Time to move the Retro bar up a bit ... maybe to 2000+?

[jimi911]

What's actually retro now?

I guess its anything that's sort of passé tech and cool wise ... at least to most

Maybe its time to rethink the >1997 definition on here? It seems like the site, BoTM, for sale thread, etc. is on the steady decline ... time for new blood!

 

[brocklanders023]

Re:

Has been brought up a few times recently with no real consensus. I like the idea that was suggested that we have a golden era section, say 85/95, then pre and post which would draw more people in to the post section. Maybe even have a 2005+ modern toss section?

Problem seems to be that John doesn’t spend much time here for various stated and speculated reasons and ultimately it’s up to him.

 

[jimi911]

Re: Re:

Has been brought up a few times recently with no real consensus. I like the idea that was suggested that we have a golden era section, say 85/95, then pre and post which would draw more people in to the post section. Maybe even have a 2005+ modern toss section?

Problem seems to be that John doesn’t spend much time here for various stated and speculated reasons and ultimately it’s up to him.

I agree with that ... it be nice if John would do a bit of a revamp on here.

I would lump 81-87 (golden era as you say), 88-95 (boom years), and 96-2002 (v-brake/early disc era) and call them all "retro".

It seems like the growing sections are the early-mid 80s and later 90s at least if you go by FB, Instagram, Pininterest etc. Maybe that middle section has become a bit saturated and people are less excited about Klein, Fat Chance, and Yeti bikes that were produced in high volume during that period ... a bit like belly buttons.

 

[LittleSkink]

We have "1997 and before" or "1998 and after", so I guess from an Admins point of view the easiest thing to do would be to create 1998 to 2007 section out of the current 1998+ and add a new 2007+

FWIW I think its fine as it is, 2007 is only 10 years ago, that's not retro in my book - but then my bikes are mostly pre 1997 anyhow and that's not likely to change

 

[munkey_bwy]

I agree, and why don't we look to revising it every 5 years or so. to try make us more welcoming to new blood.

 

[longun]

decades......easy

 

[Lhatch4]

It seems like anything pre-29er is getting retro but yes I like the idea of 3 categories instead of 2. I think a "like" button would be a nice feature too. Many threads are just nice builds but have very few responses. It would make the experience more engaging.

 

[jimi911]

Re:

I think it's to label sections of the hobby within retro, but still call it all retro.

We don't want more sections of this site that people won't visit or contribute to. We want to include more people.

I don't see a problem with someone's showing off their 2000 GT Thermoplastic and calling it retro or even entering it in BoTM ... that thing fits the criteria IMO. The whole retro DH market is being vastly under served here and it's growing in popularity.

Yes I know we have a <98 section but it's effectively dead.

 

[cce]

The ship has sailed on this, by and large the people interested in the later periods are doing their thing on facebook.

 

[Gerard]

Re: Re:

I would lump 81-87 (golden era as you say), 88-95 (boom years), and 96-2002 (v-brake/early disc era) and call them all "retro".

I quite like this idea.
'96-200+ were really the suspension boom years..full and front with discs and V's.