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

[FluffyChicken]

Re:

I have no objections to full on BotM good idea. Keep it interesting.

or if a retro 98-07 section is modified to that.

What I do have objections about is people needing to go through the posts and move them in to wherever.
Hence keeping 97 and shortening the 98+.
All that would be needed is a non retro section if people really need it, stick it down with off topic.

I would personally like to see.

Retro Bike
-Retro MTB section
-- retro <=97
-- retro 98-07 (moved from it current separate place)
-- retro <= 97 Bikes and Kit and projects (merge them)
-- retro 98-07 bikes, kit and projects
-- retro sales
-- retro wanted
-- retro shops and ebay links
-- retro catalogues
-- retro wiki (just a fixed link to it)
-- retro technical and techniques

--

- Rides and Events
--Retro Rides UK
--Retro Rides Worldwide
--Other Cycling Events


-Retro Road
-- ...

-Retro BMX
-- ...


... middle stuff here

-General Offtopic
-- Chat
-- 07+ bike chat
-- projects
-- Sales



#####
Rides I place between the two largest cycles type on purpose. It's not hidden and it's next two them both

 

[legrandefromage]

I’d rather people spent time, money and energy restoring a decent 1999 bike than some shit-tip 1995 Raleigh Amazon gaspipe special.

<Quietly puts Raleigh Amazon back in the shed>

 

[hollister]

This is what happens when you let the inmates run the asylum


Don’t water it down any further

 

[Splatter Paint]

Re:

2007 Kona Kula Supreme: http://www.classickona.com/oldgold/2k7/ ... index.html

V-brakes, check
short-travel fork, check
26" wheel, check
lairy paint, check

Is this not retro?

SP

 

[T'boo Ted]

^It depends on your definition of Retro... generally retro means inspired by or harking back to ye oldie times, like all these new muscle crs (mustang, challenger etc etc), or using orange laminex in your kitchen, or a lava lamp. In the sneaker world it's re-releases of old shoes... to me that Kona and my zaskar reissue are the definition of retro...
but I think on this forum and the mtb word, its not the harking back to part, its the actual old stuff still being used.
Which is fine, just needs to be understood it's a slightly alternate use of the word.

 

[DynaCol]

Re:

I think we're stretching things a bit far there, we all know that this sites main focus, and the reason it exists in the first place, is to celebrate the origins/heyday of the sport which to most folk is mid/late 80's to mid/late 90's. Perhaps lumping everything else after 97 as "modern" is the issue and having things setup in sections called "golden era", "retro" and "modern", as suggested previously would be better.
Whatever changes are made though if folk aren't posting/contributing in any of the sections it doesn't really matter what we call them.

 

[FluffyChicken]

Re: Re:

2007 Kona Kula Supreme: http://www.classickona.com/oldgold/2k7/ ... index.html

V-brakes, check
short-travel fork, check
26" wheel, check
lairy paint, check

Is this not retro?

SP

That was cutting edge modern trash when I joined. So no.

Now for some it would be 'retro' possibly if born in the 90s. No ones arguing that.
Still it's more an old bike that didn't keep up with the times.


Certainly if I was buying that stuff at the time as modern on a retro site. Then no chance it is today.

 

[Cheshire1980]

This site obviously needs some changes, but i partly think its down to Retrobikers as well, you just got to look at the dwindling numbers who bother to vote in bike of the month, or write anything, i regular put what bikes i favour etc but its the same people who comment and vote IMO.. Also i have entered a couple of bike myself in the last 18 months. Often you can write up a thread and its the same couple of people who kindly comment. My point is there is a few stalwarts on this site, basically keeping it going, but many dont bother to vote on Botm, or post any build threads or post anything for anybody to enjoy, just merely using it to sell some stuff or buy some stuff. Am sure a considerable number contributors have moved on from here, and unfortunately left a big void. A lot of users just put the bare minimum, youve just got to look at some of the sales threads, barely a description, no pictures no batter, just no effort. May sound harsh but thats my opinion..

 

[Bonzo Banana]

Instead of moving the goal posts possibly a 1997 to 2007 section and then in 2027 a 2007 to 2017 section. Just allowing for bikes 10 years old or more.

Reading this thread I can see many have a low regard for post 1997 bikes but maybe that is part of the problem alienating those who like their retro not quite as retro as others. You see vintage bike sections on many bike forums and sometimes you can see a slightly elitist attitude with low regard for the budget models of their time but that model may be a fond memory for someone, their first bike or the bike they owned in an important era of their life. Perhaps it does have a frame made of gas pipes and an entry level drivetrain but could still be something of great value to some people. My first new bike was a Raleigh Arena, not Raleigh's finest for sure but I still feel great nostalgia for it. What if someone had a nostalgic view of the old cheap Sterlinghouse bikes that were sold for many years. Should we be throwing virtual stones in their direction as they try to utilise the forum?

I just feel this site should be as inclusive as possible even if that means a section many view as a unwanted leper colony of misguided fools who are worshipping the wrong product.

Sometimes just keeping a bike alive many years after it was manufactured and riding it is something even if it was nothing special in the first place.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edhaWbNMDO4&t

 

[brocklanders023]

Re:

This site used to spend far more time looking at the lower end and basic bikes sold easily. Problem is once they’re done, they are done and there’s plenty of examples throughout the site.

I love a old Saracen, Marin, GT etc but wouldn’t necessarily comment on a new thread as I have plenty of times in the past.