2021-03-24 | Blog 001

To restore or renovate?

I recently bought a circa 1970s Raleigh 3-Speed bicycle. I’m instantly in love with it but the paintwork clearly needs some work. My mind went straight to restoring it to its "former glory", but why? Why not take it in a new direction?

Quite a few forums I’ve read on painting bikes have argued for keeping the patina. The more I think on it the more bizarre it becomes. The act is giving reverence to the year it was produced and that many years have passed since. But only because the bike hasn’t been updated with the years. The patina is now the value because the bike is now less valued thanks to the bike industry improving...

In trying to be “authentic” to the history of a 1970s Raleigh 3-speed bicycle we’re not being authentic at all. It was built as a bike to be ridden, not a future museum piece. At some level, we’re arresting its history, rather than allowing it to continue.

I’m now of the opinion that I should keep the story going. Taking a practical/Consequentialist view, there are probably a thousand of these bikes kicking about, and probably more than a few in bicycle museums. It would cost considerably more to restore and I don’t care about resale value (I got it at a great price and I intend to ride it for years). Restoration gives me only 1 outcome, whilst renovating gives me unlimited.

I know the answer to the above is probably “it’s just a f**king bike, do what you want with it!”, but the debate is everywhere and with far bigger impacts. Specifically, housing. The consensus is to maintain old buildings, even where it becomes incredibly impractical. Coming back into my Renewables realm, decarbonising heat is a huge challenge, mostly because something like 80% of the buildings that will be around in 2050 are already built.

The above is left as food for thought, I’m well over my self-imposed word count on only my second post!

Rory

Links:

Open.edu: To Restore or not Restore