Retrobike Forum Index

It is currently Mon Dec 05, 2016 9:46 pm

* Login   * Register * Search  * FAQ



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 180 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ... 18  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jul 19, 2009 8:07 pm 
MacModerator
MacModerator
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2006 8:59 pm
Posts: 20771
Location: Sol Kitts
I'm surprised the amount of debate surrounding the forks. By all means carry on but are they that contoversial? Personally, the pedigree and rarity does count for some of the appeal and I've always liked the look of straight blades. Can I ask the folks that don't like them what they would fit instead? Again I must say these are staying but I'd be interested in what you all think :D


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:11 pm 
BANNED USER
BANNED USER
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 11:40 pm
Posts: 323
Location: rio de janeiro
Neil G wrote:
purplewicked wrote:
Neil G wrote:
purplewicked wrote:
Neil G wrote:
Lovely bike, shame the forks spoil the build as they are IMO fugly

Matter of opinion though, if your happy with that's all good :D

the fork is the highest point of that build. true high end, rare, great performing piece of cycling machinery.
i don't get it: an Orange, Kona or a Gt are praised as a beauties but that handmade by cyclist to the highest standards of performance groovy fork is seen as ugly... :shock:


Rare and high end doesn't make something pretty...it's still an ugly fork


form follows function. if it works beautifully it looks beautifull. beauty is shaped by function in the case of industrial design. it's a logical thing.

classic bikes as classic cars are about history and pedigree. information makes all the difference. is a Potts ugly? is a cunningham pretty? mountain gioat. salsa. Ibis.. Those bikes were cutting edge avant garde. mtb royalty.
Groovy is stepped in that royalty.

nostalgia otoh is a terrible judge of beauty. a zazkar w/ that silly triple triangle. orange which copied fat city features in taiwan(their fork or monostay). what's to like? because they were at shop windows when we started mtb?


I'd agree with some of that in terms of bikes which were avant garde

Some companies made parts/bikes that worked and looked beautiful, others didn't

I still don't get it 100% though, I wouldn't buy antiques for my home just because they were rare/expensive...I'd have to really like the pieces, I suppose I feel the same about old bikes/parts


i buy vintage bikes based on their meaning to the evolution of the sport.
they are not "antiques" neither "pretty". they are significant.
most of those who are into collecting anything know the history and buy significance, not prettyness.
taste is about knowledge.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:11 pm 
BANNED USER
BANNED USER
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 11:40 pm
Posts: 323
Location: rio de janeiro
kaiser wrote:
I'm surprised the amount of debate surrounding the forks. By all means carry on but are they that contoversial? Personally, the pedigree and rarity does count for some of the appeal and I've always liked the look of straight blades. Can I ask the folks that don't like them what they would fit instead? Again I must say these are staying but I'd be interested in what you all think :D


kaiser, could you measure the AC height of the groovy?

thanks


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 20, 2009 8:44 am 
Old School Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 8:37 am
Posts: 3146
Location: Whiskey bent & hellbound!
purplewicked wrote:
Neil G wrote:
purplewicked wrote:
Neil G wrote:
purplewicked wrote:
Neil G wrote:
Lovely bike, shame the forks spoil the build as they are IMO fugly

Matter of opinion though, if your happy with that's all good :D

the fork is the highest point of that build. true high end, rare, great performing piece of cycling machinery.
i don't get it: an Orange, Kona or a Gt are praised as a beauties but that handmade by cyclist to the highest standards of performance groovy fork is seen as ugly... :shock:


Rare and high end doesn't make something pretty...it's still an ugly fork


form follows function. if it works beautifully it looks beautifull. beauty is shaped by function in the case of industrial design. it's a logical thing.

classic bikes as classic cars are about history and pedigree. information makes all the difference. is a Potts ugly? is a cunningham pretty? mountain gioat. salsa. Ibis.. Those bikes were cutting edge avant garde. mtb royalty.
Groovy is stepped in that royalty.

nostalgia otoh is a terrible judge of beauty. a zazkar w/ that silly triple triangle. orange which copied fat city features in taiwan(their fork or monostay). what's to like? because they were at shop windows when we started mtb?


I'd agree with some of that in terms of bikes which were avant garde

Some companies made parts/bikes that worked and looked beautiful, others didn't

I still don't get it 100% though, I wouldn't buy antiques for my home just because they were rare/expensive...I'd have to really like the pieces, I suppose I feel the same about old bikes/parts


i buy vintage bikes based on their meaning to the evolution of the sport.
they are not "antiques" neither "pretty". they are significant.
most of those who are into collecting anything know the history and buy significance, not prettyness.
taste is about knowledge.


So apparently I have no taste for not liking that fork lol

I suppose I'm not that anal when it comes to retro bikes, I don't collect them because of their significance to the sport...I collect/lust after them because they're the bikes I REALLY wanted BITD.

I suppose everyone has different reasons for being into retro bikes....maybe I'm not taking it seriously enough lol


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 20, 2009 9:59 am 
retrobike rider
retrobike rider
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2008 12:28 pm
Posts: 4179
Location: rutland
im with you 100% neil

collecting because other people think its cool :lol:

the groovy forks could have be crafted by the messiah himself with one of a kind unobtanium tubing held together with mrTs grr and the hopes and dreams of everybody who ever lived but they still look ghey


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 20, 2009 10:12 am 
retrobike rider / Gold Trader
retrobike rider / Gold Trader

Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 9:48 am
Posts: 6976
Location: Bristle
purplewicked wrote:
is a Potts ugly?



oh dear, i'm going to be killed. some of the old pottses are ugly as sin with their wrong-way sloping top tube. the torchwork is good, but jordan's plastic surgeons had a lot of skill.....


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 20, 2009 12:34 pm 
BANNED USER
BANNED USER
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 11:40 pm
Posts: 323
Location: rio de janeiro
perry wrote:
im with you 100% neil

collecting because other people think its cool :lol:

the groovy forks could have be crafted by the messiah himself with one of a kind unobtanium tubing held together with mrTs grr and the hopes and dreams of everybody who ever lived but they still look ghey


if everyone wanted the same bikes i want i would have to pay more for them..
keep up buying all the huh "pretty" bikes you like. i will pass and take the ugly stuff, thanks. :lol:


Attachments:
garfowicked3.jpg
garfowicked3.jpg [ 130.27 KiB | Viewed 1134 times ]
garfowicked2.jpg
garfowicked2.jpg [ 72.49 KiB | Viewed 1134 times ]
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 20, 2009 12:36 pm 
BANNED USER
BANNED USER
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 11:40 pm
Posts: 323
Location: rio de janeiro
Neil G wrote:
purplewicked wrote:
Neil G wrote:
purplewicked wrote:
Neil G wrote:
purplewicked wrote:
Neil G wrote:
Lovely bike, shame the forks spoil the build as they are IMO fugly

Matter of opinion though, if your happy with that's all good :D

the fork is the highest point of that build. true high end, rare, great performing piece of cycling machinery.
i don't get it: an Orange, Kona or a Gt are praised as a beauties but that handmade by cyclist to the highest standards of performance groovy fork is seen as ugly... :shock:


Rare and high end doesn't make something pretty...it's still an ugly fork


form follows function. if it works beautifully it looks beautifull. beauty is shaped by function in the case of industrial design. it's a logical thing.

classic bikes as classic cars are about history and pedigree. information makes all the difference. is a Potts ugly? is a cunningham pretty? mountain gioat. salsa. Ibis.. Those bikes were cutting edge avant garde. mtb royalty.
Groovy is stepped in that royalty.

nostalgia otoh is a terrible judge of beauty. a zazkar w/ that silly triple triangle. orange which copied fat city features in taiwan(their fork or monostay). what's to like? because they were at shop windows when we started mtb?


I'd agree with some of that in terms of bikes which were avant garde

Some companies made parts/bikes that worked and looked beautiful, others didn't

I still don't get it 100% though, I wouldn't buy antiques for my home just because they were rare/expensive...I'd have to really like the pieces, I suppose I feel the same about old bikes/parts


i buy vintage bikes based on their meaning to the evolution of the sport.
they are not "antiques" neither "pretty". they are significant.
most of those who are into collecting anything know the history and buy significance, not prettyness.
taste is about knowledge.


So apparently I have no taste for not liking that fork lol

I suppose I'm not that anal when it comes to retro bikes, I don't collect them because of their significance to the sport...I collect/lust after them because they're the bikes I REALLY wanted BITD.

I suppose everyone has different reasons for being into retro bikes....maybe I'm not taking it seriously enough lol


yup. nostalgia sucks.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 20, 2009 12:38 pm 
BANNED USER
BANNED USER
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 11:40 pm
Posts: 323
Location: rio de janeiro
cce wrote:
purplewicked wrote:
is a Potts ugly?



oh dear, i'm going to be killed. some of the old pottses are ugly as sin with their wrong-way sloping top tube. the torchwork is good, but jordan's plastic surgeons had a lot of skill.....


well, thank G you guys are not interested in good bikes. :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 20, 2009 1:06 pm 
Old School Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 8:37 am
Posts: 3146
Location: Whiskey bent & hellbound!
perry wrote:
im with you 100% neil

collecting because other people think its cool :lol:

the groovy forks could have be crafted by the messiah himself with one of a kind unobtanium tubing held together with mrTs grr and the hopes and dreams of everybody who ever lived but they still look ghey


lol Glad someone sees my point of view

lol@ the Potts comment too...that serious blasphemy to the refined collectors


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 180 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ... 18  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: agentorange, al, borissorin, cherrybomb, JCAC, jimi911, kikideparis, losvizzero, raidan73, singlemalt, Southernred01 and 49 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