We've been rumbled guys

[dbmtb]

Retro=looking back.

V-brakes are pretty much the exclusive reserve of current low-end bikes.
9-speed is being superceded by 10-speed.
Hollowtech by external bearing and BB30 etc systems.
120mm travel is normal for XC.

V-brakes, 9-speed,Hollowtech/ISIS and 60-100mm forks are not so old that old stocks/supply of used stuff are running out so in that sense it is still reasonably current.

Seems to me that retro in "our" sense means that you have to go the extra mile to find what you are looking for - or pay the extra premium. 80s/early 90s stuff seems to be where early 80s road stuff was about 7 years ago in terms of supply/demand. 7 years ago you could buy NOS M730, Campag rims and XC pro for very little money - I bought a load for my GT when I was couriering. Those old warehouse stocks seem to be gone now and prices seem to have doubled on the "staples".

Road stuff has now been hoovered up by the fixie crowd and prices have rocketed. The equivalent may or may not happen with MTB stuff (don't see it myself personally - as MTBs were never as "cool" as Italian road bikes).

 

[twain]

best just to sit it out i reckon. all this has come as part of the cyclic (no pun intended) fads that occur. chances are, whoever buys these 'overpriced' parts now will be selling them on at a loss later on down the line

 

[Rod_Saetan]

Or selling them on for more.

 

[twain]

Or selling them on for more.

i'm a patient man....

 

[markwashington]

Check out the thread that divided the forum:

http://www.retrobike.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=46412

I personally think 1997 is a good cut off as by 1998/99 bikes had changed considerably (I see the fall of the steel cindercone as the beginning of the end).

 

[marc two tone]

Re: retro word

Ive noticed that a lot of people are now using the tagwords as listed above and the prices do seem to be going one way which is annoying when you know full well that the item on sale isnt actually worth three times what it used to retail for when it was new originally

atleast we set guidelines for retro regard. ---->'97. some people just let it roll off their tongue without any research :roll:

Forgive my stupidity on this one though please as ive not been on here very long, but why is the 'retro' cut-off point 1997, out of interest, to my mind i wouldve said it would be more like 1999, as thats when i remember eveyone starting to produce ally frames and leaving the old school steel beasties behind, but obviously there was more to it than just frame materials, and im now digressing (lol)

But if you wouldnt mind my asking, why is this?

well, upto this year you saw less v-brakes, Aheadsets, gripshift. those components were around a little before but, 1996 -1997 saw a big change-over in those parts. the catalogues prove it. quill stems were confined to supermarket bikes..etc..

so, 1997 i reckon is a nice round chronological mile post i suppose. no real science is applied to this, it just offers reasoning

mega9 too was more widespread beyond '96-'97 XTR had it earlier i think.

 

[CAPIN]

All it takes is fresh mind of a new member to (again) expose the (no)logic behind the magic "1997" number.

To me, the only sustainable way to go are DECADES ..as everywhere else.

another interesting thread to read

http://www.retrobike.co.uk/forum/viewto ... it&start=0

 

[Tazio]

I always get a bit hufy about the cut off date. I own 2 98 bikes, both are too old to get interest in post 98 but not allowed in to the earlier category. Post 98 is full of FS and disc brakes. A lot of it on medern bikes.

Us late 90's lovers are caught in a gap between the two eras.

 

[legrandefromage]

I always get a bit hufy about the cut off date. I own 2 98 bikes, both are too old to get interest in post 98 but not allowed in to the earlier category. Post 98 is full of FS and disc brakes. A lot of it on medern bikes.

Us late 90's lovers are caught in a gap between the two eras.

I wouldnt worry about whats 'allowed' many interesting bikes post 1998 get posted in 1997 section

 

[marky2484]

Post 1998 is 1999,no :?