicycles. I have one that I think is from 1950s.
4. I prefer riding a slightly more relaxed geometry

gugie 

57.

Geometry is more suited for a 650b conversion.

Kabuki12

I would be humble enough to have either, but if I COULD choose, it would be the 1957 for historical value....and coolness. I have a few bikes from the seventies that are racy enough for that sort of riding. The '57 would give a different riding experience, even though I prefer a tighter geometry. Something about riding around on a bike with that kind of history knowing that this was as good as it got in 1957. When I had my 1957 Porsche , any decent Honda car could leave me in the dust , but the cool factor was off the charts!

SurferRosa

Based on two replies to my posts in the "Vintage vs Modern Video" thread posted right before this one, I'm guessing he expected a far more lopsided vote:

​​​​​​​

iab

Since SurferRosa was entirely a tool, I bet you stood in line telling everyone Darth Vader is Luke's father, I'll come clean.

C&V frequently gets a, let's bash modern stuff, thread. No need for clicky-e-gears, batteries suck, real men take their hands off the bars, steel is real, and so on. My hypnosis is people are comfortable with the tech they know. So while 1977 tech is fully known by C&V because that was their youth, hell yes, they would ride that bike. Go back 20 years, that stuff isn't well known and less desirable. Poll results confirm and while the written replies skew 1957, it seems those would have the 57 as a wall hanger than a ridden bike like the 77. So for me, it is no surprise why most regular people don't drink the C&V Kool-Aid, and neither do the people of C&V.

So new question, why is the 57 a wall hanger and the 77 a rider?

merziac

No real disagreement, but you are an outlier here IMO, a good thing to be sure.

Very few here are even remotely adept, let alone good enough at this to have a 57 that could be a regular rider as you.

I'm too lazy and fussy to wrangle such a thing when i can hardly keep myself motivated to ride my daily driver that is set up and ready to go all the time.

I do lament my 58 Paramount sitting all the time just to look at and have many others as well.

the one thing they still do is keep my juices flowing so that I try to keep up and track mentally.

I have a early 60's SC frame that I have entertained building up semi modern for a rider but like the Paramount it is a bit small so....

Too lazy, too many excuses and not enough easy motivation.

Still pick the 57 all day long and yes would tell myself I would try to ride it but....

Always glad you're here and that you posed this to us.

alexihnen 

I think this may be the reason for many. It's familiar, it's "iconic", the components "look" right. Most of what I collect and ride are 80s race bikes, some Dura-Ace 7400, some Campagnolo. To step back to the 70s was a leap for me, but still, everything is super familiar. To step back a generation before that means learning a bunch of new stuff and maybe buying some new tools.

SurferRosa

No worries, and I expected as much. Others had already caught on without my assistance. (See post 8, for example.) Iggy list updated.

merziac

Some of that should be the real appeal for all of this.

The generation before the Campy cookie cutter times is the one that teaches us where much of this comes from, both Cinelli and Campy saw and realized a market ripe for a standardization storm and capitalized on it with a vengeance that paid off in spades.

The times before were fraught with many compatibility challenges that took real men to adapt and overcome if they wanted to go the distance and win.

Mechanics and riders were wizards and performed miracles daily at every race, we have it so easy now, they could have done today with their eyes closed, bottle of wine in one hand and a cigarette in the other and regularly did so in their day.

iab

This is what confuses me. I'm no more adept at anything than others. Hubs are hubs. Ball bearings are ball bears. ETC, etc. The biggest difference between the 57 and 77 are the cottered cranks. Which even in 77 were common on low-end bikes. There is no additional upkeep of a 57 over the 77, physically. There is definitely a perception it's different, and perception is reality.

iab

Except they didn't come right out and say it and kept it blind as my request in the OP. derp.

Kilroy1988 

To be completely honest I think that the general idea that folks would consider the '57 less serviceable for regular riding is totally aligned with the outlook of the C&V community in general... I'm only 34 years old, and when I attended Eroica I was on a bicycle from 1954. I noticed that a number of other bicycles from the 1950s or earlier were also being ridden by young people (mostly men) who were clearly enamored by the technology for the sake of what it was in times of yore.

A majority of riders were not riding frames or components any older than they were - many of them would have been familiar with the technology from their youth. This is not the same paradigm I'm living in as a young C&V rider. Everything is old, everything requires more maintenance and cleaning and everything is heavier than what I'm used to thinking of as "modern." Jumping back from 1977 to 1957 is hardly a leap for me when both dates precede my birth by more than a decade.

-Gregory

JulesCW 

I only saw this today -- been out of town for a bit. I was going to answer the '57, as I've got a basement full of nice 70's and '80s bikes and they're of the era I grew up in, and it would be really neat to have at least one bike from the 50s or before that fit well and that i could ride.

35+ years ago I had a 1930s Schwinn road frame with some bits -- and de-accessioned it prior to a life-changing move across the country. Although I do not at all regret the move, I do regret getting rid of that bike -- never did build it up, but I imagine it would have been be fun to ride...

Someday something like it or your hypothetical '57 Cinelli might surface in my jumbo (65c+ cm) size... if it does I'll be ready!

FrejusFlyer

I ride my early 60's Frejus interchangeably with my 80's and newer bikes without issue. The only real difference is the gearing on really big hills. No difference in reliability or maintenance. The bike was built before I was born. When I started buying bikes from the 1920's and teens, issues did pop up with braking and gearing (single speed and flexy calipers), so there is a big difference once you go back that far.

merziac

Well maybe its just my perception but we see a lot of hand wringing, pushback and consternation whenever somebody brings up cotters, many steel components and fussy oldschool components.

Many here won't go near the damn things from what I see.

I love it but freely admit I don't go there lightly, I have to gather a lot of chi, pay close attention and take my time to keep from screwing some of it up.

Your expertise and confidence on this seems to far outstrip most of us by far which I fully applaud and appreciate.

I am not as adept but do value the difference and welcome the challenges as I am stubborn.

And I consider myself a pretty good wrench of many things having been a lifelong and professional auto mech/tech as well as having spent about 25 years at the dragstrip winning, losing and making it to the next round when things went wrong.

Again, really appreciate that you're here and reality check us when you do.

merziac

Tired old guys tired of tired old bikes.

Younger guys are what it takes to keep some of this going, old stubbornness can only take you so far with rapidly diminishing returns as both body and mind proceed to betray you down the road, resistance quickly becomes futile and can often accelerate the process in the moment and beyond.

As with iab, I applaud you anyone that stays with and goes there and does that.

I still need to get after the BB on the 40's Paramount that your rack went on but as it is fine and I was able to get some lube in it after I unclogged the port it can wait.

And it is not ridden much at all so....