What do you hate seeing on a gorgeous retro bike?

[legrandefromage]

drop bars - check

disc tab - check

big ring, big ring - check

modern parts - check

 

[petitpal]

1. the canti hanger rule, if it's there you must use it.

Quite.

And lets be honest, if a bikes got 'V'-brakes then its not really retro anyway is it.

Is this other than the fact that people like Henrick Djernis were running them in the mid / late 90s (say '95 / '96 (from memory).... and retro is defined as up to 97? (on 'ere anyway).

(Or I am just getting jumpy having a borderline '96 bike anyway )

 

[merckx]

single speed setups on derailluer based frames. especially when tensioners are involved


:evil:

 

[IRIX]

"High end frame with low end modern kit "
Second that...

Single speed conversions.
Garage queens.

 

[Woz]

"Ultimate Offensive Build" - I like that!

- 4 arm cranks
- wrong size frame
- tat (bike lock, reflectors) NB: Bottle cage excluded!
- rustless spokes
- v-brakes when there is a canti-hanger
- wrong outer cable lengths (floppy bits)
- wrong innner cable lengths (more floppy bits)
- disc forks paired with a non-disc frame
- 140mm front suspension travel on frame built for 51mm
- risers
- 50mm of spacers and an horizontal / -5d stem
- weird/extreme angles of saddle, bar ends, brake levers
- chain wrong length
- in the big ring big sprocket
- compelled to use retro parts that are clearly knackered; for example
a nice XT chainset with a battered and worn out front mech.
- crap photo that doesn't do the bike justice

To be honest, I appreciate any good looking quality build well presented, even though one or two bits are modern. I think it can be justified for tyres, if it's clearly a rider and makes the appearance better. I think it shows when people have put a lot of thought into the detail and the big picture.

 

[Woz]

..oh. QR skewers all to hell and the front wheel on the wrong way.

 

[Russell]

1. the canti hanger rule, if it's there you must use it.

Quite.

And lets be honest, if a bikes got 'V'-brakes then its not really retro anyway is it.

Is this other than the fact that people like Henrick Djernis were running them in the mid / late 90s (say '95 / '96 (from memory).... and retro is defined as up to 97? (on 'ere anyway).

(Or I am just getting jumpy having a borderline '96 bike anyway )

Try racing your '96 bike at either the OWMTBC or the retro class of the Brighton Big Dog and see if they'll let you.

The Old World MTB Championships is an annual event organised by and for enthusiasts of pre-1996 mountain bikes.

For the Retrobike race category we'll let you get away with having a classic frame from up to 1995

Don't let the fact that this website is a little more relaxed about 'the rules' fool you into thinking that anything made after 31.12.1995 is actually 'retro', but thats a whole other discussion that's been done a thousand times before.

 

[jonnyboy666]

yeah i lost points at the first OWMTBC for my bike having m900 sti rapidfire units, should have been thumbies apparently eventhough the bike had them at the time when i built it in 1993/4

i'm not bitter

 

[Russell]

yeah i lost points at the first OWMTBC for my bike having m900 sti rapidfire units, should have been thumbies apparently eventhough the bike had them at the time when i built it in 1993/4

i'm not bitter

Thats harsh Especially as M900 rapidfire would have been around in 1992, IIRC.

I guess it's an indicator of what 'those who matter' really class as retro though eh?

 

[jamabikes]

the way i see it is that each individuals bike is individual to the owner. if your doing all this for the respect and adoration of others then your not doing it for the right reason. the very fact we love older bikes (hate the term retro) shows we don't follow the norm when it comes to cycling. all this "ooh i dont like bar ends at a funny angle blah blah blah" man just chill and ride more.