FAT Chance wicked Finished pics on 1
- Thread starter kaiser
- Start date
purplewicked
Retro Guru
Neil G":71l7a79q said:purplewicked":71l7a79q said:the fork is the highest point of that build. true high end, rare, great performing piece of cycling machinery.Neil G":71l7a79q said: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
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?
GoldenEraMTB
Old School Grand Master
- Feedback
- View
fingers":30rxpns7 said:Fat chance??? Eh??? Never heard of them.
Nice forks tho
:shock:
purplewicked
Retro Guru
kaiser":98k59pfl said:I reckon this ones a keeper anyway so in time may move to a full retro build. Maybe a suitable period fork will turn up
kaiser,
could you measure the axle to crown on the groovy fork? it seems it's a bit longer than the original forks. .
Neil G
Old School Grand Master
purplewicked":2f3uqh1f said:Neil G":2f3uqh1f said:purplewicked":2f3uqh1f said:the fork is the highest point of that build. true high end, rare, great performing piece of cycling machinery.Neil G":2f3uqh1f said: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
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
