Pre 1997 date, how did that come about

Couldn't a rolling retro definition be adopted like classic cars.
25 years old = retro

As the demographic ages,
and those old bikes rusty away and wear out,
the forum risks being nothing more than tumbleweed,
with perhaps the distant tolling of a cracked bell.

Might make more sense to introduce a new section like 97-07, every decade.
 
I’ve zero interest in 99+ bikes (apart from riding modern ). If you change the dates to allow the mid 00s stuff you would ruin what RB is all about in my opinion

If there is a demand for that era of bike then someone will do a forum.
 
Personally and it's just my opinion so take it with a pinch of salt. I was always, for a long time anyway, an early adopter of shiny stuff seen in the likes of MBUK. In 1997 I was riding a Santa Cruz Tazmon with a Z1 Bomber and Hope hydraulic discs. So suspension that worked and was reliable, ditto brakes (for the time anyway). To me this was the essence of a modern bike, OK, stuff has obviously been refined over the years but that was the blueprint. For that reason 1997 makes perfect sense as the cut off in my head.
Yes I know the likes of Mountain Cycle did it a few years earlier but by 97 it had become the mainstream and was obviously the way it was heading. Fuelled no doubt by the rise of the DH bike and racing in the media and it's subsequent trikle down into everyday bikes. :)
 
They are calling for an upper limit, keep the truly modern riff-raff out😉
Been trying that since it was created, modern stuff should be in off-topic where it belongs. It's off topic for a retrobike forum.
Call it 2010, as that the year 10speed was phased into mainstream use. Starting the era of the cog-wars and the ever-increasing number of front chainrings you can strap to the back cogs. It also happens to be when @benjabbi started here.
 
Back
Top