Would site owners ever consider reform the categories?

[TheAntsPants]

One way out of this taxonomic mess is for OP's to use hashtags for each thread. Dunno if such functionality exists, but this would allow #neoretro #disc-v #restomod etc without upsetting the grey beards (too much). Personally, I think this is the best way to stay true to our retrogrouch values while being forward thinking.

Digression: I do wonder whether this site will die out due to pre-97 bikes becoming rarer or scarcity doing the opposite and raising prices and interest.

Regardless, the consensus seems to be that there is not enough interest in "retro-tweeners" to make a dedicated space for them here, besides the 98+ section. Why is there not enough interest, anyway?

 

[FluffyChicken]

The retrotweeners or late millennials are all Facebook, Instagram or Twatting*.
Easy to use Forum tech with multiple sentences and posts you can follow is beyond them ;-)
Of course the odd few enlightened find their way.

Post have tags at the top people can abuse as much as they want.

* current yoof are all Discord, reddit and can have reasonable chat and banter with good info or being TikTok influenced to buy shite.

Of course some of us still dig up the Usenet posts for early info..

 

[john]

Interesting thread, will pen a response later. Some good points raised.

 

[BerthaPog]

Cantilevers -> V-brakes -> Disc brakes

Fully rigid -> Hard tail -> Full suspension

100% human powered -> E-bike

Freewheel -> Freehub/Cassette

Triple chainring -> Dinner plate cassette

One dominant tyre size (26") -> Three tyre sizes

5 speed -> 6 speed -> 7 speed -> 8 speed -> 9+ speed

Non-indexed Thumb Shifter -> Indexed Thumb shifters -> Button/Trigger shifters

Steep frame angles - Slack frame angles

Can anyone be bothered to create a complete chronology of the above, and then rank them in terms of the importance of the change? I know a lot of the changes, but I certainly can't remember the dates when all of this started appearing in shops. The dates are all just a blur to me.

And that is where the fun starts as there is no clear date.

e.g. Frame angles, started slack, became steeper, and are now going slacker again
e.g. Suspension, amoung others I have a ‘94/95 full sus, a ‘96 hard tail and a ‘97 fully rigid

As such, the cutoff we have now have seems about right even though my ‘98 Kilauea is technically outside the cutoff, it hasn’t stopped me riding and enjoying it on Retrobike rides.

 

[jimo746]

Look forward to hearing your thoughts on this John.
For me the 1997 cut off date works well for retro mtb, but I think as time progresses the ‘98 onwards section grows and grows, maybe a ‘98 — 2010 section would help, this “mid-school” era is only going to gather more interest over the next few years, more builds etc.
You can’t prevent the passage of time, but you can adjust things to suit it better.

 

[grey-beard]

As for the grey beards not being too offended, I'm not in slightest.

 

[FluffyChicken]

And that is where the fun starts as there is no clear date.

e.g. Frame angles, started slack, became steeper, and are now going slacker again
e.g. Suspension, amoung others I have a ‘94/95 full sus, a ‘96 hard tail and a ‘97 fully rigid

As such, the cutoff we have now have seems about right even though my ‘98 Kilauea is technically outside the cutoff, it hasn’t stopped me riding and enjoying it on Retrobike rides.

disc's were before V-Brakes...
Front Sus, Rear sus and full sus were all within a few years, Hardtail came later as a marketing term to make them sound cool again.

Non-indexed Thumb Shifter -> Indexed Thumb shifters -> Button/Trigger shifters fully forgets the twist shifter, given it created the only real competition to the big Shimano, it's quite a pivotal moment.

Define steep and define slack/steep. I'm pretty sure a lot of bikes I see are in the 71 head angle region still, bar when they have long forks and so have to be slacker to compensate.

 

[CassidyAce]

Think of it this way;

"Retrobike is not a forum about cycling - Retrobike is a forum about Mountain bikes made before 1997*"

* with some other sections as it creates a nice community spirit!

I'm 100% in the "1997 is a perfect cutoff" camp

Or think of it this way:
"Retrobike started out as a forum about mountain bikes made before 1997 and, over time, it grew to be much more than that."

Honestly, I don't really have strong feelings about any of this but I guess John has a choice to make at some point:

1) either the site stays close to its roots, in which case, as interest in pre-1997 mountain bikes dies out, the site will wither and die, having run its natural lifespan;
2) the site spreads from its roots to have a wider focus on vintage bikes in general (which is a moving target) and cycling in general. The USP is still older bikes and the site will still have a natural lifespan but it will be a longer lifespan.

There is no right choice, just a preference and a decision to make. At the moment, post-lockdown and the refresh, the site seems quite lively and vibrant but, pre-lockdown, I remember seeing comments about how the site was on the wane and interest was dwindling.

 

[ibbz]

97 cut off will not change, unless you want to be the one that moves all the posts from the 98 section over ;-)

The 98 section was never intended to be modern bikes, that was what the 'general area' was for. if for some reason wierd people wanted to talk about modern bikes on a retro bike forum.
It was for retro 98+ bikes, that could expand as modern then became retro....


But it wasn't used much and so people started to put proper modern 'shite' in there. It did give an area to chat with the familiar retro people.


As for other bikes like bikertons, 20s, Bromptons and other shite bikes stick em in general. #cycloshite

That makes sense.
Retro bikes pre 97 and 98+.
General area could be renamed ‘29er and 27er Modern’ or something

 

[ibbz]

I hope my original reply didn't come across as too blunt. I think it's a perfectly valid question and hence it gets asked so many times

For me, there's never going to be a clear cut-off point on a timeline and even if you think you find one, someone will dig up exceptions that go against it (probably LGF) so 1997>1998 is at least as justifiable as any other and people get used to it. Everyone's preferences are going to be slightly different - I'd be happy enough if it was a year or two earlier, since I prefer cantis to v-brakes.

Blunt but to the point !!