Retrobike Forum Index

It is currently Fri Oct 28, 2016 3:35 am

* Login   * Register * Search  * FAQ

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 4 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Sep 03, 2005 6:51 am 

Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 1:45 pm
Posts: 9
Is it a certain year or a certain vintage of part? Ie some wine years are "better" than others just like some part years are better than others.

For example I have an almost full XT '98 (I think) groupset which was the last of the 8 speed XT iirc. Some would consider this to be retro, others would not.

So what would YOU consider retro?

 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 03, 2005 7:40 pm 
Old School Grand Master

Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2005 11:18 am
Posts: 15784
Location: near cwmcarn
this has been asked before & I dont think there really ever can be a fixed defintion on time scale.. BUT! I've kinda always fixed the end of the CNC machines/ anodnised parts era around the 96 or so era. Shortly around this time fully reliable components that didnt cost a pi$$ take fortune started appearing (marzoke Z1s being a classic example compared to the elastomer judys of 95)

Maybe a vague form of classification could be this:
If it works pretty badly, or is prone to early failure & breaking, but is staggering beautiful to look at & costs a pi$$ take fortune.. then its retro ;D LOL (obviously there are items that dont apply to this.. king headsets, old IRD seatposts.. but you get the general idea :D )

...& if anyone thinks I'm just totally taking the pi$$, I'm as bigga sucka for loving these retro parts as anyone ;)

 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 03, 2005 8:40 pm 
Concours Judge
Concours Judge
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 3:59 pm
Posts: 8169
Location: a proper EU country

Your definition rules out my own bombproof Miyatas, Rocky Blizzard and much more beautifull canadian stuff and even Cunningham!!!!!! - to name only a few.

I guess it doesn't work.

 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 06, 2005 2:03 pm 
Old School Grand Master
Old School Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2005 11:02 am
Posts: 912
Location: Wookey Hole
This is tricky one.

The dictionary definition of retro is as follows
Main Entry: ret·ro
Pronunciation: 're-(")trO
Function: adjective
Etymology: French rétro, short for rétrospectif retrospective
: relating to, reviving, or being the styles and especially the fashions of the past : fashionably nostalgic or old-fashioned

Clearly we're using retro somewhat differently, in this case it refers to something which is actually from 'back in the day' (whatever that means!).

For me a very very general definition of retro is anything built in the mid 90s or earlier. Certainly the parts and bikes covered by scant's definition are probably retro, but as elev points out there are many bikes and parts which fall outside this definition which are still definitely retro.

Back to your original point as fine and as workmanlike as an 8 speed XT gruppo is I would not say it's retro.

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 4 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: hud, junkman71 and 35 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

About Us

Follow Retrobike

Other cool stuff

All content © 2005-2015 Retrobike unless otherwise stated.
Cookies Policy.
bikedeals - the best bike deals in one place
FatCOGS - Fat Chance Owner's Group

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group