Is this retro?

[orange71]

I had a Hope like that on the front in '95 and it was pretty new out then I think.

 

[Easy_Rider]

They were around in 1991/92

I love this bike BTW

 

[makster]

Indeed, Maksters tastes and mine differ quite dramatically, he probably views my fleet with suspicion and only whilst waving a crucifix in its general direction.

I'll have you know that I'm about to go all modern....and try to buy something from 2003!! AND I put XTR V's on my 93 Dragon last week
Must ride something 80's this weekend to make up for it

 

[cybertrophic]

This is sounding like a case of retro rider with a not particularly retro bike ; you don't have to own a bike made before a certain date with certain criteria fitting bits to be here . There's a little bit of " my idea of retro is 199- " but were a good bunch , a lot of people also have fairly new bikes so don't worry about it .

It's the rider not the bike .

I want to know what kind of prize or sum of money you will receive by having your bike certified retro by this site

Or is it a certificate to win over the ladies ?

I was just genuine curiosity to see how people classified things, really.

I'm in my 30s, married with a kid so I'm past the time I needed to impress girls!

I just appreciate craftsmanship - the giant is superb at what it does and so competent i'd never sell it, but that Swallow Griffon or a hand-made Colnago show an artistry in metal - a computer can always weld consistently, but there's a joy to seeing something well made by hand.

 

[suburbanreuben]

They were around in 1991/92

I love this bike BTW

I think that sums us up nicely.... "Stopping Progress".
(But if progress is what I see in the shops today, you can shove that right up your )
Round pipes and triangles- THATS retro!

 

[makster]

Its all about what YOU think is retro. For me its anything pre 91, as thats when I stopped riding on a regular basis.
I missed suspension, v-brakes, discs etc and then stumbled across this place while looking for info on an old Cannodale I'd bought to use for work.
Now I've got far too many bikes/parts, so beware

Welcome to the forum by the way!

And just realised that this pearl of retro wisdom was my 1000th post!

 

[Anthony]

Re: I think people misunderstood me...

I'm not saying my Giant has to be "retro" - in fact, given how little thi gs have moved on, it's still totally modern. What I wanted to know is, if a ten year old bike is not retro over just its age, whilst a newer bike can be because the company went bust or because of what it's made of, then we're not talking retro, it's more like the current london fashion for steel single-speeds - purely based on nostalgia and some consensus of what a "classic" bike is, regardless of it's age - a Schwinn Cruiser can be new but is about as retro as it can be, though. I guess people actually mean "nostalgic".

I think you've answered your own question here. That Giant is by all accounts an excellent bike which was way ahead of its time. Nothing that has come along since has really rendered it obsolete, so essentially it's still a modern, contemporary design. As such, it can't be retro, because retro means harking back to the styles of previous times.

The main thing is it's a great bike. It could turn out to be a bit of a 'classic', in the sense that it anticipated a design that has since been copied by many others. It might soon be considered 'vintage' as vintage is a date-related concept, but most people don't think ten years old is enough for vintage. It's just a great bike, don't worry about it.

A good example of retro is a brand new Morgan, zero years old, but it's a retro car.

 

[dyna-ti]

Hey Mods .can i have a emoticon for yawning :roll:

 

[FMJ]

I'm not a mod, but.........

 

[cybertrophic]

Re: I think people misunderstood me...

I'm not saying my Giant has to be "retro" - in fact, given how little thi gs have moved on, it's still totally modern. What I wanted to know is, if a ten year old bike is not retro over just its age, whilst a newer bike can be because the company went bust or because of what it's made of, then we're not talking retro, it's more like the current london fashion for steel single-speeds - purely based on nostalgia and some consensus of what a "classic" bike is, regardless of it's age - a Schwinn Cruiser can be new but is about as retro as it can be, though. I guess people actually mean "nostalgic".

I think you've answered your own question here. That Giant is by all accounts an excellent bike which was way ahead of its time. Nothing that has come along since has really rendered it obsolete, so essentially it's still a modern, contemporary design. As such, it can't be retro, because retro means harking back to the styles of previous times.

The main thing is it's a great bike. It could turn out to be a bit of a 'classic', in the sense that it anticipated a design that has since been copied by many others. It might soon be considered 'vintage' as vintage is a date-related concept, but most people don't think ten years old is enough for vintage. It's just a great bike, don't worry about it.

A good example of retro is a brand new Morgan, zero years old, but it's a retro car.

This is precisely what I was asking - how do people define it, because it's certainly just not down to age. I think the Morgan analogy is a good one - it can be brand new, but it's retro if it's made in a traditional way that's been widely superceded in the mass market - hence a Dawes Galaxy tourer is retro even if it's new, because steel frames and a brown leather saddle are not the norm and hark back to the way bikes were built 50 years ago.

My Giant's approaching "veteran" or "vintage" age, but it's still basically a new bike because it was ahead of the curve and the current bikes are not substantially different, hence the point about it not all being about age.

Nice to see a few people just jumping on the new guy to try and tell him he's an idiot whilst missing the point, though - always a friendly welcome!