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

[Zzxxyy]

How about not being year focused but rather equipment focused?

Eg, rum brakes vs disc, tapered to straight, less than 80mm suspeions vs 100mm and more. Etc

Just a thought.

 

[legrandefromage]

1997 is the year the accountants stepped in and told the industry they need to make 'Money' so blame them.

Pre 97 is pretty much your 'golden era' with men in sheds and great ideas (and not so) before it all settled down with big brands buying out the smaller.

1997 to 2017+ could be simply 'modern' without pigeonholing it all too much.

 

[jimi911]

1997 is the year the accountants stepped in and told the industry they need to make 'Money' so blame them.

I don't know if we want to set 1997 as the year of $$$ making. Specialized, Ritchey, and Gary Fisher all went that way in the early 80s. The Trek monster was already breathing as well.

At any rate, retro is defined as stuff that is generally obsolete or less in favour ... yet still cool to some. If we are talking semantics. I think we at least need to get the v brake era included in retro. As cce just said, FB already has a place for them and many retro mtb groups are including post 97 bikes. Even welcoming them if they Potts made it

I just think we need to start including more under the retro banner (its a Canadian thing) ... yes all this is moot if the admin don't step up.

 

[M-Power]

Re: Re:

Has been brought up a few times recently with no real consensus. I like the idea that was suggested that we have a golden era section, say 85/95, then pre and post which would draw more people in to the post section. Maybe even have a 2005+ modern toss section?

Problem seems to be that John doesn’t spend much time here for various stated and speculated reasons and ultimately it’s up to him.

I agree with that ... it be nice if John would do a bit of a revamp on here.

I would lump 81-87 (golden era as you say), 88-95 (boom years), and 96-2002 (v-brake/early disc era) and call them all "retro".

It seems like the growing sections are the early-mid 80s and later 90s at least if you go by FB, Instagram, Pininterest etc. Maybe that middle section has become a bit saturated and people are less excited about Klein, Fat Chance, and Yeti bikes that were produced in high volume during that period ... a bit like belly buttons.

Agree with the date cut offs but your assertion that Chehalis Kleins, FATs and Yetis are ‘high volume’ I would not They were very low production number, big ticket, hand made bikes. Whats cool is that a whole new generation of 30 somethings have become interested in the older rigs and want to buy nice examples to actually ride. They understand the DNA of the modern rigs through that connection with the originals.

Had a few contact me for buying advice via PM and I have to say its a good vibe They soon get as obsessed about the details as those of us who knew these bikes first time around. In fact one or two seem to have lost interest in their modern rigs altogether as they start hunting for the bright ano and rare parts

Who’d have thought eh ?

 

[legrandefromage]

Facebook is ephemeral, RetroBike is a resource. Too many on fb argue that black is white whereas RB is a proper repository of facts, figures and knowledge.

 

[longun]

Re:

Agree, too many Facebook groups. While social media is good for some things, cataloging, organising and getting a more general scope regarding retro bikes needs to be kept central, here.

 

[M-Power]

Re:

Agree with two posts above. Try searching for some detailed post on FB from even a week ago and it becomes very tiresome scrolling or nigh impossible. I have so many saves but FB annoys by constantly reminding you of what you have been doing.

The corporate greed to control us, capture our personal details, contacts, what we eat for brekkie etc and market tailored products and services and be all things to all people, turns my stomach tbh. They are killing off small niche websites like this. The only way for RB to fight back is to stay relevant, upgrade the platform properly, so we can host decent res pics, more comm functionality etc etc but does it make economic sense for John ? prolly not :facepalm:

 

[Cheshire1980]

Facebook is ephemeral, RetroBike is a resource. Too many on fb argue that black is white whereas RB is a proper repository of facts, figures and knowledge.

Would have to agree, retrobike is a great source. Facebook tends to be a lot of pictures, which is all very good, however, will only entertain for a couple of minutes, whereas on retrobike you could easily spend an hour or two on there
I think moving it up to 2000 is probably viable, and may encourage a few more people. Also it would be nice on RB if downloading pics could be made easier.

 

[caemis]

Re: Re:

...The only way for RB to fight back is to stay relevant, upgrade the platform properly, so we can host decent res pics, more comm functionality etc etc but does it make economic sense for John ? prolly not :facepalm:

Sorry, but I have to ask, why does it have to make economic sense for John? What does he suplly to the platform, I mean technically? The server? Does he host the domain?

 

[legrandefromage]

Re: Re:

...The only way for RB to fight back is to stay relevant, upgrade the platform properly, so we can host decent res pics, more comm functionality etc etc but does it make economic sense for John ? prolly not :facepalm:

Sorry, but I have to ask, why does it have to make economic sense for John? What does he suplly to the platform, I mean technically? The server? Does he host the domain?

Its kind of irrelevant what the site Owner brings to it, its what YOU can do as a contributor - what can YOU bring to the site?

And you.

And especially you, yes you over there, I can see you.