Have we killed RetroBike?

[shovelon]

'oldandvintagebikesprobably coveringaperioduptothemidtolate90s.co.uk' .

I tried that site and it did nothing for me.

 

[GarethPJ]

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.

Sorry, but almost every cyclists I have heard discuss the Pashley Guv'nor has described it as retro. But it is very definitely a new bike. As far as I can see the average cyclist thinks of a retro bike as being old style, not necessarilly old in itself.

A few years ago I was involved in a discussion in an old motorbike club (the word retro wasn't in common usage back then) when the club was formed the cutoff date was 1975. The idea being it was a club for people who liked old cheap two stroke bikes, not expensive "classic" or "vintage" bikes. One member argued the the cutoff should remain static. Arguing against that several members thought that the cutoff should always be ten years prior to the current date. Otherwise the club would rapidly turn into one of those snotty "classic" or "vinatge" clubs as the bikes became rarer and more expensive. What happened was that the two factions formed their own clubs, neither would agree to the other using the original name so two entirely new clubs were created and then chased the members of the original club. Only to discover as the dust settled that the membership were sick of the infighting an there was nobody left.

As language evolves so does technology. In ten years time people will consider today's high tech marvels as retro. Even today a 2004 full susser seems rather quaint. What happens then? Do we end up having loads of forums that cater for different factions? Those that prefer the "vintage" era? Those that prefer the "classic" period. Those that prefer the "mid school" period? Continue until the distinctions create groups so small there is no discussion? Or do we all learn to live with each others' interpretations of the concept of retro and live as a one big happy family.

You need to remember that any group, club or forum exists because of it's founders, but continues to exist because of it's members. If there are members who want to see bikes built after some arbitary cutoff date then why not let them have their fun?

And no, I've no bloody idea what the terms in quotation marks mean.

 

[john]

A few years ago I was involved in a discussion in an old motorbike club (the word retro wasn't in common usage back then) when the club was formed the cutoff date was 1975. The idea being it was a club for people who liked old cheap two stroke bikes, not expensive "classic" or "vintage" bikes. One member argued the the cutoff should remain static. Arguing against that several members thought that the cutoff should always be ten years prior to the current date. Otherwise the club would rapidly turn into one of those snotty "classic" or "vinatge" clubs as the bikes became rarer and more expensive. What happened was that the two factions formed their own clubs, neither would agree to the other using the original name so two entirely new clubs were created and then chased the members of the original club. Only to discover as the dust settled that the membership were sick of the infighting an there was nobody left.

As language evolves so does technology. In ten years time people will consider today's high tech marvels as retro. Even today a 2004 full susser seems rather quaint. What happens then? Do we end up having loads of forums that cater for different factions? Those that prefer the "vintage" era? Those that prefer the "classic" period. Those that prefer the "mid school" period? Continue until the distinctions create groups so small there is no discussion? Or do we all learn to live with each others' interpretations of the concept of retro and live as a one big happy family.

You need to remember that any group, club or forum exists because of it's founders, but continues to exist because of it's members. If there are members who want to see bikes built after some arbitary cutoff date then why not let them have their fun?

And no, I've no bloody idea what the terms in quotation marks mean.

As a website we are pretty inclusive. As mentioned previously a lot of the new retro (ie retro ) stuff is of interest to a large subset of members - look at the love the Groovys and some of the custom road stuff gets along with interest in things like NAHBS.

I would agree the site has to adapt as our membership grows and time passes - this is something we attempt to do but as one might imagine it isn't that straightforward. Members are welcome to post up whatever they want in readers bikes and elsewhere on the site - about the only thing we ask is that discussion in 'retro mtb chat' is focussed on older bikes.

The site was setup with the discussion of old and vintage bikes in mind. I still beleive that is what most people who come to the site want.

 

[CTK]

The problem with Retrobike is its such a bloody good website! Everyone wants all their interests (cyclewise and other) to be included on the site. Its impossible.

Keep up the good work John et al

 

[legrandefromage]

If I hadnt of accidently blundered into Retrobike, non of the interesting stuff to be found at the local recycling centre would have been publicised.

 

[perry]

" 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"

you dont mean to be a snob but you will trawl through enough pages in the fastest moving room to find a thread a month and a half forgotten to spout your view :?

 

[CTK]

If I hadnt of accidently blundered into Retrobike, non of the interesting stuff to be found at the local recycling centre would have been publicised.

I have to say LGF that not posting your tip finds would have been a good thing. Do you think it cheers me up that you found a bloody Raleigh 753 bike?! You jammy bloody git!!!

 

[legrandefromage]

If I hadnt of accidently blundered into Retrobike, non of the interesting stuff to be found at the local recycling centre would have been publicised.

I have to say LGF that not posting your tip finds would have been a good thing. Do you think it cheers me up that you found a bloody Raleigh 753 bike?! You jammy bloody git!!!

I refer the honorable gentleman to the following post:

http://www.retrobike.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=50631

 

[CTK]

: sadness mixed with anger but also a good for you chap kind of emoticon :

ahh this is the face that sums it up best...

 

[Andy R]

Re: Classic

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

Yeah right, if it wasn't for crap bikes like the above, "low end "riff-raff like me would never be able to afford to own a bike at all.........