Good to have a little intelligent debate on this thread rather than just people posting up stuff like
Anyhow over the last few weeks myself and the other mods have made a bit of effort to try and keep things a little more 'retro' in the retro chat section and readers bikes. I think most will appreciate this, both had become a little generic. If you want to see newer bikes or discuss newer stuff there is the general chat forum here OR one of the hundreds of other generic cycling forums. Being a retro dedicated site is what keeps us different.
Unfortunately this means we have to make a judgement on what counts as retro. As this thread shows this is tricky at best.
The oft touted '10 year' rule is clearly rubbish and not something myself, the other mods or many others would go by. Just think is 12 1/2 months time an older one one inbred will be 10 years old and by the '10 year' rule retro. If you think an inbred is ever going to be retro you should really really ask yourself the question what in the name of god you are doing on this board.
Anyhow, I digress slightly. The judgement is tricky and there are quite a few bikes from the late 90s which some would consider retro and some not. Sometimes bikes or threads are moved to general chat, people shouldn't take this as a personal attack.
Back to this specific bike. More than aware the super v is an older design. Just didn't feel this 99 super v with the proper bo triple clamps etc was retro. My call, my judgement, I stand by it. Ironically there is an older, nicer super v in readers bikes which is far cleaner, far more orignal and far more interesting than this "student smack head special" (owners words, not mine). This bike has two pages of discussion, this one four. Wonder why? Some people have entered into a worthwhile debate on this thread (which is great), some other I can't help but feel just want to argue for the sake of it...