Time to move the Retro bar up a bit ... maybe to 2000+?

[Gaddmeister]

Re:

In 2007 bikes from the nineties were not that old. We are 2017 and still setting the same benchmark? I have found imho that naughties bikes are in no man's land. I have just bought myself a 2005 bike for a song. However, there seems to be no interest in this era? Why?
Because fundamentally we love the era of mystery and constànt change/experimentation. By the naughties we had perfected it and wet literally stuck in no man's land. In the current decade we have decided to move things on by changing wheel sizes and going electric. It's a tough one really. I think us true retrobikers are remembering and harbouring the exciting times in mountain biking, the stuff happening after the late nineties is just natural progress, hence not so interesting? I have been advised that the best things added to a bike since the nineties are disc brakes and wider bars. I have bought myself a 2005 bike that has these fine attributes. Being 12 years old does it not make it retro? I think it does. We are all interested in the same thing, why even separate it? It's a bike, just a little different. Maybe folk are moving on but because it's stuck at pre 97 people are losing interest. I say keep it as mountain and road. No dates. It welcomes modern riders and teaches them as well as us older generation offering valuable advice?

 

[pete_mcc]

Personally I find the concept of ‘retro’ to be a timeless one. Some old bikes aren’t retro they’re just old bikes, some newer bikes can be retro effortlessly. It’s down to whether the bike is evocative of an era, was an iconic bike, was something that defined a childhood etc.

Was the bike something special, unique, cutting edge? Is it now classic, looked back on fondly, influencing future designs? Then it should be counted as retro.
Was the bike a derivative, generic, ‘me too’ design that jumped on a bandwagon and cashed in on a trend? Then it’s an old bike.

97 was a sensible cut off when this started but as those bikes become rarer and more expensive we have to be more inclusive. I’d rather people spent time, money and energy restoring a decent 1999 bike than some shit-tip 1995 Raleigh Amazon gaspipe special. Buying a bike just to hit that 97 cut off is silly, so much of it was crap that should be left to rot. Get a nice turn of the century bike that is special instead.

There’s load of FS and DH bikes that are from 1998 on that are full on retro; Intense M1 four bar, Sunn Radical Plus and similar. Early Jeff Jones, Matt Chester or some early 29ers like Willits from 1999 on must get a look in too. There are countless bikes that should be happily welcomed.

 

[Splatter Paint]

Re:

To the best of my knowledge, Shimano 9 speed came in 1999 and was replaced by 10 speed in 2010. 7 years on 9 speed is definitely for ‘old’ bikes. Wheel sizes started changing in market share around the same time.

9 speed, 26” wheel = old bike
10/11 speed, 29”, 27.5” fat, half fat, etc. = Modern.

Discs are not a fair benchmark for dating. Hope have been around since, what, early 90s?

SP

 

[t wild]

How about pre 97 golden age 97- up to 15 years old retro and everything else modern. You could argue that retro is timeless but I can go and buy a brand new Raleigh chopper. Doesn't make it special to me. Where an original seventies one is because it's a survivor and has history. You can't disregard the cheap tat either because that's what most of us started with although it will never be as highly regarded as the high end stuff however this also makes it less likely to survive because it's virtually worthless. Couple of years ago I sold a early 80s Marlboro bmx for £15 to a guy who wanted to restore it because he had one as a kid. However I also sold a mid nineties redline rl240 freestyler for ten times that.
If the Marlboro had a haro badge I could stick a couple of noughts on the end.

Because something's old it doesn't make it expensive but it also doesn't mean it's not interesting.

 

[jimi911]

Keep It Simple ...

Just move the line up to whatever. I say 2003, because of the xtr960 disc release.

Let everyone post in the same “retro” section so we can all see and enjoy their bikes and they can see our bikes.

Let >2003 bikes into the retro BoTM. It needs the help.

The only time we want to divide up our group into sections or periods is when we have a special BoTM month. We could do a yearly thing where we always have a month for 81-86, 87-96, and 97-2003.

When we keep it all under the banner of retro we draw people together and get them sharing. I came to this hobby with a 1995 Stumpjumper FS and a love of bikes from 92-96 when I road the most as a teen. Fast forward several years and I have bikes dating back to 1982 and a much wider interest than ever because I got to see it all on here. I bet most people have had the same experience.

We don’t diminish by parking a a 1982 Moots beside a 2003 Merlin Fat and calling them both Retro Mountain Bikes ... heck they have some of the same heritage! We get people sharing and learning - and the hobby grows as a result. We gotta do the same on here.

 

[FluffyChicken]

Sod that, I don't want to see year 2000 bikes in my retro list when I pop into chat, sales or help, or to see chat about the novelties of disc brake setup and 9speed.
Leave that to the moderner era section 98+, just slap a cap year on it (2007 say) and let it just also be 'retro' to whoever cares about that era.
Also banish all the other utterly modern shite to pinkbike, at least for another 10 years.

 

[jimi911]

Make sure you turn the lights off when you leave.

 

[DynaCol]

Re:

Retrobike is many things to many different people, let's not fall out over it please. We're all adults here (debatable sometimes I know ) so let's have a constructive discussion here with the view to changing things for the better.

 

[caemis]

I would leave the sections XX-1997 and 1998 till ... . Also I agree with Jim on an idealistic level, Chat, Sale and Wanted sections would be very quick very confusing. Instead a "open" BoTM would be good, still with some "Special Months" but I think, it could draw some attention to the post '98 section as well and build a general positive attitude to retrobike(s).

Despite the question of sections and timeline, it seems absolutely mandatory to get the front page updated (BoTM, maybe something like a "blast of the past", race or ride report, etc.)

And I somehow fancy the idea of an International Retrobike Charity Organisation (like someone mentioned it earlier in this thread). We not just could keep retrobike and perhaps some other internet resources running but lobbying retro mountainbikes with museal happenings as well as sport events (Global Retro Ride Day or even a retrobike race series, OWMTBC, etc...)

 

[legrandefromage]

20th century and 21st century.

Now go and ride a bicycle before its too late.