Compromising functionality for aesthetics?

My current project, as some of you may know is a C-record/chorus equipped colnago from the late 80s. The fact that its costing considerably more than I foresaw has got me wondering, If I put in the £600+ thats going into it into a second hand, more modern bike would I get a lighter more functional, useable and durable package?
I'm just curious because aswell as being aesthetically pleasing I do need a bike thats going to perform well and put it a load of miles. Maybe I'm being silly, but what are everyones thoughts?

Cheers!

I think when most people want a retro bike to actually ride, they find a complete bike which would be better value. Sourcing rare vintage parts separately will always leave you with with an overpriced showroom bike that you feel guilty about riding.

The answer to your question would probably be yes, but more significantly you wouldnt worry about wearing out this newer bike because the bits wouldnt be particularly rare or pricey to get hold of.

No. If you were the kind of rider that would be able to go noticeably quicker on a modern bike, someone would be paying you to ride a bike they gave you and following you in a van every time you went for a ride.

One word.. Quality.. The colnago has class. Nuff said.

Modern bikes might make you a bit faster but so what? If you are racing you'd use one, if you're riding around on a bike you like then, job done.

There are select bits you could, and i emphasise could swap with more moder ones without spoiling the integrity of the build. Things like modern hubs, BB, Chainrings etc. I depends if you want a really pure old school bike or something that looks old but is a bit more durable.

In terms of spped, I ride an alu Trek with ultegra stuff and when I first took it on (a mainly geared) ride back at home in Cambridge, a number of guys ride 70s/80s/90s steel bikes, a couple of then works of art, every week and I remeber one saying to me "wow you must really feel the difference on that" and I said well yes but not as much as you would think. This was when my fixed was a nice old double butted 531 track frame. Now im riding a much heavier frame and the transition is now huge between the fixed and the road bike.

From what I have heard from people who have run them (an my own 531 geared bike) is that the main problems are old bits not being so durable and the lack of indexed gears. Other than that if its all in good condition I think chris667 is right

and tbh to get something nicer than what you are making I reckon you would have to spend a grand on a new bike

if you buy the second hand option you won't loose money unless you are paying over the odds for the bits
buying a new modern bike will leave you with a depreciation of 25% minimum
get something classic enjoy the ride and be comfortable in the knowledge if you don't like it you can pass it on and not get too screwed

• from an economic point of view
  
  

and then of course the modern bike will be far less well equipped and the quality will be lacking the feel of the bike will be lessened the way a really nice old gruppo, set up well feels is just lovely, the gears change so smoothly and it just adds to the enjoyment

I'm having my second toe shortened to a more customary length

put modern silver componentry on it, i.e. Campag Athena 11, and you get the best of both worlds!

Build the bike that you want to ride. If you're not too hung up about the latest in technological gizmoddery, older parts will be perfectly fine. When the vintage road bikes bikes trend was briefly on last year, there was some grumbling about downtube shifters and non-indexed gears, but nothing major. People were going fast on those things even then, and the average bike certainly looked cleaner, simpler, and to my taste much more beautiful than today's carbon monstrosities, or indeed late 90s alloy monstrosities.

hear
hear

When you're buying second hand bikes with multiple gears, you always have to take into consideration the wear of the components (specifically the drive chain). Wear on the chain and cassette has much more of an effect than wear on singlespeed bikes, and the last thing you want is to have to fork out another 60-100 quid to fit a new chain and cassette/new cabling etc. One of the biggest surprises to me was that if you need to change a chain, you also need to change the cassette, as they both wear at the same rate and replacing one and not the other can cause even bigger problems with gear changes etc.

The only factor in the aesthetics versus functionality thing that I would consider is downtube shifters versus ergolevers/stis. I always prefer having my shifters with the levers, because i'm a lazy bastard and don't want to reach down to change gear.

However, as long as you have downtube shifters with some form of indexing technology (so you don't have to worry about flipping the lever the right amount), then the difference is less important. Indeed if you're talking about weight, downtube shifters are lighter than stis (armstrong used to use a downtube shifter for the front mech on the mountain stages of the TDF, years after sti technology was introduced)

Aesthetics is everything!

All my bikes are steel frames. Why? Because I think aluminium and carbon fibre frames are ugly. I prefer my bikes with slim, straight tubes, neatly put together with lugs.

Like you,I have a Colnago project in the works. I obtained a Colnago frame but the chrome and paintwork were in such bad shape that it all needs to be redone. I could, repeat could, buy a carbon frame for less money than the respray (well, a Taiwanese no-name carbon frame) which would probably ride better than a 12 year old steel frame but would I feel the same about riding it?

No, I wouldn't.

I like to build fancy bikes to get the acceptance of the group. People are more likely to buy you a pint of ale when you arrive on Colnago.

No. If you were the kind of rider that would be able to go noticeably quicker on a modern bike, someone would be paying you to ride a bike they gave you and following you in a van every time you went for a ride.

That would be pretty much every rider here ... Any Componentry Pre - 1999 which especially if it is geared is complete crap in terms of performance compared to modern mid range stuff of today.

old brakes are crap too. some of the older components are made of shite soft aluminium,
not very durable. I remember how my syncros stem cap disolved into dust after a few years.

On the other hand, all the old Campag stuff on my bike (c 1997) still works as well as it did when new.

new stuff is nice. would rather have new (10 speed dura-ace/ultegra/record/sram) it shifts so well and i couldn't be arsed to reach down and twiddle with a lever when sti's are so easy to use.
more speeds are better too as it makes it easier to match a gear to your cadence.
old bikes are fine if you are into that retro thing but i'm not. (would happily ride an old frame with modern gears though)

my only concession to aesthetics over function is white bar tape.

You are right about the STI/Ergo shifters. With downtube ones... I find myself simply ignoring them and keep ploughing on the highest gear.

Aesthetics is everything!

Aesthetics is for people who take lots of pictures of their bikes instead of riding them.

*The whole idea of a stereotype is to simplify. Instead of going through the problem of all this great diversity - that it's this or maybe that - you have just one large statement; it is this. *

Tough shit.

I like to build fancy bikes to get the acceptance of the group. People are more likely to buy you a pint of ale when you arrive on Colnago.

Ha!

Tough shit.

Let me know if you want a picture of your bike - you are more then welcome, being busy riding.
I appreciate both - hobbyists' and utilitarian approach.

I already have a picture of my bike, for insurance reasons, thanks.

I just sketched a rough of it in HB, I'll put in the shading later, if I have to make a claim.