Is this retro?

[Tallpaul]

So what is then? Apparently not over 10 yo. How about over 15 yo? Or say, 1995 or before? I'm curious .

I don't understand why people register if they don't know why they're here :?

 

[suburbanreuben]

It must be the friendly welcome.

 

[stevec1975]

Is this Retro?

If you have to ask the question, you know the answer.

 

[JeRkY]

The definition of retro is an individual thing. sure I mentally used to apply 10 years as a rough rule of thumb, but this would now include bikes made in 2000, so that I have now left that one.

It is much more about the individual design of the bike, a sub 10 year old, mass market middle of the range full suspension XC bike, although superbly competant as a bike has nothing that looks old hat, interesting or done in a different way to how it is if I walked into a large chain bike shop today and asked for a mid range full sus XC bike.

Its a nice bike, but I view it more like I do my 2005 KHS or 2008 Epic than anything I would consider referencing as retro.

 

[cybertrophic]

The definition of retro is an individual thing. sure I mentally used to apply 10 years as a rough rule of thumb, but this would now include bikes made in 2000, so that I have now left that one.

That was kind of my point - she's a decade old, but to be honest I haven't seen anything new that blew me away - it might have a half inch more travel, or be half a pound lighter, but it's not like when we went from steel to alu, or from alu to carbon, or when we went from rigid to suspension (remember how advanced the Fisher FS-1 looked?)

Yet, I can still buy a steel mountain bike frame, albeit from a framebuilder, so when does a bike become retro? Is it just when it becomes totally outdated or obsolete? Or is it when Trek and Giant bring out the next big thing? I mean there are some bikes being touted as retro that are not ostensibly any "older" than mine technologically or design-wise (witness the myriad of aluminium hard-tail Konas), yet because they havnet really changed too much since the early 1990s when Kona first did Alu, they're deemed ok.

I think it reeks a bit of elitism and cliqueyness, to be honest, but mountain-biking has always had it's fashionistas - just pick up the latest copy of MBUK to see adverts for purple aluminium accessories, yet a month ago people took the piss out of the purple craze of the early 90s...

I think my question was valid, but there hasn't been a really valid response as to what defines a bike as retro by a palpable yardstick - it's pretty much "because I say so", as far as I can tell. I find it quite interesting that people are willing to berate my bike as nothing special, yet cannot offer any valid reason why it's less credible than, say, a boutique frame-built job of the same vintage. Maybe it's because Giant haven't gone under? Maybe it's because it just works? Is it supposed to be a challenge to ride a retro bike - because I can't see riding a Pace hardtail as much of a chore, I'll be honest....

It's fascinating, really.

 

[cybertrophic]

a sub 10 year old, mass market middle of the range full suspension XC bike, although superbly competant as a bike has nothing that looks old hat, interesting or done in a different way to how it is if I walked into a large chain bike shop today and asked for a mid range full sus XC bike.

I'd also say that the fact the design came out ten years ago, yet the Giant XC full-sus you buy today is only fractionally different, whilst half the industry is ripping-off its rear suspension design means that it's actually quite important - at the time most XC full sussers suffered horribly from sag, or bobbing under climbing and Giant worked with Renault's engineering team (actually, I think it was their F1 engineering team) to develop a linkage that worked. It did, and still does. Anyone remember Trek's Fuel, with the let-bend-the-chainstay-metal-instead-of-using-a-pivot? That was an attempt to solve the problem that failed. In fact, you'd struggle to find a single-pivot XC bike anywhere on the market today and most of the current designs are, more or less, rip-ofs of the Giant NRS setup - so, surely it's due a bit of respect, even if it wasn't hand-crafted by Canadians? Then again, given the failure rate of some of those hand-crafted boutique bikes, maybe a consistently-built Giant isn't so bad, after all...?

 

[JeRkY]

I think the reason no one can give you a yardstick to measure by is because no such yardstick exists.
As I said it is a personal thing. There is no cut off date, no set aniversary for a bike to reach at which it becomes deamed retro. I would argue that a brand spanking new skinny steel hardtail frame has some retro spirit to it, as the norm these days is to produce in aluminium or carbon fibre.

Many peoples view of what makes something retro is related to when they first got into mountain biking, the bikes you lusted for then are in your mind retro.

Elitest? maybe in some respects, hell i'll own up I am a bike snob, I like my bikes with square tubing and from Yorkshire, anything else out there just doesnt do it in the same way for me. Thats not to say I dont actually have more fun riding my modern mass produced mid range specialized epic...which is actually my most ridden MTB.

The only person who can give you a definition of retro that you will fully agree with is you, it doesnt mean other wont have other ideas and argue with you about where the line is drawn (there is no line by the way )

 

[Neil]

I think you've gone on the defensive, here, but it's not about the quality or prestige so much (that you seem to be prickly about), or how good a bike it is - it's more about era, and having some apparent traits that hark back from retro-year.

BTW, there's nothing unusual about somebody new, asking something, not liking the answer, then getting the hump a bit. Taking a step back a second, for perspective, and you'd see that - after all, you asked the question ("Is this retro?") to start off with, if you only wanted one particular answer, then maybe it would have made sense to read a little more before having prejudged the responses you wanted?

I'm just saying, that's all...

There is a 98 onwards forum, after all.

 

[cybertrophic]

I think you've gone on the defensive, here, but it's not about the quality or prestige so much (that you seem to be prickly about), or how good a bike it is - it's more about era, and having some apparent traits that hark back from retro-year.

BTW, there's nothing unusual about somebody new, asking something, not liking the answer, then getting the hump a bit. Taking a step back a second, for perspective, and you'd see that - after all, you asked the question ("Is this retro?") to start off with, if you only wanted one particular answer, then maybe it would have made sense to read a little more before having prejudged the responses you wanted?

I'm just saying, that's all...

There is a 98 onwards forum, after all.

Genuinely I am trying to work out the criteria people are using as there are bikes on here that are ostensibly the same spec/era...so it can't be that...nor is it a hard-tail/rigid-only thing... nor is it about brand, although there is something snobbish in play.

I love my bike - I don't care if everyone else thinks its the worst piece of crap ever made, as it suits me. I would love the Swallow Griffon MBUK reviewed the campag euclid groupset with, but I guess I'd have to have one custom-made, as there is no trace of the company anywhere on the web. I'd like a Pace square-tube bike with RC35s as I lusted after them and I am a Mint Sauce fan... and I'd like a white rigid Kona Explosif with XTR because...well, because who wouldn't?

I'm not a snob as such - my father was an engineer and I appreciate the craft in metalwork - I am not such a fan of carbon bikes as they are a bit lifeless, but I can't deny my Giant TCR carbon is a fast way to commute - if a little harsh at times - and for £100 I wasn't saying no.

I think that I'd like to get a lovely 753/853 framed bike (or equivalent) as I always rather liked the feel of a good steel bike and a rigid alu bike can shake your teeth out. Maybe I'll get a replica of that swallow made, but make it a hard-tail - that'd be a beautiful thing and I can find the money if I have to.

I'd also like a Hei Hei, because I think that Kona pretty much nailed the look of a steel-framed bike and I'd like to try a Ti model some day. I'd like an original Orange Clockwork in orange and white, too. However, I don't get much time to ride and te Giant is a great all-rounder, so I will have to limit my ambitions to maybe geting one or two dream bikes for the barn that I can take out on special occassions or let friends borrow for rides out.

By the way, how much does a Pace RC200 and a set of RC35s go for nowadays?

 

[Neil]

I think you've gone on the defensive, here, but it's not about the quality or prestige so much (that you seem to be prickly about), or how good a bike it is - it's more about era, and having some apparent traits that hark back from retro-year.

BTW, there's nothing unusual about somebody new, asking something, not liking the answer, then getting the hump a bit. Taking a step back a second, for perspective, and you'd see that - after all, you asked the question ("Is this retro?") to start off with, if you only wanted one particular answer, then maybe it would have made sense to read a little more before having prejudged the responses you wanted?

I'm just saying, that's all...

There is a 98 onwards forum, after all.

Genuinely I am trying to work out the criteria people are using as there are bikes on here that are ostensibly the same spec/era...so it can't be that...nor is it a hard-tail/rigid-only thing... nor is it about brand, although there is something snobbish in play.

Well I'm not saying there's no snobbery here - although I'm not seeing it in this thread.

I just think there's nothing retro about your bike, that's all - that's not a criticism of it - and after all you say you love your bike regardless of what people think.

I like to think retro has some of: steel frame, fully-rigid, hardtail, cantis, quill stems and threaded forks - you know, those sort of old kind of attributes ;-)

Why get your self so caught up on whether this particular bike is deemed "retro" here - buying into retro doesn't have to break the bank (although staying here long enough is likely to...) if that's what you're seeking.

After all, it's not like retro is put on a pedestal for clear objective, advantage type reasons - it's all nostalgia and that "golden" time.