What is a Retro Classic Road Bike ?

[roadking]

quote]Yes, of course there has been innovation, but for example Nuovo Record lasted from late 60s to mid 80s without meaningfull modifications. Such wouldn't be possible anymore. The customer would laugh you in the face.quote]

The MTB scenario is of course a widely accepted view (the Americans invented it), nothing new there; and citing Nuovo Records long product lifecycle is making what point?

Fashion rules product development in all areas these days - you only need to look at cars.

Rolls Royce (the car maker) was a very late adopter of disc brakes on their cars - this did not alienate their customers. There is always danger when citing so called innovations as in developments, that somehow they are driven by the customer...I suggest they are pushed onto the market rather than pulled, by companies seeking to differentiate themselves with new and"fashionable"products.

There is a tendency these days to think that something new is (a) an innovation, and (b) something that has a real benefit.

Innovation = consumerism (broadly), which in turn equals short product lifecycles and designed in obsolescence resulting in the poor old consumer having to throw products away rather than buy spares to repair them.

The thread was originally about the definition of retro classic, and this little exchange of views doesn't move that forward does it?

I'm off for a ride in the lovely Lincolnshire Wolds on a newly restored, non retro, obsolete, traditional, outdated, recycled (bought new by my Grandad) and deeply untrendy anachronism that is my 1947 Hetchins Super Special - so uncustomer focused they made less than a 100!

Roadking .

 

[madmax]

I don't believe the year of production is at issue here but rather the character of the bike. The Klein is imminently collectible and I fully understand those who support the brand, however, when the bike is set up in such a way that you can directly install all present day components without any modifications or adjustments and cannot install components from 30 years ago without making adjustments, I believe the bike to be modern and not retro. In the case in point there is then the fact that the components are virtually all newer than the frame which would make me believe that the owner does not himself/herself think that the bike is retro.

I do appreciate Citoyen du monde's interpretation of a retro classic roadbike posted on the Sept. RBOTM thread. Instead of applying a date he judges the character of the bike and most importantly the type of components it was built to accommodate as his guide. Very simple, very clever.


.

 

[roadking]

My last comment on this thread as it's leading (if not gone) down a cul de sac.

The issue of what is classic? What is retro? And now modern has been introduced; how is that then defined?

Classic era is a completely different thing as that encapsulates many things, not just the bike.

One thing is for sure; they are not the same thing, and it's all about the bike.

Finally, I was an early adopter of the American MTB, I bought my Stumpjumper in 1988 - I did not"collect"it 20 years later. Saw MTBs in the US when I worked there in the 80s, bought one when I got back.

Rk.

 

[Elev12k]

There is a tendency these days to think that something new is (a) an innovation, and (b) something that has a real benefit.

Exactly! That is what they make us believe and a lot people do buy it. Marketing, short cycles, high rate innovation... is a dominant force these days. It gradually evolved into this and I think it is more or less the same since 15 years ago or so (hence I view that as an important cut off point). It wasn't as dominant before that and that is why Nuovo Record could stay with us for 20 years. The Americans with their MTBs, their wealth and tendency to consume made the entire industry aware the new business model generates more jobs, profits etc.

 

[Ivo]

Criteria like the death of a frame builder are far too subjective. I've got a simple rule of thumb: lugs. And that draws the line pretty neatly around 1990, although lugged bikes after 1990 are in too.
Exceptions? For Ti it doesn't really matter - apart from a couple of Speedwells, all Ti is modern era so let's say 1990 again. For Fillet brazed -any date is ok: FB is naturally retro.
What about Aluminium? Like Ti: Pre 90.

Doctor-bond.
Interesting-especially over a few beers...but;
the closure of the SBDU as stated is one of many events I would cite within my"thesis", and classic era would have a different thesis to classic bike.
Building a fillet brazed steel frame today, to my mind would be retro not classic (how many are FB'd or are they TIG'd?).
Building something that looks backward to a previous era is clearly retro; it is copying.
And the current craze is sales and marketing led.
Calling a Robin Day chair retro is wrong, it is a classic, innovative design.
At least we agree on dates - the end of the 1980s: as the end of the classic era.
At least one thing is for sure; all my bikes are classics.
Rk.

When I ordered my Bob Jackson 4 years ago I ordered a lugged steel frame not because I wanted a classic look but because I had bad experiences with an alu tourer (from the end of the 80-ies) and wanted steel for it's ridefeel. Nothing retro in that, simply steel because it's the best choice for the job.
Two months ago I rode PBP on a lugged steel Bioracer. Not because I wanted to do the ride retro-style but because I prefer that bike over any other for that specific task.
Over the next months I'll rebuild my Koga GranTourer (1987 or 1988 edition) with somewhat more classic kit, not because I want it to look more period but because I reckon these parts (8-speed bar end shifters and screw-on block) better for the task lying ahead, the Trans Russia 3000k audax.
Datelines and even choice of kit is always debatable. For me all three bikes are not a classic (anymore) because I choose it not for the reason of having a classic bike but because they are simply the best horse for the course.

 

[Elev12k]

That is how the vintage endavour started too for me about a decade ago. I started cycling again and continued with my old stuff as it simply performed very well given my needs. That it had more soul in my view was a plus too. Soon I discovered the old stuff was very cheap through the internet, so I started buying extra. It evolved into a collection and gradually I became more puristic.

The trigger was that it suited my needs perfectly.

 

[Lazarus]

Perhaps my friends, retro is anything that was borne before MTB's culled 90% of the real frame builders. Hand built = retro/vintage/genre/era/old days. When the frame builders of yester-year where driven out of business by the Grifter - MTB era, all that remains are these so called retro bikes.

For me "Handbuilt" means just that, it was built completely by a human beings hands & genius & skill. Nothing on this planet can call itself handbuilt when it isn't. Like most here seem to think, by 1990 the days of cycle shops dripping in Campagnolo, with drooling school boys outside, had all but gone. From my end Walvale Cycles, Harry Quinns, RJ Quinns, Keith Coppell, Pete Matthews, to name but a few, all but died between 1984 -1990, simply no demand.

Perhaps it is here we all seem to have something in common re: what a retro is, it is a bike that harks back to the days when ONLY the best frame builders earned via reputation the right to make top quality cycles. They are now retro because unlike anything of the noughties, they are not disposable money making race pacing split second winners, they are bikes borne of 50 passion driven years of hard graft across the globe, in development, individuals pushing each others boundaries to the limits to create at times simply breath taking machines that rode like the wind, looked like gods own creations, and let the rider dismount after a hard days cycling to simply say " That was a damn good ride " . The era that pinnacled for my mind into pure perfection between 1975-1990.

Just twop ences worth of my feelings for bikes, that lives in my brain. Like I said recently to someone, "get back to me in 27years with your 5K carbon bike, after it has done at least 70,000miles and show me how she handles then. My Faggin was bought in Hamburg in 1984. Assembled by the Von Hacht brothers in their own tiny workshop, I took it for her first ride with them and 27other guys on a *180km race* (see edit below). They came home in 3hrs 17mins (something like that), I dawdled home in 3hrs42mins towing some older member than me on his Colnago. I still have that bike, never greased anything in my life, no need, I look at it, it winks at me and says "come on then old timer ... told you I'd outlive you". Thats Retro for you Later everyone, yours Laz.

PS: yes I hear it all the time about the 70'000 miles no grease / tweaks being a very tall tale, but as the older saying goes "real life is often stranger than fiction".

*Edit* Checked the old race map (yes, still have it) and it was a 120km race. We cycled 30km out & 30km back to take part. That's where my 180km came from. This old brain of mine simply remembered the 180km. Sorry for the world record for 180km being wrong Later guys, Laz.

 

[Johnsqual]

How about the transition from itchy wool jerseys and chamois leather short padding to artificial fibres?

 

[David B]

There is a tendency these days to think that something new is (a) an innovation, and (b) something that has a real benefit.

Definitely not always the case. I've seen a fair few 'cross bikes die the death in races thanks to their modern 10- and 11-speed drivetrains which aren't really built for CX; the sprockets clog too easily, the mechs jam and ping into umpteen bits and the chains are all too prone to snapping. For all 3 reasons, I'm still on 8-speed for my bike; robust and reliable and avoiding the waffle of the marketing men like the plague.

You could apply similar arguments to Octalink/ISIS/Ultra-torque BB assemblies, all of which have been found to have their shortcomings in terms of reliability when compared to square taper spindles.

David

 

[roadking]

There is a tendency these days to think that something new is (a) an innovation, and (b) something that has a real benefit.

Definitely not always the case.

Absolutely,

but isn't that what I said in the first place?

Roadking.