What age do you class a bike as Retro

[chally3]

Hi all, just wondered when you class a bike (MTB) as retro??

Apart from my new bike(I bought a 2006 Kona in the sales),
I ride to work on a 1997 Specialized Rockhopper Comp A1 FS '- a very good bike in that year! joint 1st with a Rock-lobster etc in MBUK mag (£800 bike test). But not really Retro.....

Personally I'd say anything early-lates 80's is a true retro bike.

 

[gump]

no hard and fast rules, the old hobby horse is deffo retro, Cotic not.

About 10 years is a good ball park for me but there are some lovely Ibis, Fats and stuff after this time which deffo I would class as loverly, so belong

 

[Stick Legs]

it's all about attitude

It's all about attitude,

A 2001 quality frame, (inependent or merlin etc) with some old skool bits and the right look is a retro ride.

A 1998 bike of the same quality with the latest hollow tech gruppo and discs is not.

A '80s mtb of any status is retro, I would venture that a 2000 base model bike is not.

Just my opinion you understand!

 

[Bear-Chan]

i reckon that its not really something you can pin down. a retro bike to me is one that reminds me of the good old days of mtb and when i had a lot less responsility than now!
oh! and the all important bit of 'PHWOAH' factor! if it reminds you of something that you'd maybe forgotten about or lusted after then thats all the better!

oh yeah - just thought of something else as well. as stick legs said, its all about the quality and personality of the brand/product too. something which a lot of the new stuff sadly just simply doesnt seem to have.
kooka, ringle, syncros, etc etc... *sigh*

goes off to fondle topline cranks.....

 

[ridevintagemtb]

IMO, the "golden age" of mountain bikes occurred between 1991 and 1998. So anything from that time period. Would anyone disagree? I raced through all those years, and I still race today, I have never seen the turnout or enthusiasm as I did between 94 and 96. At least in the US.

 

[Ransetsu]

I would say that the "golden age" was between 1987 and 1995 personally ... as many of the "small" producers began to be swallowed up by the large corporations about that time .....

i would still have no problems accepting a bike as retro if it has been crafted with love and care - oh and isn't full suspension !!

 

[gump]

OUTRAGEOUS!!

Boulder Gazelle?
Manitou?
Pro-Flex (irony in that name... :shock: )?

Yeah, you can retrofy a newer bike to a point, but is it not then just a nice tasteful bike? I think part of it is there was a golden age when lots of bikes looked sweet, and in the late 90s this started to drop off.
It does need that something though to be special, and this to me can happen on pretty much any age of bike.

 

[ridevintagemtb]

The "golden age" ended with downhilling. There's no better explanation.

 

[stew-b]

id agree with that,it was never the same since the motorbikes without engines appeared.

 

[gaf16]

it depends how you look at it.
i consider my on-one to be retro, just because every part on it is high end retro pimp apart from the frame.
judging from the looks i get on the trail, it would seem all the other riders do too!
i supose it's a coat hanger for my retro parts.