Neil G":2x8qs26w said:purplewicked":2x8qs26w said:Neil G":2x8qs26w said:purplewicked":2x8qs26w said:the fork is the highest point of that build. true high end, rare, great performing piece of cycling machinery.Neil G":2x8qs26w 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
kaiser":tcn294t9 said: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
purplewicked":r2sratu0 said:Neil G":r2sratu0 said:purplewicked":r2sratu0 said:Neil G":r2sratu0 said:purplewicked":r2sratu0 said:the fork is the highest point of that build. true high end, rare, great performing piece of cycling machinery.Neil G":r2sratu0 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
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.
perry":1neapy66 said:im with you 100% neil
collecting because other people think its cool
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
Neil G":16s9w8kc said:purplewicked":16s9w8kc said:Neil G":16s9w8kc said:purplewicked":16s9w8kc said:Neil G":16s9w8kc said:purplewicked":16s9w8kc said:the fork is the highest point of that build. true high end, rare, great performing piece of cycling machinery.Neil G":16s9w8kc 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
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
cce":190e1x0d said:
perry":31s0szz7 said:im with you 100% neil
collecting because other people think its cool
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
