What guidelines for qualification as retro/vintage

[Blackbike]

Re:

To me, the bleeding edge of retro was very exciting. True the early advancements in frame materials were not as successful as their creators had envisioned, but the formula for the future was being developed and the world was changing rapidly. This is why the period from 1970 to 1980 holds so much interest for me.
The Japanese laid waste to many manufactures after moving upscale with their components and embracing truly advanced manufacturing techniques effectively owning the general market by the late 1970's by changing the perception of their quality and value for the money spent.
Europe was able to hang on for the most part in the upscale markets by narrowing their focus almost exclusively to racing machinery, but worldwide the broad range manufactures began to drop like flys.
Interesting times...

: Mike

 

[kingbling]

According to some sources on the web anything 15 yrs or older can be classed as retro but as a meaning the word retro is described as "Imitative of a style or fashion from the recent past". So as far a L'erocia goes it's just the definition of their rules, how far you wish to go to adhere to them is entirely up to one's self as long as you're going within the sprit of the event what more can they ask ?

 

[Robbied196]

Re:

Over the years I've come round to thinking anything pre-war is 'vintage' anything post war and steel is 'retro' providing it has down tube shifters, but there will always be the odd exception

 

[Robbied196]

Re: Re:

Over the years I've come round to thinking anything pre-war is 'vintage' anything post war and steel is 'retro' providing it has down tube shifters, but there will always be the odd exception

Vintage is generally over used and I do it myself on the likes of Ebay. Its almost just become a word to define old from new.

 

[firedfromthecircus]

For the purpose of this site 1997 is the cut off year for mountain bikes. Perhaps given that is the primary focus of the site you could use the same cut off for road bikes on here, but given the longer history maybe it should be a bit older.
I definitely think that early '90's bikes fit into the mix, so downtube shifters are not required. STIs were out in 1990 and Ergos in 1992. the last steel frame to win the Tour De France was 1994 so maybe you could set that as the year. My Merckx is an '89 with a '93 groupset and I class that as retro, even if eroica don't!
The real question is what is the purpose of asking? If it is to meet the criteria of an event then you have to go with what they set. If it is just to suit your own ideas then you can go with whatever you fancy.

 

[Cefnbikie]

The bikes that I currently use (a 1995 Rockhopper and 1969 Condor) have to be fit-for-purpose on the steep gradients of south Wales, and gentle on my 68 year old knees – no more climbing on 44/24 with a full saddlebag as back in the 1960s.

I have owned my Condor frame since 1972, and the bike has been evolving ever since. Only a few components remain from the 1972 build, and there is a mix of components fitted up until about 10 years ago. I am currently considering a few modifications, including dual-pivot brakes and, in particular, a chainset with a smaller inner ring to the current 39T – I mainly use the MTB at the moment as it is gentler on my knees. To some people the Condor would be a ghastly mish-mash, but to me it doesn’t look inelegant. The main thing to me is that the Condor is practical to use, and I still see it as a retro bike.

 

[Captain Stupido]

Re: Re:

To me, the bleeding edge of retro was very exciting. True the early advancements in frame materials were not as successful as their creators had envisioned, but the formula for the future was being developed and the world was changing rapidly. This is why the period from 1970 to 1980 holds so much interest for me.
The Japanese laid waste to many manufactures after moving upscale with their components and embracing truly advanced manufacturing techniques effectively owning the general market by the late 1970's by changing the perception of their quality and value for the money spent.
Europe was able to hang on for the most part in the upscale markets by narrowing their focus almost exclusively to racing machinery, but worldwide the broad range manufactures began to drop like flys.
Interesting times...

: Mike

Agree.

"Vintage" road bikes in the Eroica vein are all the rage at the moment. This is what I grew up riding as a teenager - I couldn't afford a mountain bike in the early 90s so I restored a 50s raleigh clubman with my dad. Not sure if I was ahead of the game or stuck in the past... my friends weren't all that impressed, but my dad managed to pay the mortgage.

Nowadays 90s MTBs are cheap and most of the hipsters in London are riding round on eroica-qualifying "vintage" racing bikes. Nobody looks at my "retro" Rockhopper with envy... But for me the 80s/90s MTB era is a fascinating one because of the huge amount of technological progress. Also because of the shift away from hand-built frames and British manufacture. Ultimately we lost and gained in equal measure but at some point there is a crossover which is (for me) a real sweet spot in the evolution of the bicycle. And I can afford to pay my mortgage.

So, for me "Retro" is about 80s and 90s MTBs (and BMX). "Vintage" is road bikes in the Eroica vein, or 3 speed roadsters. Of course that's not really right. According to the dictionary - retro really means fake-ass modern stuff: "imitative of a style or fashion from the recent past". And vintage has to be not just old, but particularly good: "denoting something from the past of high quality, especially something representing the best of its kind"

But both terms are used indiscriminately these days, so I think it's all open to interpretation / misuse as long as you can get away with it. Especially if you're trying to sell something. In that case anything over ten years old is "vintage", and probably "retro" too for good measure.

 

[mattsccm]

"1994 so maybe you could set that as the year" hee hee
20 years earlier maybe

 

[dadoflam]

Re:

For me Retro and Vintage are completely different things.
Vintage is an older bike - lets call it 1983 and before for sake of argument - with original era components.
Retro is a bike which may be 100% modern or have modern components but which has a retrospective style about it. My personal interpretation of retro is a vintage steel frame built up with modern components.

I have a pair of early 70's Cinelli's - one is Vintage and the other is Retro

 

[cce]

Re: Re:

http://i1152.photobucket.com/albums/p49 ... xzzlyd.jpg

Pair of stunners!

one for riding and one for looking at?