one-eyed_jim
Old School Grand Master
Nowt on t' telly?BoyBurning":ph8nttir said:
Why Don't I like the 'good' bikes?
- Thread starter My_Teenage_Self
- Start date
- Feedback
- View
BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH
Yugo was shite as demonstrated in Dragnet
Sahara was a good frame with shite parts or do you just skip read everything.
And the Visa uses a Peugeot floor pan...
Yugo was shite as demonstrated in Dragnet
Sahara was a good frame with shite parts or do you just skip read everything.
And the Visa uses a Peugeot floor pan...
legrandefromage":2zdrc1ls said:
Oh come on le grand, what's your obsession with skips?
legrandefromage":1wk6j1cy said:
I essentially just think you are being too gracious towards Saracen - as if they had some higher cause for social cohesion and a new classless society or something.
I very much doubt their intentions were so noble.
As with all manufacturers, they would have at some point in their range a frame which was common to several models.
ie. the same frame would come equiped with 300LX or whatever for a certain price, 400 / 500 / Deore LX / etc for others.
Then, they might have another frame with DX for a certain price, then the same frame, with different model names and components at different prices still.
I'm not necessarily saying there is anything wrong with that, but most mainstream manufacturers do it, and it is marketing not an ethos for greater good.
It also means, that a frame intended to span across so many price points will be at the peak of its useful ability by the time its top price bracket is reached.
Therefore, using the very broad example outlined above, a frame that was intended to come with 300 LX, and at most Deore LX is a pretty pointless basis to add DX or above to.
That is not being snobbish, it is being practical and reasoned.
Now, shall we take this to PM to avoid corrupting peoples threads?
BB
sylus
Old School Grand Master
This seems to be going around in circles so I'll make my last stab at it
There is nothing wrong with high end, there is nothing wrong with low end there is a place for both within the spirit of retro and yes you can point out the cheaper bikes shortcuts. That said we are talking about a bike, it has two wheels and some in here peddle them daily, some peddle sometimes and some use them as ornaments and never ride them
The discussion largely is not about the quality of the bikes but more about the way some give thier opinions on that lower end budget range whilst appearing to be a parts snob rather than a welcoming member of a bike forum where I thought we all shared the same desire to promote retro.
And perhaps thats' where the biggest issues lay? as the site expands some of the original anoraks feel that thier precious site is being invaded by council chavs with low end bikes and with an enthusiasm they have long since forgotten.
Yet I still havn't seen anyone putting down the upper end bikes in the way some put down the lower end bikes, infact why put any retro bike down at all? sure you can say yup it's the entry level bike of a low cost range but I like what you have done with it. Many of us will have spent on our bikes more than what it is worth wether it's a 30 quid clunker or a 2 grand super duper posing machine..it's just not the low end bikes that have more money spent on it than it's worth. Listen to some however and you would never guess that
there is a place for all retro bikes within rbuk and some seem to have forgotten that
There is nothing wrong with high end, there is nothing wrong with low end there is a place for both within the spirit of retro and yes you can point out the cheaper bikes shortcuts. That said we are talking about a bike, it has two wheels and some in here peddle them daily, some peddle sometimes and some use them as ornaments and never ride them
The discussion largely is not about the quality of the bikes but more about the way some give thier opinions on that lower end budget range whilst appearing to be a parts snob rather than a welcoming member of a bike forum where I thought we all shared the same desire to promote retro.
And perhaps thats' where the biggest issues lay? as the site expands some of the original anoraks feel that thier precious site is being invaded by council chavs with low end bikes and with an enthusiasm they have long since forgotten.
Yet I still havn't seen anyone putting down the upper end bikes in the way some put down the lower end bikes, infact why put any retro bike down at all? sure you can say yup it's the entry level bike of a low cost range but I like what you have done with it. Many of us will have spent on our bikes more than what it is worth wether it's a 30 quid clunker or a 2 grand super duper posing machine..it's just not the low end bikes that have more money spent on it than it's worth. Listen to some however and you would never guess that
there is a place for all retro bikes within rbuk and some seem to have forgotten that
- Feedback
- View
and so say all of us, well me in any case
...
I know that I'm a noobie and so I don't expect my opinion to count for anything, but... I just think it's a bit sad that some old bikes are being looked down on as being shite, because they weren't made with the best materials of the day. Maybe they were rubbish, but we still bought them.
I come from a motorcycling background and I know a few restorers, and the same argument that's been posted here, is resounding through the motorcycle forums- "Why restore a piece of shit pressed steel Italian moped when you could be rebuilding an iconic litre-engined Kawasaki or Suzuki?"
What happened to rebuilding or restoring a bike because you like it? Because it means something to you, whether it's the first bike you ever wheelied, or the one you had the biggest crash on, or the one you bought with your first wage packet?
If I had the cash to do so, I'd be rebuilding a Raleigh Commando.
Why? Because it's the first new bike I ever owned.
It weighed a ton, it wasn't fashionable when I owned it, and it'd be too small for me to ride now but I'd still do it.
Because it means something to me.
I would like to think that, in a few years, someone will come to this forum and say, I've just found this bike, they used to be sold in Asda and I had one, I had a great time on it and I'm restoring this one I've found.
And I would like to think that no-one's gonna look down their nose at that person with the Asda bike and say, don't waste your time 'cos it's shit.
But maybe that's just wishful thinking.
I come from a motorcycling background and I know a few restorers, and the same argument that's been posted here, is resounding through the motorcycle forums- "Why restore a piece of shit pressed steel Italian moped when you could be rebuilding an iconic litre-engined Kawasaki or Suzuki?"
What happened to rebuilding or restoring a bike because you like it? Because it means something to you, whether it's the first bike you ever wheelied, or the one you had the biggest crash on, or the one you bought with your first wage packet?
If I had the cash to do so, I'd be rebuilding a Raleigh Commando.
Why? Because it's the first new bike I ever owned.
It weighed a ton, it wasn't fashionable when I owned it, and it'd be too small for me to ride now but I'd still do it.
Because it means something to me.
I would like to think that, in a few years, someone will come to this forum and say, I've just found this bike, they used to be sold in Asda and I had one, I had a great time on it and I'm restoring this one I've found.
And I would like to think that no-one's gonna look down their nose at that person with the Asda bike and say, don't waste your time 'cos it's shit.
But maybe that's just wishful thinking.
Defintions!
I Liked pete_mcc's retrobiker demographical demarkation
Let's try and do a similar thing with with the gear itself
1) Supermarket bikes of BITD: Example: Raleigh Cobra/Townsend Commando etc etc
Features: Steel rims, oversized BMX style BBs etc etc, sometimes pressed tubes forming dropouts and other associated questionable construction methods
2) Leisure MTBs 200GS/Alivio (dependent on vintage)
Features: frame sets compatible with higher range parts, some decent framesets, some not
3) Budget mass market entry level 300LX/STX typed stuff
Features: generally better frames made of Reynolds tubing/Tange etc
4) Quality mass produced bikes, DX/LX/XT potentially even useful at a competitive level
Some cutting edge technology and innovation found at this level
5) Exotica... into outer space with materials/innovation/quality/price - RBoQ stuff
For me at point 2 in the scale you start finding stuff that you can commute on safely and reliably and you can do rolling upgrades etc
At point 1, you are liable to find acute and astute observations for RBers about the shortcomings of that stuff
And to me that should be OK
I'm not saying you shouldn't love that stuff, but you should expect to hear some detracting opinion and perhaps take it on
Bikes at point 2 and 3 can be found for the SAME money as bikes at point 1...
If you do up a point 3 bike you may not be wasting your time money and effort going all the way with it...
As for point 5 bikes, I perfer it when they are rebuilt as close to original spec as possible and not simply refinished the buried in XTR, but that's just my preference
On a technical level it's fine and dandy
I don't own any of that stuff, I don't desire to (other things to do with my dosh) but I have appreciation for it and those that do own that stuff - especially if they actually use it!!
Raleigh are a tricky one 'cos they've made stuff at every point from 1 to 4 and probably 5 too, but I've not seen it
Personally my area is hovering around points 3-4 getting maximum bang for buck
- I just blasted this out it is a hasty sketch...
I Liked pete_mcc's retrobiker demographical demarkation
Let's try and do a similar thing with with the gear itself
1) Supermarket bikes of BITD: Example: Raleigh Cobra/Townsend Commando etc etc
Features: Steel rims, oversized BMX style BBs etc etc, sometimes pressed tubes forming dropouts and other associated questionable construction methods
2) Leisure MTBs 200GS/Alivio (dependent on vintage)
Features: frame sets compatible with higher range parts, some decent framesets, some not
3) Budget mass market entry level 300LX/STX typed stuff
Features: generally better frames made of Reynolds tubing/Tange etc
4) Quality mass produced bikes, DX/LX/XT potentially even useful at a competitive level
Some cutting edge technology and innovation found at this level
5) Exotica... into outer space with materials/innovation/quality/price - RBoQ stuff
For me at point 2 in the scale you start finding stuff that you can commute on safely and reliably and you can do rolling upgrades etc
At point 1, you are liable to find acute and astute observations for RBers about the shortcomings of that stuff
And to me that should be OK
I'm not saying you shouldn't love that stuff, but you should expect to hear some detracting opinion and perhaps take it on
Bikes at point 2 and 3 can be found for the SAME money as bikes at point 1...
If you do up a point 3 bike you may not be wasting your time money and effort going all the way with it...
As for point 5 bikes, I perfer it when they are rebuilt as close to original spec as possible and not simply refinished the buried in XTR, but that's just my preference
On a technical level it's fine and dandy
I don't own any of that stuff, I don't desire to (other things to do with my dosh) but I have appreciation for it and those that do own that stuff - especially if they actually use it!!
Raleigh are a tricky one 'cos they've made stuff at every point from 1 to 4 and probably 5 too, but I've not seen it
Personally my area is hovering around points 3-4 getting maximum bang for buck
- I just blasted this out it is a hasty sketch...
