Retrobike Forum Index

It is currently Wed Dec 07, 2016 6:00 pm

* Login   * Register * Search  * FAQ



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 80 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 08, 2010 12:54 am 
Gold Trader / MacRetro rider
Gold Trader / MacRetro rider
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 12:23 am
Posts: 15608
Pre Tomac and post tomac?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 08, 2010 4:56 am 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 1:12 am
Posts: 2461
Location: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
As the changes as happned, I'll work with it, but can we move it above the "Events and Area Groups" section??


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 08, 2010 7:22 am 
retrobike rider / Gold Trader
retrobike rider / Gold Trader
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2009 3:45 pm
Posts: 5261
Location: Birmingham
i agree the location is an issue for me also, as perhaps my main interest is in bikes around the cut off date, i now dont feel as much a part of the site as i did before
and really their is a lot of interest in i suppose what you could call midschool, there are numerous sites dedicated to the modern, but this midschool is not catered for other than here and is the area that if nourished will allow Retrobike to grow :lol: :lol:

so can we be moved up the table a bit, and can you split the wanted and for sale, im sure time will show that this area of the site is way more popular than road and bmx a d maybe on a par with the real retro

come on john if its midschool its in right :wink:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 08, 2010 11:18 am 
The Guv'nor
The Guv'nor
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2005 11:19 pm
Posts: 23176
Location: Retrobike HQ
clockworkgazz wrote:
I for one think the move has been an inclusive move not exclusive


That was one of the intentions, yes. However it seems to have been received by some as the opposite :?

As for forum position, if this forum is used properly I will move it. Although I really don't see what difference it makes....


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 08, 2010 12:13 pm 
Gold Trader
Gold Trader
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 3:28 pm
Posts: 476
Location: Lahndon
I think in regards to this forum position on the index page, It's all to do with scrolling (most people can't be arsed to scroll down to near the bottom all the time)

The 1998 Section is still purely based on Mountain Bike(s), therefore it should appear in the Mountain Bike section up the top.

I am sure from your google analytics the two most popular sections will be retro and non retro mountain bikes, so keep 'em in the same section at the top!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 08, 2010 10:46 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2010 1:30 pm
Posts: 566
Location: Prague
I quite like andrewls split into decades
i alway felt 1998 date beeing a bit superficial.
Decades are used everywhere and with MTB they work very nicely.

80ties- prehistory
90ties- golden age
after 2000- whatever


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 10:51 am 
MacRetro rider
MacRetro rider
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2007 2:11 pm
Posts: 8700
Location: DUNDEE
Ah but now you have named them Capin more controversy is started...

The golden age was 1988 to 1993 as that is all the modern ideas started coming about, Suspension (front and rear), Disc brakes, sloping top tubes.
Pre history was the 70's, The 80's was growth towards mainstream.
But of course this is only my opinion, we will all have our own golden ages.

Decades make sense but they should not be categorised, not sure if it will help though, might cause more date confusion. I would base all bike ages on the frame of the bike not the components. If someone gets it wrong it might be moved but that is no big deal really.

But despite all that I think an arbitary split at 98 is fine. Retro to my son is a lot less retro to me, he was born in 98 so I don't see it as that old, let alone retro.... yet.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 11:26 am 
Gold Trader
Gold Trader
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 10:17 am
Posts: 7889
Location: Mid Suffolk
I think I recall being told that retrobikes was a bit of a misnomer, the basis of the site being old bikes.. but oldbikes.co.uk didn't sound nearly as good.

There has to be a cut-off and, in order not to over-complicate, just the one (all just imo)...

I guess all things are subject to change but it's not really that hard to follow - it would be nice to have the pre & post bike stuff in the same general area though ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 11:46 am 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2010 1:30 pm
Posts: 566
Location: Prague
Haha.
yeah i thought about 70ties. that would be protoprehistory then.
some dna is still here from then but bikes are really different animals now
But golden age beeing 88-93 come on.
I jumped into mtb in 91 with scott peak and i femember what was happening back then...not much!
yes some models had little sloping, but discs and suspension were in the catalogs just for marketing reasons. Nothing worked!
There always has to be some simplification and generalisation.
A lot of ideas started popping up in the beginning of ninetees and within those ten years the Mountin Bike was refined to its modern form.

Geometry sorted
suspension sorted
brakes sorted
materials sorted
neon lycra sorted

thats golden age to me.

The more we get distant from that time les sense that 1998 split makes to me
It was just NINETEES


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 12:53 pm 
MacRetro rider
MacRetro rider
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2007 2:11 pm
Posts: 8700
Location: DUNDEE
CAPIN wrote:
But golden age beeing 88-93 come on.

Everyone will have their opinion of the golden age that's my point, my reasons are as valid as yours.

CAPIN wrote:
yes some models had little sloping, but discs and suspension were in the catalogs just for marketing reasons. Nothing worked!


I ride mag 21's from 93 and although they have little travel they work well and don't weigh a ton. It wasn't just marketing, yes modern forks are an improvement but those big jumps in improvements came at the end of the nineties and into the noughties.

Discs from the early nineties were far better than the cantis at the time but I would always say any brake that lets you skid stop in an endo is powerful enough and I can still do that with my mk1 hope despite being 13stone. They work fine, but they are damn heavy.

The old stuff works well enough it wasn't just marketing but things do generally get better over time, and modern bikes are a lot more comfortable to ride with lighter weights and less rider fatigue.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 80 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: davidj and 6 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