Your 'Retro' cut-off year

[johntheboy]

I dont really have one. I just like bikes.

Ditto, still saying that I think bought my last retro bike in 1996 before a mtb lay off till 2005 when I bought my first "modern" MTB. I still have my 1996 bike and my 2005 bike. I just like bikes!!

 

[marin man]

I say about 1997 as bikes from before this are recognisable as different brands and after this they start to become clones and then generic and then boring.

 

[paulwakinshaw]

'97 for me. I started driving then so the bike took the back burner and then i discovered ale.

but on a serious note - from 1990 to 1997 brands all had their own details. GT's with triple trig, marin with that satin type paint finish, pace with square-ish tubes etc....

walk into Halfrauds now and what do you see, bikes that are pretty much clones of one another.

 

[crud]

i went all anti bike fashion in about 95, from 95 to about 97 i rode my 94 parkpre for xc, downhill and trials and didnt enter a bike shop in between, just me and a mate riding and fixing our bikes with spare parts. so i would say 95, although i like anything up to about 98.

 

[kanerdog1x1]

you lot really are stuck in your ways arent you? mine seems to creep forward every few years, i now qualify anything before about 2005 as retro!

but old school, thats a different matter. 96 for me. thats when the money started to come in, so i could buy 'modern' stuff.

 

[MikeD]

I don't buy this "bikes look the same now and didn't then" thing. When everything was a rigid steel bike, they looked pretty similar to one another, no?

 

[drystonepaul]

I don't really have a cut off point and I find different things interesting from year to year. I'd agree though that pre 1997 is a good benchmark for 'retro'.
Also my 1997 Bravado just happened to be the bike I mainly rode between 1997 and 2005, when I finally decided to invest in something more modern.

Nowadays I do however like to keep things more or less period correct. Whether building a bike from the early nineties or a bike from say 2005. That way I think I'm happier comparing the differences in certain developments and characteristics.
I'm not really keen on 'retro-mods' or 'neo-retro' even though I've built a couple for practicality.

I'm slowly working on 'a bike from each year of the nineties'. I do keep getting drawn back to 1992 though...
1992 was the first year I had my first 'proper' mountain bike.
On reflection, and along with my personal history, my favourite years are 1992 for pre-compact drive and the dawn of XTR, and 1997 for V-brakes.

So in conclusion; 1992, 1997 and 2005 are significant benchmarks for me personally.

 

[wriggles]

Agree with MikeD. Other than a few notable exceptions; Trimble, kirk and Ibis Ti-bow for example most bikes "way back when" were pretty much of a muchness.

Today there is a much more diverse range and bikes aimed at many different niche and non niche part of the sport. I love having a 6" trail bike sat next to a ti29er and next to an old Kona, and being able to ride them all.

So is it about what year a bike was made, or whether its still a great bike or not? They are meant to be ridden after all :roll:

 

[BerthaPog]

I'm definatley in for '98 being the cut-off, but I may be biased with my '98 Kilauea.

Maybe as with many things the actual line is a bit grey and fuzzy rather than black and white.

 

[Neil G]

1990-94 were good years but maybe because that's when I lived for MTB!

Some nice stuff around from that period, notably Kleins