Have we killed RetroBike?

[ededwards]

Another new member here and it seems that I arrived at an interesting time.

I agree with what a lot of people have already said. I admire and am in awe at some of the rides out there and the attention to detail in bringing these amazing bikes back to life in as true to original form as possible. But I like some of the modern twists that people have given the bikes they own.

Personally, I have only ever had two bikes. A 95 Kona Hahanna and 06 Kona Dawg. The Hahanna was bought with paper round money saved up over a few years. It was my pride and joy, but over the years it was upgraded and modified. I was well aware that it was the bottom of the rung for Kona's but I still loved it dearly. I loved the feedback from the frame, the way I could fling it around most trails, but I soon became tired of being left behind by my friends on their FS bikes on the down hills. I bit the bullet and picked up the Dawg which I now love to pieces and gave me a new love for riding.

I still own the Hahanna but the only original parts are the frame, front mech and front wheel. Everything else has been changed and upgraded over the years.

In the next few weeks I'm going to give the old girl a new lease of life. Should I scour the internet and ebay for 95 spec Alivio and Acera-X parts to get it back to its original spec and turn it into a museum piece. Or should I bring it up to date with a "neo-retro" build? I'm opting for the latter with Carbon Forks, Single Speed and Disc Brakes - similiar (but not as cool, or indeed as retro) as the 7 day Hei Hei build that was on here recently...

What I'm trying to say is, I love my old bike. I love the fact that it has lasted this long and I love the fact that it is going to have a new lease of life. Its Retro to me. I could easily have dumped it and bought a newer frame. But by recycling (pun intended) the Hahanna, isnt that more in line with the Retrobike way of thinking, even if it isnt being brought back to original? To me that is more what this site is about and if I am right, then it is far from being dead. Quite the opposite as without it, the Hahanna would be sitting in a corner of the shed gathering dust rather than live to ride another day!



My dilemma would be what section to post it in though - its a 95 frame with 2008 parts??? I'm afraid to post it anywhere !!

Loving the back story on the Hahanna and the very personal memories that it evokes. It is that, far more than the splitting of hairs or the personal definitions of what is 'retro' that keeps this place alive.

Retro 'til I die

Ed

 

[JME]

I have frequented a few other bike forums until i discovered retrobike,
and what stood out about the fine people of this site? in my eyes a sense of comunity everyone willing to lend a hand or share their wisdom with those in need, a place where people sell retro treasures at very reasonable prices to their forum bretherin even though they could get more on ebay.
Do i think retrobike is dead? not at all but recently i have noticed something rearing its ugly head, snobery.
Surely anyone who joins this site must have an interest in retro else they wouldn't be here in the first place even though they may not own a "retro bike"
For people to start saying they won't look at bikes in the post 98 section or that is'nt retro enough for this site is just snobery
surely its just as much about the love for retro bikes as it is the bikes themselves

 

[lemusrey]

Classic

For me it's simple I don't think some the bikes should even be here how can a halford's bike be classic I don't mean to be a snob. What have they done for the MTB just because it's old it should not be in. Do you really beleive in 50 year people are going to care about it? Sure if want a bike for work fine no problem not everyone wants to speed silly money.

http://www.classiclightweights.co.uk/builders.html

These are classic righty so and if it wasn't for web might be forgotton!#



PS I'm not retired!

 

[Russell]

Re: Classic

For me it's simple I don't think some the bikes should even be here how can a halford's bike be classic I don't mean to be a snob. What have they done for the MTB just because it's old it should not be in. Do you really beleive in 50 year people are going to care about it? Sure if want a bike for work fine no problem not everyone wants to speed silly money.

http://www.classiclightweights.co.uk/builders.html

These are classic righty so and if it wasn't for web might be forgotton!#

PS I'm not retired!

If it wasn't for those old 'Halfords bikes' (mine was a Carrera Quattro Comp, 531 frame and full M735 groupset) a lot of us wouldn't have got into MTBing in the first place and seeing as for a lot of people 'retrobiking' is in no small part about invoking nostalgia, those 'Halfords bikes' have as much place here as any other. Find me a nice Quattro Comp in 50yrs time and I'll be a happy biker.

 

[john]

Re: Classic

For me it's simple I don't think some the bikes should even be here how can a halford's bike be classic I don't mean to be a snob. What have they done for the MTB just because it's old it should not be in. Do you really beleive in 50 year people are going to care about it? Sure if want a bike for work fine no problem not everyone wants to speed silly money.

http://www.classiclightweights.co.uk/builders.html

These are classic righty so and if it wasn't for web might be forgotton!#



PS I'm not retired!

Who can be the judge of what should or shouldn't be here?

Anyhow Halfords did some OK-ish stuff BITD. First MTB mag I ever bought had a review of a full XT Carrera in a fetching smoky gray, was actually quite decent!

 

[Russell]

Re: Classic

For me it's simple I don't think some the bikes should even be here how can a halford's bike be classic I don't mean to be a snob. What have they done for the MTB just because it's old it should not be in. Do you really beleive in 50 year people are going to care about it? Sure if want a bike for work fine no problem not everyone wants to speed silly money.

http://www.classiclightweights.co.uk/builders.html

These are classic righty so and if it wasn't for web might be forgotton!#



PS I'm not retired!

Who can be the judge of what should or shouldn't be here?

Anyhow Halfords did some OK-ish stuff BITD. First MTB mag I ever bought had a review of a full XT Carrera in a fetching smoky gray, was actually quite decent!

Yep... the Quattro Comp I referred to above. That review was the reason I bought one.. and so it began

 

[john]

Re: Classic

For me it's simple I don't think some the bikes should even be here how can a halford's bike be classic I don't mean to be a snob. What have they done for the MTB just because it's old it should not be in. Do you really beleive in 50 year people are going to care about it? Sure if want a bike for work fine no problem not everyone wants to speed silly money.

http://www.classiclightweights.co.uk/builders.html

These are classic righty so and if it wasn't for web might be forgotton!#



PS I'm not retired!

Who can be the judge of what should or shouldn't be here?

Anyhow Halfords did some OK-ish stuff BITD. First MTB mag I ever bought had a review of a full XT Carrera in a fetching smoky gray, was actually quite decent!

Yep... the Quattro Comp I referred to above. That review was the reason I bought one.. and so it began

Ahhh yes. 1989 or 1990 model IIRC? Recall them having one upstairs in Halfords Cehltenham. Happy memories.

The low and mid end stuff has a place here too. Long live Halfords, Townsend, Falcon, Kona etc. etc.

 

[OrangeRetro]

Re: Classic

Townsend, Falcon, Kona etc. etc.

 

[GarethPJ]

1. Surely the OP has started one of those threads he's complaining about. Assuming he wasn't trying to be ironic it does seem a bit pointless by his own definition.

2. Personal definitions of "retro" aside I don't think you can avoid the fact that the whole world thinks that "retro" is about the style of a thing, not it's age. If a bike is retro style then it's retro. If I have a new frame built in the style of something from 1990 which section does it go in? What about something like this?

 

[john]

2. Personal definitions of "retro" aside I don't think you can avoid the fact that the whole world thinks that "retro" is about the style of a thing, not it's age. If a bike is retro style then it's retro. If I have a new frame built in the style of something from 1990 which section does it go in? What about something like this?

The term 'retro' is used here to denote old or vintage. Obvioulsy retro (as in the dictionary definition) stuff is also probably of interest.

Maybe I should've called the site 'oldandvintagebikesprobably coveringaperioduptothemidtolate90s.co.uk' to avoid confusion but to be honest I preferred 'retrobike.co.uk'. Snappier 'eh? Further the term retro was (and now is) being used to describe older bikes on cycling forums and in publications. The English language evolves - who am I to stop it?

I don't suppose the whole word is overly interested in our little internet backwater, I've certainly had no correspondance from the OED regarding the incorrect usage of the term retro.