How new is retro?

[Mike Muz]

Re:

Thanks to Kelly, there was an overlap between toeclips and sti levers.

Thanks to Bugno, d/t shifters were still being usd by the pros in '92. Or was it '91 when he won a sprint at the Worlds using them? ! Class!


Mike

 

[james_from_stoke]

How about anything that is obselete is retro, rather than setting a year on it?
Things like splined BBs are very retro to me - a great idea that paved the way for something better, but is in itself pretty useless now, whereas things such as skinny seatstays, which have been on bikes for years, seem to be making a comeback now and are still a useful feature for a bike.

I suppose it depends on when you were born, and what era of bike design you like the most. For me, anything up until about 2005 is retro, because I love the look of 90s/00s bikes and feel that they are still very different from modern bikes, yet i suppose for someone who likes 50s bikes, anything newer than the 80s might count as modern.

 

[nedlands]

Re:

Interesting perspectives...
I always felt my late '80s bikes were retro. That's when I raced and worked in the trade but looking at my 2005 S-Works and even the Bianchi and Colnago and comparing them with today's new bikes makes me feel they are becoming retro.
I guess anything with components or parts which are rare or sought after or even out of production means that the bike is retro....
The only issue is this site seems to shun anything post '99 as being modern.... At the end of the day I don't really care as I love bikes, just hate snobbery about my bike being better than yours etc.....

 

[Mike Muz]

Re:

Got any photos of your Gitane?

Mike

 

[Johnsqual]

How about anything that is obselete is retro, rather than setting a year on it?
Things like splined BBs are very retro to me - a great idea that paved the way for something better, but is in itself pretty useless now, whereas things such as skinny seatstays, which have been on bikes for years, seem to be making a comeback now and are still a useful feature for a bike.

I suppose it depends on when you were born, and what era of bike design you like the most. For me, anything up until about 2005 is retro, because I love the look of 90s/00s bikes and feel that they are still very different from modern bikes, yet i suppose for someone who likes 50s bikes, anything newer than the 80s might count as modern.

I agree with this: what is retro has to be flexible because bike technology is always evolving.
Retro to me implies some sort of appreciation for what is generally considered to be obsolete, and stuff is continuously becoming obsolete.

It is determined by some combination of what the major manufacturers are willing to support as part of their mainstream product range, and of what is still considered usable for reasonably high level racing.

So 9 speed is now almost retro, since only Shimano Sora now seems to be available with 9 speed, and Sora is probably not considered a serious racing group by most riders.

The lines are always blurry though. Old stock hangs around long after the manufacturers have stopped making the product lines, and racers will keep using old technology if they prefer it (both Armstrong and Pantani kept using DT shifters for their front derailleur for a long time).

 

[mattsccm]

Re:

First define retro. Ie. its dictionary definition. Basically it means an imitation ie. something new but built to look vaguely old. By those terms this site is badly named . I have always thought that.
Maybe something like "classic" works better but that suggests something special not any old junk.
How about "old"?
Of course what's old to me isn't to others. I think it means something current before my memory. So Raleigh Lentons are old. 1980's stuff is hardly old.

 

[RickTheUncivil]

some interesting variations on the theme. To me i see my own personal timeline - i grew up in the 90s, had bikes since i was wee but got into cycling preoperly about 1994. Got my first 'real' bike in '96, so for me its more a nostalgia of my youth. 'hey, I had one like that / wanted one of those'.
I certainly class my 90's bikes as retro, because they are from a different time. My 2004 chameleon is retro as it's from a different time, even though its only a few years old.

Maybe that's it. If it's different to the way we do it now - materials, parts, geometry, style - that sort of thing makes it classic / retro.

Genesis is always going to be special too. The first of this and that, or a specific evolution which changes things from that point on, its special.

So as others have said, perspective is personal.

not sure I agree with the retro=reproduction line. yes, I see what you are saying and your not wrong, it just FEELS wrong

 

[mattsccm]

But those bikes mentioned above are not retro. They are genuine from their day not a modern version.

 

[RickTheUncivil]

Depends on your definition:

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/retro?s=t
2.denoting something associated with or revived from the past


http://dictionary.cambridge.org/diction ... lish/retro
Old or old-fashioned
retro- prefix (PAST) looking at or copying the past: retro-pop (= popular music from the past) (ERGO retro-bike = bike from the past)

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/retro
ADJECTIVE: Imitative of a style or fashion from the recent past


https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dicti ... sh/retro_1
adjective: denoting something associated with or revived from the past

 

[widowmaker]

Re:

Does it matter