Isn't it time to update the cut-off date for 'retro'?

[john]

Daft? I'd disagree. The 'split' was made based on user input and based on the way the site was developing.

 

[Anthony]

I know your the Chief John but thats a bit daft :?
Just get rid of contentious dates and base it on the slogan "If its Old School its in".
Every generation has its own generation of old school.
Saying pre 98's retro and post 98's less retro is getting a bit mines better than yours nyaa nyaa nee nyaa nyaa
Lets all be friends

It's not daft at all. John is just saying that the cut-off doesn't define 'retro' as some seem to assume, but rather that the 98> pages are for both retro and modern bikes dated from 1998 onwards.

 

[velomaniac]

John, my apologies, I think I get your explanation but you will continue to get questions regarding the cutoff from others I'm sure.

One of my non bike interests is comparative theology, I'm interested in what people believe as it shapes the way they/we live. The debate over the cutoff is kind of like the debates that lead to schisms of various religious sects. Alternatively to the war between the lands of Lilliput and Blefuscu in Gullivers Travels over which end of a boiled egg you should start from.

An Eggs an Egg and Retrobikes Retrobike

 

[Rumble]

Velo I don't know what worries me more - your ramblings or the fact that I know what you mean!

 

[wynne]

I was just curious. I should have known this had been discussed and I apologise if it's troubled the otherwise calm waters of RB.

I prefer parallel push v-brakes (XTR, Arch Rivals) to all other forms of brake 99% of the time (lighter and easier than discs and better by miles than cantis). I think therefore that I have discovered that I am neo-retro - and I like that.

 

[cyfa2809]

However, at 28 I get the impression i'm one of the younger posters on here and I don't think people much younger than me will continue to be attracted to the site in big numbers as it stands..

I thought you was older!
Our generation has plenty of other sites to go on, and to be quite frank im glad more of them arent on here.
Pinkbike for example is full of sarcasm and insults and people that dont reply.

I think my idea was a good idea but also the explanation that if your bike is retro to you but 98+ then stick it in tthe correct forum - its still on retrobike.

The thing with this debate is, chicken or the egg type thing as suggested.

 

[Woz]

I sort of like a end cut-off date idea for the > 98 section. It would probably develop it more and remove the blur of including todays bikes.

 

[john]

I sort of like a end cut-off date idea for the > 98 section. It would probably develop it more and remove the blur of including todays bikes.

Maybe we could do that, I do see your logic. However where would we cut off this section? We'd just have the same discussions over a different date...

 

[Woz]

I sort of like a end cut-off date idea for the > 98 section. It would probably develop it more and remove the blur of including todays bikes.

Maybe we could do that, I do see your logic. However where would we cut off this section? We'd just have the same discussions over a different date...

2002. Because I don't have any thing after that. More seriously though:

Something to co-incide with:
- Disks on all low / mid-end mass production bikes
- Full suspension on low / mid-end mass production bikes

Some consensus vote is probably needed and a bit of research of major manufactuer catalogues, but I'm guessing 2005, 2006 or 2007. It's not about being a snob either, it's just to ensure the section puts emphasis on more desirable less common place cutting edge technology of the time; which is now considered obsolete tat by the most part.

 

[Jamis Diablo]

No, please let is be like it is now.
If you keep on shifting this border, in 20 years this will be retro :shock: