A formal request for a change of title of this forum.

[arcdesigns]

Can we please remove Retro from the forums title and maybe Classic too?

There have been so many heated debates about the title over the years and as far as I can tell no real progress defining what should be included!

If this becomes the Vintage Mountain Bike forum I bet there will be a lot more new people that venture in and actually get a chance to learn something about the history of the sport and the hardware. As it stands now some of the most knowledgeable members can at times get kinda grumpy if someone new mentions a Retro part that was not made before 1999.

[CCMDoc]

Couldn't disagree more.

Nothing about the title to dissuade anyone from
1) reading the stickies to learn about some of the more frequently asked questions;
2) reading various threads about the bikes and subjects about which they are interested;
3) learning from those grumpy folk - the people who have been around and doing this stuff a pretty long time;


Can't see how changing the title change the perspectives of the members you find objectionable or the blurry line in the sand as to what comprises a "vintage" bike.

And 1999 is way way to modern

[jeff]

most here would say 89..

Couldn't disagree more.

Nothing about the title to dissuade anyone from
1) reading the stickies to learn about some of the more frequently asked questions;
2) reading various threads about the bikes and subjects about which they are interested;
3) learning from those grumpy folk - the people who have been around and doing this stuff a pretty long time;


Can't see how changing the title change the perspectives of the members you find objectionable or the blurry line in the sand as to what comprises a "vintage" bike.

And 1999 is way way to modern

[hollister]

Beat yourself with a drive side crank arm for bringing this crap up again

[jeff]

Drive side? That's fu%#ing harsh!

Beat yourself with a drive side crank arm for bringing this crap up again

[Uncle Grumpy]

Can we please remove Retro from the forums title and maybe Classic too?

I'm glad this is being asked. Because it hasn't been asked for a fortnight and I thought maybe I'd lapsed into a coma.

If this becomes the Vintage Mountain Bike forum I bet there will be a lot more new people that venture in and actually get a chance to learn something about the history of the sport and the hardware.

That is a noble intention but I fail to see how the words "Retro" and "Classic" dissuade anyone from venturing in.

As it stands now some of the most knowledgeable members can at times get kinda grumpy if someone new mentions a Retro part that was not made before 1999.

If it was made before 1999 it's not retro. Retro is something new that is styled after something old, or evokes something old and no longer produced. For example, a Turbo saddle date stamped 1986 is vintage. A reissue Turbo saddle that was made in 2012 is retro.

I don't see folks getting grumpy (hey, that's my name!) when someone posts up a current issue bike that is styled after something vintage, such as a Klunker, but folks rightly get annoyed when someone comes along with a bike from 2002 and calls it vintage.

The alternative is to retitle this forum "Vintage MTB (Pre-1996)" (or whatever date is deemed to be appropriate). Then we can all get labelled as being exclusionist.

MTBR has a wide variety of forums. VRC is just one of those and personally I don't think that needs to be split up. The often used argument that "Retrobike splits it up" is a bit of a moot point because Retrobike is essentially a vintage bike forum and it makes sense there to split it into categories. Here though, it's a wider audience for all things MTB and members can embrace all things MTB, from endurance racing, downhill, freeride, vintage, 29er, touring, frame building etc.

Grumps

[girlonbike]

There have been so many heated debates about the title over the years and as far as I can tell no real progress defining what should be included!

And this will go differently?

[DJ Giggity]

Just call it "grumpy old dudes who like stupid old bikes" and it will be perfectly descriptive.

[Uncle Grumpy]

Just call it "grumpy old dudes who like stupid old bikes" and it will be perfectly descriptive.

Why am I getting singled out?!



Grumps

[MendonCycleSmith]

Drive side? That's fu%#ing harsh!

At least he didn't tell him to beat himself in the junk with it, double ouch....

Gotta agree with the masses. "A rose, by any other name", and all that stuff.

[laffeaux]

If this becomes the Vintage Mountain Bike forum I bet there will be a lot more new people that venture in and actually get a chance to learn something about the history of the sport and the hardware.

Out of curiosity, why do you feel that the change in name would bring more people in? What aspect of the title discourages people? I think that bringing more people in is a great idea. I'm just not sure how changing the name does that.

Defining any term is difficult. What is retro? For example, in the recent headset discussion someone felt that a current Cane Creek threaded headset was retro. I can understand why someone would thing that as threaded headsets are less common today. However, I do not consider it retro at all. To me it's a modern threaded headset - it's great that they are offering it, but it's a contemporary design using contemporary graphics. To me that's not retro. The other example given was Chris King. Is a current CK threaded headset retro? I'm not sure, but the design (with the large white logo) has been unchanged for 15+ years. So a current CK headset looks fine on a lot of older bikes - not sure that it makes it retro, but it does not look out of place - whereas the Cane Creek headset would look out of place on a bike with older parts (but there are bikes still being made with 1" threaded steerers, and a Cane Creek would look great on them).

Not everyone agrees on what "vintage" means. I think that most people at least "tolerate" bikes into the late '90s being called vintage. However, to some/many there is no difference between a 1999 hardtail frame and a 2013 XC hardtail with 26" wheels. A lot of the late '90s bikes that people appreciate are more likely "classic" as they were built by the people and in the style of the "vintage period" - whatever that is.

If changing the name brings in new people, great (unless they want to talk about their "vintage" 2007 hardtail). But I don't see how changing the title from three ambiguous words to one ambiguous word would help. And if might scare off the people who do have current bikes built in the "vintage style" from posting - for instance a current Rivendell mountain bike fits here a lot better than a 10 year old full-suspension frame.

[Shayne]

DENIED

Next issue

[Austin Dave]

No.

[girlonbike]

lol!

This is like a monthly parole hearing for Manson and friends.

[sandmangts]

We don't want the forum title to discourage anyone from posting here. That is Rumphy's job.

[girlonbike]

He's gotten soft in his old age. He hasn't made a single comment yet in the headset thread.

[laffeaux]

We don't want the forum title to discourage anyone from posting here. That is Rumphy's job.

Classic!

[girlonbike]

Classic!

Oooooh.... What do you mean by that term, exactly?

[unicrown junkie]

I think the title is OK considered we keep up with currently made stuff for us VRC old farts. Like SOMA, they have a pedal out that looks great for old-school riders, and hell if it doesn't have some Suntour heritage then I don't know what does anymore.

Is '95 the cutoff point? I am alright with that, but I would rather see 92 or earlier. It's almost like 8spd is the cutoff point for me.

[sandmangts]

Oooooh.... What do you mean by that term, exactly?

Nice!

[bushpig]

I don't like change.

[colker1]

I don't like change.

that's why i still have canti brakes.

[Rumpfy]

We don't want the forum title to discourage anyone from posting here. That is Rumphy's job.

Apparently I haven't done it well enough.

[Rumpfy]

Can we please remove Retro from the forums title and maybe Classic too?

Oh...and no.

[flyingcloud]

I was into mountain biking in the early 80's which makes me "vintage", however I still like to ride my old bikes which makes me "classic", however I sometimes mix in some cool new parts which makes me "retro"....WTF!

[TheSingleGuy]

Beat yourself with a drive side crank arm for bringing this crap up again

Chainrings on or off? (...and do they have to have a 110 BCD?)

[klasse]

Classic!

Oooooh.... What do you mean by that term, exactly?

If you say KLASSIC then I know what u mean

[Groundoggy]

As it stands now some of the most knowledgeable members can at times get kinda grumpy if someone new mentions a Retro part that was not made before 1999.

DING DING DING! We have a winner!

What happened to this comment?

Have fun and play nicely. We're all here because we love bicycles.

Seems to be selectively enforced based upon how desperate you are to actually befriend a girl on a bike.

[zygote2k]

why dont you make a category for "vintage non-suspended bikes up to year x" and another category for "vintage suspended bikes up to year x"?

[Groundoggy]

why dont you make a category for "vintage non-suspended bikes up to year x" and another category for "vintage suspended bikes up to year x"?

Derp! Pre-emptive 'Control Tech' slam inserted here.

WTF? So Zygote has a passion? I think it's f@#king awesome. Keep on keepin' on Zygote. I totally respect your passion, opinion, and your tolerance towards the idiots.

[zygote2k]

I'm definitely into the 90s suspension bikes and all the CNC stuff that was made in that era.
I can certainly appreciate the fully rigid bikes of the late 80s to early 90s, but unless its a Klein....

I like hollisters response though- he once told me to punch myself in the junk.
If you change this forum too much, the old tired and downright cranky bike hoarders will become quiter and then half the fun of this forum will be lost.

[sandmangts]

Apparently I haven't done it well enough.

Touche, although I haven't hear much out of Stan lately.

[rev106]

Most people will come here and then leave, regardless of the title mainly do to a few joyless curmudgeons that spend way too much time on here. So you could call it what you want, it will not change the kind of people that are drawn to collecting and all the OCD BS that goes with it. You could keep slicing the thing thinner and thinner so you have a category for every era and sub-era of bike on and on, however I don't think there is enough interest in vintage bikes to warrant such stratification. Web sparring with web jerks is pointless and a waste of one's precious time, you should be out riding your bike. Come here if you need some information and leave the arm-chair criticisms untouched as they are of no real value.

[Rumpfy]

Touche, although I haven't hear much out of Stan lately.

And look how drama free it was until this new batch of sensitive sallys showed up.

[girlonbike]

Whenever I get together with all my girlfriends, we like to talk about guys and it has always been my assertion that men are not whiny and complainy. I guess I'm wrong.

[da'HOOV]

I think it's a wonderful forum with a perfect name, it's hospitable and friendly to all.

[CCMDoc]

Whenever I get together with all my girlfriends, we like to talk about guys and it has always been my assertion that men are not whiny and complainy. I guess I'm wrong.

Actually you are correct.
Men are not whiny and complainy.

[digitalayon]

Can we please remove Retro from the forums title and maybe Classic too?

There have been so many heated debates about the title over the years and as far as I can tell no real progress defining what should be included!

If this becomes the Vintage Mountain Bike forum I bet there will be a lot more new people that venture in and actually get a chance to learn something about the history of the sport and the hardware. As it stands now some of the most knowledgeable members can at times get kinda grumpy if someone new mentions a Retro part that was not made before 1999.

I cannot believe I have found myself replying to this worthless and pointless thread. Technically any bike that has parts that you can no longer get is vintage. Parts on my now 8 year old are being sold on eBay and is "vintage". Vintage items people gripe about are all their opinion. They are the Klein, and Bontrager fan boys and worship such crap items as kooka and girvin. I have seen retro schwinns more desirable to than a stupid Klein the fan boys all like. The false theory of "was made less of so therefore is more desirable" is a worthless and useless opinion to make the fan boys feel better and they hate it when people reign on their parade. None of them spent anytime in a factory nor played a part in a bikes design and they then try and set the bar with their bike and opinions and it is really irrelevant. If you have a bike with parts that you cannot get, it falls in this catagory. If they do not like it, they should deal with it!! Now if a change needed perhaps sub category's like era's/years. Perhaps that would be fine. But if a "Fan boy" section is needed, start a thread!

[Rumpfy]

I cannot believe I have found myself replying to this worthless and pointless thread. Technically any bike that has parts that you can no longer get is vintage. Parts on my now 8 year old are being sold on eBay and is "vintage". Vintage items people gripe about are all their opinion. They are the Klein, and Bontrager fan boys and worship such crap items as kooka and girvin. I have seen retro schwinns more desirable to than a stupid Klein the fan boys all like. The false theory of "was made less of so therefore is more desirable" is a worthless and useless opinion to make the fan boys feel better and they hate it when people reign on their parade. None of them spent anytime in a factory nor played a part in a bikes design and they then try and set the bar with their bike and opinions and it is really irrelevant. If you have a bike with parts that you cannot get, it falls in this catagory. If they do not like it, they should deal with it!! Now if a change needed perhaps sub category's like era's/years. Perhaps that would be fine. But if a "Fan boy" section is needed, start a thread!

You were probably better off not replying then. Lotta inaccuracies and assumptions in your post.

[zygote2k]

^^He's only riding an 8 year old bike anyways, so it doesn't really count.
You have to have something from at least 1997 to be here....

[colker1]

Whenever I get together with all my girlfriends, we like to talk about guys and it has always been my assertion that men are not whiny and complainy. I guess I'm wrong.

try any guy being sick or in pain.. men can and will complain!!

[bushpig]

I cannot believe I have found myself replying to this worthless and pointless thread. Technically any bike that has parts that you can no longer get is vintage. Parts on my now 8 year old are being sold on eBay and is "vintage". Vintage items people gripe about are all their opinion. They are the Klein, and Bontrager fan boys and worship such crap items as kooka and girvin. I have seen retro schwinns more desirable to than a stupid Klein the fan boys all like. The false theory of "was made less of so therefore is more desirable" is a worthless and useless opinion to make the fan boys feel better and they hate it when people reign on their parade. None of them spent anytime in a factory nor played a part in a bikes design and they then try and set the bar with their bike and opinions and it is really irrelevant. If you have a bike with parts that you cannot get, it falls in this catagory. If they do not like it, they should deal with it!! Now if a change needed perhaps sub category's like era's/years. Perhaps that would be fine. But if a "Fan boy" section is needed, start a thread!

Artfully put.

[digitalayon]

which is?????

[eastcoaststeve]

They are the Klein, and Bontrager fan boys and worship such crap items as kooka and girvin. The false theory of "was made less of so therefore is more desirable" is a worthless and useless opinion to make the fan boys feel better and they hate it when people reign on their parade.

Klein and Bontrager fan boy here....you can "reign" (sp) on my parade any day...it makes mud, and mud makes me happy.



PS: what Rumpfy said, lol.


Steve

[digitalayon]

lol....you left out no longer made to make themselves feel unique and better all around! LOL

[eastcoaststeve]

lol....you left out no longer made to make themselves feel unique and better all around! LOL

I'm already pretty unique...and the only one who's allowed to make me feel me better is my wife



Steve

[chefmiguel]

You make a good point, this is a useless and pointless thread.

[digitalayon]

I'm already pretty unique...and the only one who's allowed to make me feel me better is my wife



Steve

Women have their gifts don't they?

[Uncle Grumpy]

Was some really popular breakfast cereal taken off the market in the US?

Just curious, because some people seem to be having a hard time of it lately.

Grumps

[Uncle Grumpy]

...reign on their parade.

"Rain" on a parade, actually.

Or did you mean the Giant Reign? That is clearly a vintage bike because Giant no longer make the upper linkage for them, and technically any bike that has parts that you can no longer get is vintage. Right?

Grumps

[shiggy]

"Rain" on a parade, actually.

Or did you mean the Giant Reign? That is clearly a vintage bike because Giant no longer make the upper linkage for them, and technically any bike that has parts that you can no longer get is vintage. Right?

Grumps

He wants to be the King of the parade.

[MendonCycleSmith]

Was some really popular breakfast cereal taken off the market in the US?

Just curious, because some people seem to be having a hard time of it lately.

Grumps

That's possibly one of the funniest comments I've seen in a long time, thanks for the lol

[CCMDoc]

Why not? Then it can be virtually anything to anybody any time.

I vote for renaming this forum "Pat"



Or, people with diverse interests can go here:
Beginner's Corner

Or here:
Bike and Frame discussion

Or even here:
General Discussion

[digitalayon]

Was some really popular breakfast cereal taken off the market in the US?

Just curious, because some people seem to be having a hard time of it lately.

Grumps

lol....twinkies are back but are smaller!!!....ME SO MAD!!!!

[shiggy]

lol....twinkies are back but are smaller!!!....ME SO MAD!!!!

So, does that make the original Twinkie retro, classic, or vintage?

[MendonCycleSmith]

So, does that make the original Twinkie retro, classic, or vintage?

Classic, just like Coke!

[digitalayon]

Classic, just like Coke!

they can probably out last our bikes!!!

[DFA]

they can probably out last our bikes!!!

Bikes? They'll outlast refined uranium.

[digitalayon]

Bikes? They'll outlast refined uranium.

And my doctor says to each more veggies. Time to switch to twinkles!!

[banks]

I feel that we need to do something like the Waverly Criteria:


History:
Is it so closely connected with our history and national life that its departure would be a misfortune?

Aesthetics:
Is it of outstanding aesthetic importance?

Scholarship:
Is it of outstanding significance for the study of some particular branch of art, learning or history?