This doesnt work!!

[jimihendrix]

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

There was a few things i didn't agree with in that thread, "canti brakes, rigid forks, quill stems and skinwall tyres are the cornerstones of retro" i dont agree with this, black wall tyres have always been available AFAIK, i had skinwalls on my Zaskar BITD and found they got grubby looking very quickly (especially with black rims) and were hard work to keep clean so for a rider i'll always use blackwalls.

Canti brakes require skill and patience to set up properly, two things i dont have so i usually go for V's, I'll be useing V's on my 94 Manitou if i ever see it :roll: , that will probably be sacrilage to some but i'm considering using Canti's on the 91 Clockwork i've got coming as i had V's on my last one, it's swings and roundabouts.

I dont agree with the rigid forks being a "cornerstone of retro" as Rockshocks have been around since the dawn of time, i agree with quill stems though but a lot of bikes as with V-brakes must have been upgraded to the A-head system BITD so could this not be regarded as a retro mod

I've been into Classic cars for years and the same debate happens with them, should a car become a classic through age alone ?, in my mind a 76 Vauxhall Viva or a 79 Morris Marina is a classic worthy of preservation if it's in good condition but a few would disagree as these were bread and butter cars in their day designed to be used and discarded, only stuff like Astons and Jags are Classics but then will a 08 Citroen C2 or Ford Mondeo be regarded as a classic in 20 years time ?

Dont thing this is a debate with a clear answer but a line must be drawn somewhere.

 

[TheGreenRabbit]

Rockshocks have been around since the dawn of time

I must come from before the dawn of time !!!

 

[orange71]

my personal opinion is that retro is 89-99, PLUS anything more modern that is custom/boutique that harks back or tips a nod to that golden era.

 

[jimihendrix]

Rockshocks have been around since the dawn of time

I must come from before the dawn of time !!!

Well i wasn't sure if it was late 80's or early 90's so i wrote that, i was 20 in 1990 so it was the dawn of time for me

 

[kaiser]

my personal opinion is that retro is 89-99, PLUS anything more modern that is custom/boutique that harks back or tips a nod to that golden era.

well said

 

[sinnett177]

Looks as though John has seperated the two. We now have pre-97 and post-97. A line in the sand has been drawn!

 

[john]

Please see announcement here > http://www.retrobike.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=46699

Be good to add further discussion there.

The line is arbitary.

Think most could agree stuff pre 1995 is retro and post 2000 is not. I basically picked somewhere in the middle

 

[FluffyChicken]

Come on Retro as we all know it stopped when the M900 series of XTR stopped

Ahead's have been around for longer than V-brakes.
(Ahead 1991 and in common use only a few years later)

Suspension as we know it and SPD's for that matter have been around since the last year of the '80's and the dawn of the 90's

To me it is the frame and forks that defines the bike not the small things like components and what brakes they use (hell even Discs where in use in the early 90's just not so common or had matured).

If I put all modern kit on my early 90's bikes then it is still Retro to me, gear and stuff have not changed much. Frames have changed quite a bit to accommodate modern forks, modern rear suspension and short stems.

The rest looks and works pretty much the same

 

[john]

Come on Retro as we all know it stopped when the M900 series of XTR stopped

Ahead's have been around for longer than V-brakes.
(Ahead 1991 and in common use only a few years later)

Suspension as we know it and SPD's for that matter have been around since the last year of the '80's and the dawn of the 90's

To me it is the frame and forks that defines the bike not the small things like components and what brakes they use (hell even Discs where in use in the early 90's just not so common or had matured).

If I put all modern kit on my early 90's bikes then it is still Retro to me, gear and stuff have not changed much. Frames have changed quite a bit to accommodate modern forks, modern rear suspension and short stems.

The rest looks and works pretty much the same

Exactly.

It's different for everyone.

the split is not intended to be retro vs non-retro, just an arbitary split...

 

[Jamiedyer]

Bollox

I thought I would keep out of this as it is a very subjective thing.
I do agree with a lot of the things being said from all sides but one thing I do strongly disagree with is the comment

my personal opinion is that retro is 89-99, PLUS anything more modern that is custom/boutique that harks back or tips a nod to that golden era.

This is bollox, so if you buy an expensive low volume piece of heavy steel made by a one arm welder in upper hicksville, as long as it has canti brakes and rigid forks its retro, thats nonsense. My 2006 Stumpjumper is an evolution of the original but if I put cantis and a rigid fork on it it still isnt retro, even though it harks back to that golden era. That comment just sounds very eletist.
Just cause somethings boutique/custom and low volume doesnt make it retro regardless if its using mid 80's technology.
I think John has been very brave by putting any date in place, but as I read it its not whats retro goes here and whats not goes here, its just an easier way to classify.
Not meaning to upset anyone, these are just my opinions and no retrobikers were harmed in the making of this post.........I hope
Keep riding.Keep smiling
Jamie