When people are inquiring about certain of my bikes for sale, their first question (though really only about the newer contemporary bikes) is "What year is it?"

And as often as not, if the bike they are considering is more than a just a couple of years old -- even if it's brand new -- they'll walk away, presumably because they feel that a 2009 frame in 2014 is obsolete technology.

Me? I cannot see a lick of difference between most carbon 2009, 2010, 2011 and more recent frames. Sure, the labels might change and the colors, but that's all cosmetic. Drill down and the Specialized Roubaix are still made from 10r or 8r or 6r carbon as they were 6 years ago.

(But then most of my personal bikes are between 35 and 20 years old and are made of steel or titanium.)

And Yes, there is electronic shifting available now. And the component makers have driven us from 10S to 11S (while as you'll read elsewhere on this site, I feel that 8S was perfectly adequate for any but professional riders.

So, with all that buzzing around in my head the other day, I asked Toronto bike collector and guru, Mike Barry, what he thought about so-called technological advances in bike design.

His take on things was pithy. He said there have only ever been two significant advances in bike design. The first was the move from the front wheel direct drive Penny-farthing to rear wheel drive (and eventually the chain drive transmission. The second, he said, was the advent of the air filled tire.

Those two advances dated from 1885 and 1888 respectively.

So bear in mind when you are next agonizing over a bike that is not from the current year, it's really not the bike that makes the difference, it's the rider.

I participate in a discussion group related to a vintage bike website, Classic Rendezvous. All day long some 2277 vintage bike enthusiasts (though some of them are really "fanatics") exchange messages about great finds, questions about ID'ing bikes, you name it. Anything related to pre-1983 lightweight road bikes (primarily steel).

Last week one of the members floated a discussion question: suggest your list of the top ten bikes ever produced, Some people said that was too broad a topic. But others chimed in. These guys (and it is mostly guys) own some incredible bikes.

I don't. I own some really nice bikes. but not like these guys. So I wrote back with the following:

I like John John Katsaras' suggestion (partly because even my top 5 would be an embarrassment in this crowd) and so I'll riff on his modified version of the game.

Since I don't have anything near a world class collection, my attachment to my bikes is often more sentimental and personal than it is material.
When I look at a bike, Yes, I admire the workmanship. But I also think very much about the memories I have of riding it and often the story of how I came to acquire it - the special people or circumstances behind it.

#1 No Name French w/ Campagnolo Record plus other interesting bits.

http://tinyurl.com/o5ultay

I bought this no-name (probably mid-to-late 70s? can anyone help me date it?) steel frame bike with every intention of reselling it as quickly as I could. It was being offered for sale by a fellow in Grenoble. At the time I was even more ignorant of bikes than I am now. I was just zeroing in on "Campagnolo".

We communicated by phone and email. He told his father me was had been a mechanic for a Paris area amateur racing team and this was his bike. Even though there are no frame stickers on it at all (besides those rainbow stripes which I think I have already determined here are meaningless), he told me it was made of Reynolds 501 tubing. That may be so but since 501 wasn't (it seems) introduced until the early 80s and this bike seems to predate that, he might well have been confused with 531. (though looking at the photos the "81" under the BB shell might be / would logically be its year of production and so might put it into the 501 era. It weighs 21.3lbs/9.7kg with a Brooks saddle, no pedals.)

As is often the case with French bike sales through local want ad services, I expect Laurent would have preferred the buyer pick it up. Since I was in Toronto that of course was impossible and so I had to convince him to pack the bike for transport (at this point many negotiations fall apart.) Fortunately he agreed (he said he was quite handy and worked making small instruments in a local scientific lab) and several months later, it having been packed, shipped across France to a friend in Montpelier, repacked onto a boat and eventually unloaded in Canada, I was able to have a close look.

Roll forward 2 years. Having stayed in contact with Laurent, the seller, he agreed to help me mange the purchase of couple of other Grenoble area bikes. I'd spot them, then he'd go off to inspect them, negotiate price and retrieve the winners. Later that year I was in France and so I decided to make a road trip up to pick them up myself and to meet Laurent. I was stunned when the doorbell to his apartment was answered by a fellow completely wheelchair bound. How (or maybe Why) I wondered had he managed to not only pack up and ship off not only his father's bike but also to run around Grenoble picking up three others, store them in his small storage space for 6 months (while probably having to shuffle them around while search for other stuff) without use of his legs? I didn't ask but clearly the answer is "One adapts". Instead, we just enjoyed a very good lunch and have stayed in touch periodically since.  (Hemessaged me recently that he has taken up seated waterskiing and is competing internationally. He puts me to shame.)

The bike itself is (I think) in quite excellent condition. The hood rubbers are like new. It is clean (OK, it's picked up some dust while in my hands) and is pretty much ready to go. It might be slightly small for me, and it's not a pure breed (e.g. SR seatpost, Weinmann brake levers) but still, it has a certain appeal - to me at least. 

In any event, I would have trouble selling Laurent's father's bike now.

I've always like this bike. A1970s Dutch-made Gazelle A-Frame “Champion Mondial” model (from 1971), very lightweight (9.7kgs complete minus pedals) Reynolds 531 for all tubes.

A little battered cosmetically (some rust spots, the brake hoods are shredded, a mix of newer and original components) but still, if it were my size (it's a 54) I'd be riding it daily. It's snappy and crisp. But no theft magnet.

So, I was pleased when finally the other day, after … what 3 years of storage? Someone (Paul) came over to see it.

Paul said he was looking for another “project”. Only experienced bike people use the word "project". Paul it turns out, has a nice little collection of vintage bikes himself, and is very knowledgeable. Having lived in the UK and Amsterdam he's also had hands on collecting and dealing experience and so has become eagle-eyed (or shall I say "thorough").

What I hoped might be a sale to an appreciative buyer (always my favourite end result) however turned into an eye opening learning experience.

“Is this the original fork?” he asked. I said I thought it was but he thought it should have a Gazelle logo embossed into it.
He fingered the rust on the top tube at the cable guide. A spot of rust on a 35 year old bike is not unusual nor should it be a deal breaker. But Paul hesitated when he ran his finger along the underside of the top tube.

“This bike has had a front end accident” he announced.

That was news to me but when he showed me the slight ripple under the top tube (see below), it was obvious he was right. “That's why the fork has been replaced” he continued.

There then followed an awkward silence. That was the moment when Paul had to decide if I was honestly ignorant or deliberately deceitful. I hope he accepted my protestations that I honestly had no idea of the damage (I've tried to be overly upfront in all my dealings about flaws). I'd never suspected the frame had any problems (the ripple wasn't easy to see like a crack or a chip. Very subtle – until you look at it or for it.)

Nonetheless, I apologized for having wasted his time. After that point we were at least able to talk bikes. Paul sounds like he has a terrific and carefully curated collection of 6 vintage bikes (he was obliged to pare down his fleet during a recent move, due to lack of storage space. I sympathize.)

(I was glad at least to be able to drag out ANOTHER Gazelle Champion Mondial which had the exact same fork and so could prove that the first bike's fork was original too.)

Lesson learned though. As you can see from these pictures, a straight edge is pretty handy when checking out a frame. There are also simple alignment tests you can do with a long piece of string.

In the end Paul agreed that the frame was probably perfectly rideable. Steel is pretty tough. It just isn't suitable as a collector's item nor as a restoration project (the top tube would have to be replaced which would ruin the paint which would require an exorbitantly expensive repainting job.)

Fortunately it wasn't a very expensive purchase. So, it isn't that costly a lesson. And it still rides great I think. So, I'll probably still sell it. Though at a significant discount and with a big disclaimer.

Peter

I've had two inquiries recently from people looking for "touring" bikes. Which prompted long replies asking what exactly they were thinking of and some basics of what to look for in a classic Randonneur-style "touring" bike.I thought I would repost them here.

Cheers Asad.
Eric's right. You want reliable and repairable.
And don't sweat a couple of extra pounds of bike weight. sounds like you are going to be carrying a pile of stuff anyway. I would rather have something sturdy and solid that weighed... 13kgs as opposed to a super lightweight 9.5kg frame that collapses under the load and stress.

Sounds like you are going fully loaded. (I am envious.) West to East?

Basically I don't have any true "touring bikes" (except for my own which is A) huge and B) is not for sale.) but I'll forward you a couple of exchanges I had with someone else who inquired recently about a "touring bike".
Some standard bikes can work well for moderate-load touring.
It comes down basically to whether you want/need front panniers. If so, you should probably want to seek out a classic Randonneur bike that has mounts on the front forks for a rack and cantilever brakes for a) quick stopping and b) easy fender clearance.

let me know if you have any other questions or if I can help.
BTW, what size frame do you require? or, what's your inseam?

if you find anything online or at a shop, feel free to shoot me the link or photo. I'd be happy to give my 2 cents.
Peter

On 5/8/2013 6:14 PM, craigslist reply 189d wrote:
Hey, I am interested in it, but I am also wondering if its a touring bike ??? I am specifically looking for one

Subject: What do you mean by "touring".?

If you mean classic fully-loaded touring with front and rear panniers, then No. This is not a classic touring bike (they have cantilever brakes, and eyelets in the front fork to which you can mount a front rack. see attached photos.

If you mean"touring" in the sense of day riding in the country, then Yes, this is a good choice (high quality steel frame)

Let me know any further information you have or need.

Peter

On 5/8/2013 7:13 PM, craigslist reply 189d wrote: Yes sorry....I mean fully loaded. To be able to go camping with.

those types of classic touring bikes are fairly rare. there were / are only so many people who wanted to go camping as opposed to the vast number who raced or who rode for recreation.
I have a classic touring bike but it is a 63 cm.

That said, IF you can find one in your size, they are not usually THAT expensive (unless you buy a new or newer one) because - there are not that many people who want them

You can buy a classic generic steel touring frame at Urbane Cyclist (full service LBS coop in Toronto) down on ... John street? for not a lot of money. I think they are selling them for ... $150. From that point you can build up.

Otherwise, ebay is a good source.

Cantilever brakes are like mountain bike brakes. The two arms are mounted onto the forks and rear seat stay and a triangle of cable pulls them closed. I think the advantage is A) they brake quickly (important if you are travelling with a heavy load) and B) they allow the easy installation of fenders.

note though that cyclocross bikes are easy to confuse with Touring bikes (also called "Randonneurs") except they do not have the eyelets on the front forks for front rack mounts.

Finally, a touring bike will usually have a triple front chain ring and will be geared so that it could climb any mountain, even with a full load.

Good luck!

Peter

I got this note from the friend of a friend today and it encapsulates what I expect a lot of people go through getting into cycling.
Carl apparently is a runner who plans to do a triathlon this year but who doesn't love cycling yet and doesn't know if he ever will and so is (quite reasonably) cautious about what he wants to spend on a bike.

On 29/01/2013 10:28 AM, Carl wrote:
Peter, it's good to meet you.
I'm looking at getting started on triathlons this summer. I have a decent Trek MTB at the moment but am open to the idea of an (used) entry level road bike. The longest ride I need to cover off is 30K, so I don't believe I need anything over the top. Would also like to keep my budget on this at $300-$400. Will also be shelling out for a wetsuit and other miscellaneous gear so I'd rather not spend a fortune and find out that it's really not my thing. Suggestions?
Thanks Carl


Hi Carl.

Good to know you.
Frankly, $400 is not a lot of money for a quality bike. But, if you have the patience and are willing to drive all over town checking stuff out, you will find something.

There is nothing wrong per se with Sora components [ ed. a bike Carl was considering from Craigslist had Sora components, the lowest end of Shimano's lineup]. They will easily get you through this ride and this season. But, just like in cars, there's also nothing wrong with a KIA. It gets you from Point A to Point B. I just doesn't act and feel like a Mercedes.

That said, there is a lot of bluster out there about bikes and components. Most people feel a little bit intimidated and influenced by what their friends and competitors are using. It's largely bullshit if you are comfortable in your own skin. Cycling is more about turning your legs over and over and over and far less about gear.

Fit though is most crucial. It has to be comfortable.

My little hobby website has a section on fitting .

http://www.tocycles.com/choosing-a-bike.html

more detail here.

http://www.tocycles.com/what-frame-size.html

Have a look, do the measurements (twice) and tell me what you discover.

If your budget is $400 or less, you could do perfectly pretty well with that Trek 1000 [aluminum with Sora listed at $500]. (and you can probably beat the seller down by $100). He describes it as suitable for a 32" inseam. But standover height means nothing. That frame looks pretty small (but I can't be sure.)
A bike is measured by dimension A in that picture. (How tall are you? which is also a bad proxy for frame size as peoples legs and torso are often disproportionate.)

But ultimately your search should really all depend on how much biking you plan to do - not only the triathlon but also your training and then once you get hooked (or your knees start to complain about your running) just for recreation.

If you just need a bike to jump on the week before your race, I'd be happy too to rent you one for not a lot of money.
Then, you just turn it back over when you are done.

I don't have anything that would sell for $400. I have a couple that start in the $600 to $800 range.
And I also offer a 75% buy back policy. Use a bike for a season, don't like it or want it, I'll take it back at 75% of the sale price.

So, I am happy to guide you as best I can through you search on CL.

Oh and I suggest you read my tips on buying a 2nd Hand Bike.

http://www.tocycles.com/tips-for-buying-a-2nd-hand-bike.html

But send me your inseam measurement first will you?

Cheers Peter