This doesnt work!!

[daj]

Maybe I have had a really shitty weekend or being stubbon but why have we started getting peoples bikes in general & off topic chat??

If we have to have a divide then create a "non retro" readers bikes

someone posting there bike that they are too fearful "isnt retro enough" next to "my next door dog just bit my bollox" dont really seem much justice for someones pride and joy :roll:

Rant over

 

[legrandefromage]

"my next door dog just bit my bollox"

how the hell did you find out?

 

[jimihendrix]

I posted my 99 Sunn in this section after the carnage on the Super V thread.

Fully aware the Sunn may not be regarded as Retro by some (though it has older bits on it) and totaly cool about it.

 

[john]

Maybe I have had a really shitty weekend or being stubbon but why have we started getting peoples bikes in general & off topic chat??

If we have to have a divide then create a "non retro" readers bikes

someone posting there bike that they are too fearful "isnt retro enough" next to "my next door dog just bit my bollox" dont really seem much justice for someones pride and joy :roll:

Rant over

I'm sorry you had a bad weekend.

Please read this > http://www.retrobike.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=45125. Might also help you to re read the cannondale thread.

This site is RETRObike. Not another generic cyling website.

I also feel it's unfair that someone might spend months carefully restoring a true retro bike only for it to appear next to someones 03 mid range full susser in readers bikes.

 

[john]

I posted my 99 Sunn in this section after the carnage on the Super V thread.

Fully aware the Sunn may not be regarded as Retro by some (though it has older bits on it) and totaly cool about it.

Jimi,

thanks. The Sunn is a great bike

I've nothing against newer stuff, just aware the thing that keeps this site different is the fact it concentrates on older stuff.

 

[sinnett177]

To some a 99 Sunn is retro and i'd agree with them. We all have our era, mine is 1990-94 but others might be 1994-99 which is retro too. Therefore would'nt making readers bikes say pre-2K make sense and perhaps making people date their bike in the title, thus if it is'nt your era and you really don't want to view it you don't have too.

 

[daj]

Im glad someone else has decided to make a comment, Too many people sit on the fence rather than talking which is a shame as its a forum and noone is trying to upset people or anoy them hey?

I did write a reply earlier but held it back as wanted to see how other people felt? But here is what I put anyway and it very much relates to sinnett.

Can I just start by highlighting that this is a forum, not trying to anoy or pi@@ anyone off just my thoughts....

restoring a true retro bike

But this is the problem.... I dont think anyone actually knows what is meant by a true retro bike?? :shock:

Use my bikes as a example ....I dont take offence that easy .

Take my background first, I completly missed the early 90`s, I came into biking mid-90`s and straight into V brakes (I think my rockhopper had cantis) but all in all when getting serious V brakes were really the start. So this reflects in my mindset of what is retro to me and what is just older stuff thats not that much interest.... Which is the same as say what is retro to joe Blogs but more importantly what is retro to yourself

So lets look at my collection of bikes again in my eyes is all retro to me? But Are any of them actually retro enough to qualify?? Most id say are owned by other members and be shown through readers bikes pages, So other people must be on the same wave length

1994 Zaskar (very unoriginal being built modern-ish)
1996 Zaskar
c16r ( rigid forks)
proflex beast

What is retro….If any?

 

[orange71]

they'd all be retro to me

 

[rienster]

Please read this > http://www.retrobike.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=45125. Might also help you to re read the cannondale thread.

Have to agree here, but I'm not sure why my early nineties pinarello was posted in OT. Is it really that big a sin to have newer cranks on it?

 

[NickD]

Retro is entirely personal. I don't own a single bike I would consider modern (ie post 2000) but any mountain bike I own that is 95/96 or newer will get V's, whether they are considered retro or no, just because they work. As my newest quality mountain bike is a 96 LTS, I don't think I would know whether to post my bikes in readers bikes or off topic.

Being honest, it's a stupid discussion to have multiple threads about (yes, I appreciate the irony).

If it could be considered retro (and yes, that includes that Cannondale) why not have it in readers bikes? If you don't want to look at it, don't click on it.

There was a commment in the Cannondale thread about the end of retro being the point at which parts started working properly. That really is elitest bollocks