We've been rumbled guys

[feetabix]

Re: retro word

i guess the cut off point has to rest somewhere.....there are many people here of various ages, all of whom have an opinion as to where the point should rest....who decided i am allowed 34 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath but am then a more significant danger at 35?.....just a thought.....

:roll:

 

[Spudly]

Lol i guess by that, that my question has come up more than once then, i spose im only looking at it from my perception of the time ove known/spent in mountain biking, and it predates the '90's (which were my era of biking) by a long shot!


On a random note i know a couple of people from your area through the car club im with!

And as to the reference to the drink drive limit, i think it should be zero (but thats a whole new debate lol)

 

[feetabix]

the lungs naturally produce up to 2 microgrammes of alcohol through natural means i believe........if i were to drive having had a beer i probably would drive with more concious attention, and therefore be more aware than had i had a cup of tea and not given it a thought, thus on paper being safer.......again, just a thought.... :roll:

 

[Carlos]

On the same subject (not the alcohol one!), and I assume it's been discussed before, but I've not seen it - there must be a point where the retro cutoff has to move forward...when will this be??!
In 30 years time, we can't say that a 25 year old bike isn't retro because it wasn't built before '97! It could be argued that when this site started up (around 2005?) that as a pre '97 bike was retro then, as it was over 8 years old, a bike which is currently over 8 years old should be in the same camp :?:

By the way, I'm not in this school of thought - I have the same nostalgia as most people here for early to mid '90s bike and am quite happy with that for now

 

[poweredbypies]

I always though that the retro dating system would be based on when the next big thing hit the scene aheadset/sus/disc. I know theres always some overlap with models but would make more sense that way. Wouldnt it??

 

[Raging_Bulls]

I always though that the retro dating system would be based on when the next big thing hit the scene aheadset/sus/disc. I know theres always some overlap with models but would make more sense that way. Wouldnt it??

All 3 that you mentioned were available in 1992. Carbon fibre was also used in the mid-90's, so that can't really be the decisive factor.

Personally I see "retro" as the period when manufacturers weren't afraid to try a bold new design.
E-stays, the various attempts to build the first full susser that actually worked, weird frame architectures (Trimble, Sbike, Cannondale Super V, trek Y and Whyte PRST-1 spring to mind), the first attempts at composite materials (again the Trek Y, as well as the C'Dale Raven).

Then somewhere in the early 00's that stopped, and it was merely a matter of changing a degree here, adding a few mm there, increasing tube diametre, etc.
Basically I'd cut the term "retro" off at the point where "attempts at revolution" became "evolution". IMO that was 1997 indeed, a few examples notwithstanding (BMW's Q6 for example).

 

[poweredbypies]

true that some of thaty stuff was available in '92 but how much of it did you see on the street maybe a proflex but discs? maybe if you had mega bucks budget but to the average chap on the street i dont think so.

 

[Carlos]

Fair points...yet the majority of people on here own, and the most sought after bikes, seem to be the steel hand-built diamond frames!
It's true though, I too do see around '97 (maybe personally I'd say up to '99 now) as a time where experimenting stopped and things actually started working! So we've got less character now, now we're seeing the mainstream benefits from the '90s trials and errors

 

[Rod_Saetan]

It has been discussed a thousand times in the past here, but basically John picked a number out of a hat and that was the cut-off.

In 30 years time, we can't say that a 25 year old bike isn't retro because it wasn't built before '97! It could be argued that when this site started up (around 2005?) that as a pre '97 bike was retro then, as it was over 8 years old, a bike which is currently over 8 years old should be in the same camp

Here's the thing: 'retro' actually refer to something reminiscent of things past, not necessarily actually old (which is in a lot of cases apt for this site as there are plenty of 'retro-mod' builds etc). In microcosms of monomanaicality similar, but older, than Mountain bikes, for instance the car or motorbike world they generally split it up into categories which have been widely adopted; Veteran; Edwardian; Vintage; Pre-War; Classic. With Mountain Bikes it would make more sense to split it into Vintage (probably pre 90); Classic (90-97) and Retro (everything else including retro-mods and modern bikes built with a nod to the past).

Also, the definition cut-off point cannot keep moving, how the hell can you lump a Mk1 Breezer into the same category as the bike with 140mm of front and rear travel, 200mm hydraulic disc brakes and a gearbox?

As a more on-message aside, the prices PB*Bikes and Bad CNC Habit put their items up for are not necessarily the value of the item, it is only worth what someone will pay. I recommend you look into the prices vintage touring kit (Rene Herse etc) and BMX kit goes for as an indication of what could happen to MTB prices.

 

[zigzag]

I'm pretty much with Rod_S on this, at some point in the future, the site will have to split 'retro' into sub categories.

10 years from now, you're going to have 35 year olds hankering after the good old days when they used to kick about on their 1999 FSRs as teenagers. And where will they come to discuss their interest in a 22 year old mountain bike?