Buying old vs. new

Dukester said:

I am looking for a bike to use for daily commuting and some light touring
(weekend or day trips). What I want for certain is a steel frame with
enough room to accomodate 700x32 (or larger) tires, fenders, and with
eyelets for racks etc. I thought instead of getting something like a
Rivendell Atlantis, I could opt for an older, less expensive bike like a
Trek 720 or Bridgestone RBT. Reading some of the newsgroups and forums
however I see a marked bias against getting an older bike because of the
dated componentry and unavailability of parts for repairing such. Is this
really an issue? Would a new Surly Crosscheck or Trek 520 be a better
investment?

There are a couple of possiblities.

Buying a good used touring or sport touring bike of the proper size would
certainly be less expensive. It might even provide a better ride than some
modern bikes (if you can live with downtube shifting and fewer gears).

Buying a bike as above, and then upgrading it with newer components may or
may not be cheaper than buying a complete new bike, depending on how much
you pay for the used bike or frame. If you intend to upgrade components,
look for a bike that was designed for 700c wheels, that has english threads,
and is made of steel (for speading the rear dropouts). It would also be
handy if the frame used recessed brake mounting and was designed for short
reach brakes (although there are workarounds for that). It would also be
nice if the frame had standard Campagnolo type downtube bosses. If you don't
like downtube shifters, bar end shifters would be a cheaper alternative to
STI/Ergo brifters. But you'll need downtube cable stops, and they are
designed to fit on standard bosses.

I've upgraded a couple of 80's era bikes with modern drivetrains, shifters,
and dual pivot brakes. To me that's the best of both worlds.

Art Harris

Dukester said:

I am looking for a bike to use for daily commuting and some light touring
(weekend or day trips). What I want for certain is a steel frame with
enough room to accomodate 700x32 (or larger) tires, fenders, and with
eyelets for racks etc. I thought instead of getting something like a
Rivendell Atlantis, I could opt for an older, less expensive bike like a
Trek 720 or Bridgestone RBT. Reading some of the newsgroups and forums
however I see a marked bias against getting an older bike because of the
dated componentry and unavailability of parts for repairing such. Is this
really an issue? Would a new Surly Crosscheck or Trek 520 be a better
investment?

It's a question of how old, if your looking at say a 2000 or newer
model, then your probably okay, as long as the bike hasn't seen a lot of
very heavy use. A really old bike, say a 1980 model, would need a
number of upgrades to get features that even gaspipe bikes have now.

It comes down to budget though, if your budget is under $500, then your
better with a used bike, because it will be a better bike with some
miles on it. If your budget is over $500, there are some nice new bikes
that would probably work nicely.

W

"Arthur Harris" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:mLPBe.15627> Buying
a good used touring or sport touring bike of the proper size would

Quoted message said:

you pay for the used bike or frame. If you intend to upgrade components,
look for a bike that was designed for 700c wheels, that has english

threads,

Quoted message said:

and is made of steel (for speading the rear dropouts). It would also be
handy if the frame used recessed brake mounting and was designed for short
reach brakes (although there are workarounds for that). It would also be
nice if the frame had standard Campagnolo type downtube bosses. If you

don't

Quoted message said:

like downtube shifters, bar end shifters would be a cheaper alternative to
STI/Ergo brifters. But you'll need downtube cable stops, and they are
designed to fit on standard bosses.

Do you have recommendations on vintage bikes that have these type things?

Cheers!
Duke

Dukester said:

Would a new Surly Crosscheck or Trek 520 be a better
investment?

They'd be a better *deal* imho. Look at the specs of one that's already
built up, if it seems right, then you're in luck. We're talking half of
the cost of a Riv.

If the custom bug still has you by the nuts, think about other frame
sources--seems to me that English Mercian touring frames are some of the
nicest and best deals around. A few coins less than a Rivendell, and you
can get custom geometry and braze-ons.

The Surly gets point for being cheap enough to not be precious--so you can
whip the fenders off of it and go for a scrapey stomp on single track
without becoming obsessive about the finish.

Arthur Harris said:

t would
also be handy if the frame used recessed brake mounting and was designed
for short reach brakes (although there are workarounds for that).

Buying used is a great way to *avoid* the big mistake that is short reach
brakes. There is nothing "handy" about them whatsoever. Great improvements
have been made over the years in bike tech, short reach brakes ain't one
of them. Their one defining factor is limiting the usefulness of your
bike.

Older bikes had standard reach brakes that easily cleared 32mm tires w/
fenders. You can get new calipers that are standard reach from Shimano and
even inexpensive ones from Tektro that are very nice.

Short reach brakes will usually limit your tire width to about 28mm, and
fenders are next to impossible to mount.

BTW, if you find a sweet old ride with 27" tires and decide to switch to a
standard 700c wheelset, you can almost always drop the pads in a set of
standard reach brakes about 3mm to make up the difference--which also
gives you even more room for tires and fenders. :P

FWIW, the Surly Pacer road frame is designed to take the old fashioned
standard reach brakes, it's worthy of consideration as well.

"Dukester" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I am looking for a bike to use for daily commuting and some light touring
(weekend or day trips). What I want for certain is a steel frame with
enough room to accomodate 700x32 (or larger) tires, fenders, and with
eyelets for racks etc. I thought instead of getting something like a
Rivendell Atlantis, I could opt for an older, less expensive bike like a
Trek 720 or Bridgestone RBT. Reading some of the newsgroups and forums
however I see a marked bias against getting an older bike because of the
dated componentry and unavailability of parts for repairing such. Is this
really an issue? Would a new Surly Crosscheck or Trek 520 be a better
investment?

Cheers!
Duke

Whatever you like will make you happy. If you can find a nice old steel Trek
or Raleigh with eyelets, they will serve you very well. I put thousands of
miles on a Raleigh Wyoming touring bike in the 80s, and it was mid-level,
with stem mounted shifters. If parts on an old bike [censored] out, there is a
steady supply of used parts on eBay, or you could see it as an opportunity
to upgrade. I've just bought a brand new bike, but if I find a Trek 620 or
720 in my size I'm gonna snap it up. Old bikes are cool. Of course, new
bikes are cool, too.

"The Wogster" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Dukester said:

I am looking for a bike to use for daily commuting and some light touring
(weekend or day trips). What I want for certain is a steel frame with
enough room to accomodate 700x32 (or larger) tires, fenders, and with
eyelets for racks etc. I thought instead of getting something like a
Rivendell Atlantis, I could opt for an older, less expensive bike like a
Trek 720 or Bridgestone RBT. Reading some of the newsgroups and forums
however I see a marked bias against getting an older bike because of the
dated componentry and unavailability of parts for repairing such. Is
this
really an issue? Would a new Surly Crosscheck or Trek 520 be a better
investment?

It's a question of how old, if your looking at say a 2000 or newer model,
then your probably okay, as long as the bike hasn't seen a lot of very
heavy use. A really old bike, say a 1980 model, would need a number of
upgrades to get features that even gaspipe bikes have now.

Well, an old bike would likely have friction shifting and a 5 or 6 speed
cassette/freewheel, but that's not a biggie. Other than that, a bike is a
bike. :-)

What do you guys (or gals) think of the new lines like Breezer?

I was reading advice on the site : http://www.commuterbicycle.com/

The info seemed pretty good...but on these forums I've detected some
resistance to more Euro-style bikes...

Brian said:

What do you guys (or gals) think of the new lines like Breezer?

I was reading advice on the site : http://www.commuterbicycle.com/

The info seemed pretty good...but on these forums I've detected some
resistance to more Euro-style bikes...

Breezer bikes are fabulous! They certainly aren't the most inventive
things in the world though--what they are are very polished versions of
the modern city bikes ridden by everyone and his grandmother in Europe.

Having ridden tens of thousands of miles on both a Marin similar to the
Breezers here in the states, and various Swedish bikes in the same vein
(most with Shimano Nexus)--I'd say--just get one.

IMHO, these are what should dominate bike shops, and do in countries where
folks actually ride every day for utility purposes. The touring/cxcross
bikes recommended by everybody on this ng are great, especially for alpine
conditions and long distance, but for utility riding the Breezers excel.
REI also sells something in this style called the "Fusion", check it out
on their website.

Resistance to Euro-style bikes is futile. LOL