Have we killed RetroBike?

[ededwards]

Some interesting stuff in the original post and it might just be me but, given the general points raised, isn't there some irony in the topic being posted on Retrobike in the first place?

Anyway, all good debate and it's refreshing to get perspective from people who have only arrived here recently as well as those who have been around for a bit longer, that's what keeps this a vibrant site that we keep revisiting (if we all agreed all of the time there would be little to read or post apart from some fairly dry technical questions. If we get to that point the site really will wither and die).

 

[sinnett177]

This is simply the evolution of the game.

I rode vintage motocross for several years and saw the whole 'retro' vintage motocross scene change before my eyes. The bikes are now split into several genre:

-Pre 1965: Big BSA's, Triumph's etc scramble bikes with drum brakes, little suspension and weigh a ton.

-Pre 1974: Early lightweight european bikes and very early Japanese scramblers with little suspension like Bultaco, Montesa and Yamaha.

-Twinshock: Motocross bikes upto 1984 with twin rear shocks, longer travel suspension and drum brakes, like Maico's and evolved Honda's.

-Evolution: Motocross bikes of the 80's upto and including 1989. These are water cooled, disc braked and can even have upside down forks.

These classes are very carefully thought out by those with an interest in the era and fair racing. The cut off's are thought out so the era changes as technology does.

In mountain biking the changes have been more gradual. The technology of discs, suspension and metals has been there right through mountain biking's lifetime (carbon, titanium, hydraulics etc had been around for many years prior), with only mtb pioneers daring to push the envelope and experimented with it, in time as the sport became more competitive and professional it caught on. Thus it has taken it's time to filter down to us the consumer.

Therefore I feel that we cannot really bracket the bikes as in the case of vintage motocross. However I do feel that any bike developed prior to 2000 is retro, this is not my era but get the feeling there is nobody currently on retrobike at this time whose era is post 2000.

 

[reanimation]

I've mostly come from Retro Rides, a car forum and its also got very busy and bust at the seams, the same retro discussions happen in the same way, still healthy and mostly old stuff from the olden days, cos that's what retro means yeah. does put pressure on, good to stay pure but difficult. I built my site noskooljustcool.com, about cars to give the old (not new) but not necessarily retro, or labelled/unlabelled cars somewhere to breathe mostly grown up enthusiastic car enthusiasts.


Which I think is retro bikes strong point, full of enthusiastic grown ups with some history in mountain biking even if that means a 19 year old looking back at his firs bike, err well losing myself here! What i Mean is not mongy kids or wise guys, just good old grown up chat.



There's a lot of categories on here already, usually a turn off for me but I'm starting to use most of em.

The 1998 thing could be viewed as a cut off, is it? usually dangerous but line in the sand and all that. I honestly viewed it as "some newer old bikes" along side the, "Old old bikes" category,works for me TBH, I'm more tempted to document my 2001/2002(?) Santa Cruz Bullit build in there now TBH, a cute brute with canti hangers and a non replaceable mech hanger :shock: kinda retro i dare say, if perfectly in fitting with the modern.
I will not be documenting my new modern bike when i rebuild my Identiti though, unless a trend starts and there's interest.

My view: site about retro bikes old, or really old.

In truth I have not found anywhere for moderns as good as here but i'll continue to treat it with respect and keep it largely retro.

 

[tintin40]

No. keeping retro alive

 

[lumos2000]

sorry i dont know what all the fuss is about,
i did'nt know what retro was until i found this site, i just knew i did'nt like over priced over engineered modern bikes. why would i need one bike to go uphill and another to go down, how would i know which hill to leave my downhill bike on? the guy at the shop dident understand me so of to ebay i went, found a nice 94 cindercone. that'll do me i thought. a bit more googleing and found retrobike mmmm nice bikes, nice people i thought. mabey ill stick around.....now i cant get in my shed and i can sign into paypay with my eyes shut :roll:

 

[monsterfatuk]

I got to admit that i only have two bikes one for work which is crap but gets me there ,and my american which first flight think is 91 - 92,was gonna get something modern but WHY

 

[Wold Ranger]

Lets split it...

canti -brakes

V- and discbrakes

So Discs are the early bikes then?

 

[Huntso]

Judging by this thread, Retrobike is alive and kicking.

Only way it could peg out would be if we all went out and rode the bikes rather than came here to talk about them

Quite ironic in its own way

 

[lumos2000]

Judging by this thread, Retrobike is alive and kicking.

Only way it could peg out would be if we all went out and rode the bikes rather than came here to talk about them

Quite ironic in its own way

 

[Agency_Scum]

" It should be obvious what a 'retrobike' is without having dozens of threads, and hundreds of attempts at explaining it. "

I disagree.

We should embrace the vagueness. Because retro is...

(a) Any bike/component made before 1995.
(b) Any bike/component made up to today which evokes (a).
(c) Steel frames.
(d) American custom bling.
(e) British custom bling.
(f) Titanium without disc mounts.
(g) Anything in Jez's shed.
(h) The pure joy of discussing all of the above.