[Closed] When does a bike become retro?

when do you consider a bike to be retro?

When it has non suspension adjusted geometry.

When MBR tell us.

when it can't run disks (for an MTB)?

when it has a horizontal top tube road? 😉

(edit: or is it [i]an[/i] horizontal top tube?)

When it becomes last years model or goes on sale
When it becomes last years material
When it's wheel size becomes no longer trendy niche
When you need to fit an Angleset

About 10-15 years ish according to retrobike

When its shit compared to a £500 specialized but you remember it being good.

When its shit compared to a £500 specialized but you remember it being good.

When you buy one, thinking exactly this, and it happens to be waaaaaay better than you remember.

Retro = Just old
Classic = Old but actually very good

This is why old Konas have such a following.

🙂

When does a bike become retro?

When a stranger pays an interest in it on the trails/car park/outside the shops/pub, instead of ignoring your £3 grand new bike.

How about my mid 90s Raleigh special products titanium? takes discs, rides ok with a 100 mm fork, retro and classic

TJ, Yep, they are pretty sought after, and quite nice. They were nice at the time.
Is that the one with Ti tubes bonded into cro-mo lugs?

Nope - fully welded frame all TI - no lugs

Mid-90s with disc mounts? IIRC IS standard was only set at the end of 97 wasn't it? So that'd make it late 90s...

How about my mid 90s Raleigh special products titanium? takes discs, rides ok with a 100 mm fork

Modern rubbish. I have a bonded metal matrix Dyna-Tech (no discs, designed for a very short fork).

when it was designed to take a stem the same length as the top tube?

I've always thought we mis-used the term 'retro' a bit, we normally use it to describe 'old' or 'old-skool' (for the kids 😉 ) but it's actual meaning is something that [b]imitates[/b] a design/concept from the past, or [b]relating to[/b] the past, not necessarily being [b]from the past[/b], if that makes sense?

...but I digress, to answer your original query, there is a bit of a grey area amongst the retrobikers, some say pre-90's, some say pre-2000, but there seems to be an uncomfortable middle ground of about '97 that gets agreed upon depending who you ask.

For a lot of people its more about a shift in focus of the designs rather than a specific year cut off.

oh, and most of my bikes (frames anyway) are in the 10-15 year old bracket.

So who else is riding a bike/frame over 5 years old and when do you consider a bike to be retro?

I thought retrobike defined it as 1997.

So who else is riding a bike/frame over 5 years old and when do you consider a bike to be retro?

I've got a 1995 Mongoose Amplifier full sus, one of the ones made my Amp Research. I think that one's a bit retro and classic.

Lols @ aracer

No idea

I ride a 2004 Specialized with modern forks, wide bars and a short stem, so it doesn't really feel "retro" to me.

Maybe the tag "retro" could be used to describe a bike which encompasses lots of perfectly adequate "standards" which have since been superseeded in the quest for ever more impressive marketing gnar?

Or maybe the "retro" tag could apply to any bike built before the term "colourway" was adopted by marketing newspeakers?

I ride a 2004 Specialized with modern forks

The "modern" forks on my Dyna-Tech are a 2003 model. I don't think some people on here really get "retro" - 5 years is a bit silly, given my main bike is almost that old, and there's really not much wrong with it. Fragile disposable carbon too.

Yeah, I'd still have my 2005 Schwinn, if some scrote hadn't come in to work and stolen it. That's not retro, it's cutting edge! 🙂

your riding buddies will let you know when !!

My newest bike is a 1999 Trek 6000. I also ride a '96 Bontrager Privateer and a 1993 Klein Fervour. I agree with the Retrobikes cut off of 1998, when v brakes became commonplace and 'modern' suspension design started to appear.

Anything no longer made, that makes you feel nostalgic and smile when you see one or ride it 😀

I would class TJs Ti Raleigh as retro, along with Super Vs and other stuff that era, on nostalgia feelings,

The MK 1 Purple Surly Pugsleys have already been classed as fat retro by the fat brigrade on MTBR despite only 6 years old 🙂

Retro is more of a mindset than an actual age. If your trying to keep the bike as it was when it was new, or to upgrade with age relevant parts then your definetely retro...

It's a fun rabbit hole to stick your head into; but I ultimately found riding round the handling issues and breaking old bike parts less rewarding than ragging modern bikes. Each to there own, I love looking at retrobikes and I still find many are more atractive than modern machines... but then I remember what they are like to ride *shudders*.

I've still got a 1994/5 Kona Explosif that I just can't kill.

Retrobikes cut off of 1998, when v brakes became commonplace

Oh - mine has Vs (on the back - "modern" fork is disc only), but that's OK, as they're original XTs from '97 😉

On retrobike we split it in to 1997 and before / after 1998. Been lots of discussions on there and there's no specific reason for those dates except that there needs to be a split. Some think retro is before V's, others when most frames were still made of steel. Saracen were suss correcting frames around 1993 so that's no gauge and you could also get bikes with disc mounts around then (Mountain Cycles?) so that's out too.

I have a 2005 Cove Handjob & a 1989 MS Racing which has been converted to singlespeed.

I would agree agree with the '97 cut off generally as before this time bike design had remained quite static. At this point componentry made a step change and suspension became far more commonplace.

I’m still riding my '04 Enduro (on the rare occasions I actually get out and ride) and can't see me replacing it any time soon.

I have a 2003 SC Chameleon and I would definitely not consider that to be retro. Although the fact that it needs an adapter to run disc brakes does show its age a little. I would say 10-15 years, but then my bike would be about to fall into that category so I will have to say 15ish.

In some ways, I'd say that the easiest check is whether the frame will comfortably take a reasonable sized modern tyre - eg 2.2-2.3"

My '95 Kona definitely won't - at least, not without the tyre buzzing on the stays.

When middle age chaps on Retrobike will pay more than the new price for it!

This seems kind of relevant (stodge is an occasional poster on here)

http://www.stodgell.co.uk/?p=3406

I guess my 10 year old Kitsuma ticks some boxes but not others- it is disk only, can take up to 120mm fork doesn't have a straight top tube but it can't take big tyres - 2.1 is OK but not much bigger and the design is eleven years old. Not retro as far as Retrobike is concerned, and not in the way it rides.

In some ways, I'd say that the easiest check is whether the frame will comfortably take a reasonable sized modern tyre - eg 2.2-2.3"

Not really - unless you consider that my '07 carbon susser is already retro.

i have a raleigh estelle racing road bike in my attic its about 20 year old...lol god its a heavy sod !!!!! the paintwork is amazing on it...prob get more for it if i had it weighed in...lol 😉

with bmx's as far as i can gather mid school =90's
old school = 1980's

for mountain bikes i'd say up to maybe 2000 are retro as a guess as bikes started getting disk brakes around this time generally.

or maybe - old school = cantis
mid school - v's only

Not really - unless you consider that my '07 carbon susser is already retro.

Must resist 🙂

There are some good comments above but I tend to agree with this:

I've always thought we mis-used the term 'retro' a bit, we normally use it to describe 'old' or 'old-skool' (for the kids ) but it's actual meaning is something that imitates a design/concept from the past, or relating to the past, not necessarily being from the past, if that makes sense?

...but I digress, to answer your original query, there is a bit of a grey area amongst the retrobikers, some say pre-90's, some say pre-2000, but there seems to be an uncomfortable middle ground of about '97 that gets agreed upon depending who you ask.

For a lot of people its more about a shift in focus of the designs rather than a specific year cut off.

introduction of V's (and lack of canti's), steel being phased out, longer suspension capable frames, 9sp components taking on 'futuristic' appearances and losing charm of previous shimano etc groupo's, and generally better handling bikes are all calling cards of the end of the 'retro' days.

I was going to post what amedias said too.

A bike that was made a long time ago is old. A modern bike, made with styling that harks back to old bikes is retro.

Using the dictionary definition of course that's correct.

However, everyone most people know that "retro" in biking parlance means old, not a modern version of something older.

I also find the distinction between 'old and crap' and 'retro awesometasticness' depends a lot on when the person making the distinction started riding...

You often find that people look back fondly on the bikes that were around when they started riding, the bikes you lusted after as a kid, or the bikes that the pros were using to push the sport forwards.

I'm sure in another few years people will be calling all sorts of things retro... hell, I heard someone call a mk1 Patriot a retro bike the other day! 😯

indeed. my Cotic Soul will no doubt be retro when my son gets old enough to ride it!