My Cannondale sv700FR (IT'S AN OUTRAGE)new pics page 8

I dont think its ever going to be resolved as its people personal opinions there is nothing of guidelines ..... I do think though that if senior people do only feel that

Canti brakes, rigid forks, quill stems and skinwall tyres are the cornerstones of retro

Click to expand...

Then it could be sorted quite easy ... pre-96 which id say wipes hell of alot of bikes and peoples feelings to what is retro??

(this is to be taken tongue and cheek)

I attended a retrobike ride with a 1996 bike that I was worried might be frown upon .... but blimey all of them Canti brakes quill stems and skinwall tyres that were there blew me away :roll:

I say who cares aslong as everyone is happy

My word.

Going to have to stop posting pics of my bikes. Either that or post them in every forum

As said already its personal taste and is subjective to the person reviewing the bike.

I guess it becomes more convoluted when one years model is and one years model isn't.

Also it poses the question if you take IMHO a retrobike from 1994 and kit it out with modern parts does this detract from the bikes retro beginnings?

I agree (in principle) with the 10 year rule but there are bike built in 1997/8 that would be definaley retro and are just older models continued.

My ramblings anyway!

On MTBR I started a thread called 'the dark days of MTB.'

http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=460903

Sorry to cross forum-post as I know many here aren't a fan of our VRC brethren. My posts there explains exactly how I feel about the downfall of MTBs in the late nineties, and the OP bike represents everythingI hate about mountain biking:

Obvious DH influence on a cross country machine. I've said, and I will stand by my opinion that DH polarized the market and nearly ruined the sport. It may have ruined racing.

Its personal to me, because what could have been a career in the mid-ninetees for me ended up being an expensive hobby in the 2000s. I'm not bitter, I'm much better off not racing. But I formed strong opinions and associations when I was young, and I cant help but harmlessly throw those around on the internet from time.

I frequent these forums to return to a time before MTB took the nosedive. Scant and I agree on when that occured. If someone else disagrees, then return fire, but dont call someone an elitist or a jerk because they express an opinion on an internet forum. And if your feelings get hurt, come with thicker skin.

Thanks everyone for listening!

Keep RetroBike retro! Mods your work in keeping the site retro is appreciated!

Couple of suggestions... how about a cut off date? I'll go along with Scant's 96. (I think this was the last year Stumpjumpers were available in steel?) Judging a bike by disc brakes or risers etc will never work as there are notable exceptions. A strict cut off date would be the only fair way.

Also how about a sticky thread of modern bikes, like the work bikes thread? Then at least there would be somewhere to put Groovys, late Fats etc!

Not feeling the love anymore. Too regimented.

Im off to STW











Only kidding

ameybrook":3595cf6c said:

James":3595cf6c said:

98 is 10 years old. thus retro surely? Sure some of those era cannondales look before their time but a 98 gt or kona wouldn't have been moved.

Also, nice to see something constructive from Ameybrook to add. The usual VRC vibe of going over the 'telling it how it is' mark.

Nothing personal against you, I don't know you, nor do I want to derail a topic (too much).

Click to expand...

There is nothing retro about that bike. See -> disc brakes, triple clamp fork. If I were wrong, we'd be discussing this in the retro forum. No offense to its owner, if it makes him happy then it cant be that bad.

As for having nothing constructive to say, check out

http://www.retrobike.co.uk/forum/viewto ... 191ae36018

and

http://www.retrobike.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?
t=45483&highlight=camera

Some would argue RB could use a little VRC. And vice-versa to be fair.

Click to expand...

I was a bit unclear with what I wrote, but that was precisely my point. By your standards that was a pretty lame thing to post without backing it up at all.
Usually I feel I learn something from most of your posts and I respect what you have done over the years. I know you speak your mind and have no objections to others doing the same so thought i'd just pipe up to air my view.*

*Albeit not very well

James":upm1d91b said:

Usually I feel I learn something from most of your posts and I respect what you have done over the years. I know you speak your mind and have no objections to others doing the same so thought i'd just pipe up to air my view.*

*Albeit not very well

Click to expand...

No worries mate

And tbh going back to the bike, I just thought. Although it's retro in age I think if i saw someone ride past on the trail on it, there's no way I would think they were a retro biker.

Dale

All a bit awkward as to whether Retro, as they made this model from early 90's right through to 2000, this just happens to be a late model.
Discs are way more retro than V brakes though, depending on the actual Disc model! Mountain Cycle put discs on their's in 1990 for 91 sales! Where do you draw the line in the Sand? As its a 1990 design would say this was fairly retro, as previously stated had these been a HT???

Oh dear,
What have I done?
I feel as if I have committed a cardinal sin by posting this thing up.
I have actually been keeping a pretty low profile and not even logging on while I have been browsing here.
I can appreciate some of the comments about my ride, I never intended to just noise people up. On the bright side though it looks like I have started one of the most popular debates on the site (at least in the short amount of time I have been a member) and also looks like I have raised an awareness of different eras and styles of "Retro" bikes , as well as a need for another page to post our lovely tools on.
Hopefully this thread will just die away now

Peace

Gary C