# Stupid ebay bidders



## CS2 (Jul 24, 2007)

Like a lot of VRC guys, I track parts that interest me even if I'm not buying. It's always good to be current on prices. Here's a set of wheels I was tracking.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=330222459326&ssPageName=STRK:MEWA:IT&ih=014

Opening bid was $100 with a BIN of $105 As you can see the wheelset closed at $127.50 Why would anyone risk paying so much more? Those wheels were a deal at $105 with $18 shipping to boot. Most wheelsets I've seen have shipping at $25 or more.

Tim


----------



## IF52 (Jan 10, 2004)

Duh!

Another favorite is when people are feverishly bidding on something and even the opening bid is way higher that the current retail for the item. I used to see this a lot for thing like Momo steering wheels when I was still messing around with Porsches.


----------



## XR4TI (Sep 6, 2005)

CS2 said:


> Like a lot of VRC guys, I track parts that interest me even if I'm not buying. It's always good to be current on prices. Here's a set of wheels I was tracking.
> 
> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=330222459326&ssPageName=STRK:MEWA:IT&ih=014
> 
> ...


With the first bidders bid. The Buy It Now price may have disappeared. But I don't understand why that first bidder even threw in a bid to try and save 5 bucks. Or they're just a bunch of idiots.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

XR4TI said:


> With the first bidders bid. The Buy It Now price may have disappeared. But I don't understand why that first bidder even threw in a bid to try and save 5 bucks. Or they're just a bunch of idiots.


i have seen it happen w/ a sachs cx bike and a low BIN. it was criminal.


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

Doubtful any VRC guys were bidding on Parallax XT hubs with 217's though...unless they're from the UK.


----------



## CS2 (Jul 24, 2007)

XR4TI said:


> With the first bidders bid. The Buy It Now price may have disappeared. But I don't understand why that first bidder even threw in a bid to try and save 5 bucks. Or they're just a bunch of idiots.


That's my point, what exactly are you saving.

Tim


----------



## CS2 (Jul 24, 2007)

Rumpfy said:


> Doubtful any VRC guys were bidding on Parallax XT hubs with 217's though...unless they're from the UK.


Whether they're VRC guys or not, the original price was very good. Only a fool wouldn't use the BIN for $5 difference on a $100 purchase.

Tim


----------



## stan4bikes (May 24, 2006)

*heaven forbid....*



Rumpfy said:


> Doubtful any VRC guys were bidding on Parallax XT hubs with 217's though...unless they're from the UK.


I'm with Rumpfy on this one :skep: ...no self respecting Flag-toten member of this forum would buy those crappy non-vintage peices of poo anyhow:nono: unless like he said they were them dad-blamed furinners


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

CS2 said:


> Whether they're VRC guys or not, the original price was very good. Only a fool wouldn't use the BIN for $5 difference on a $100 purchase.
> 
> Tim


Quite true.

I understand knocking out a BIN if the starting price and 'Buy It Now' are grossly different...but a $5 spread...stupidity.


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

stan4bikes said:


> I'm with Rumpfy on this one :skep: ...no self respecting Flag-toten member of this forum would buy those crappy non-vintage peices of poo anyhow:nono: unless like he said they were them dad-blamed furinners


I should hope not.


----------



## tvrbob86 (Aug 5, 2005)

XR4TI said:


> With the first bidders bid[, t]he Buy It Now price may have disappeared.


Exactly.



XR4TI said:


> But I don't understand why that first bidder even threw in a bid to try and save 5 bucks. Or they're just a bunch of idiots.


Because he was hoping to get them for much less than $100. He didn't. No big deal.

Just because things don't go exactly as you think they should, doesn't mean it's stupid. The high bidder could very well be quite happy to get them at that price. Would he have been a bit happier to get them for $105? Sure, but I bet he's not losing any sleep over it.


----------



## XR4TI (Sep 6, 2005)

tvrbob86 said:


> Exactly.
> 
> Because he was hoping to get them for much less than $100. He didn't. No big deal.


He couldn't get them for less than a $100. The opening bid was $100. So, the first bidder was a stupid idiot.


----------



## tvrbob86 (Aug 5, 2005)

XR4TI said:


> He couldn't get them for less than a $100. The opening bid was $100. So, the first bidder was a stupid idiot.


Ah, yes, you are completely right. _I'm_ the idiot in this case.

I disagree about _his_ necessarily being an idiot, though. He may have wanted them at no more than $100. Who are we to say that he should have been willing to pay $5 more? He put in his bid at $100 and let it stand. Bidding what you are willing to pay and then walking away is no crime or sign of stupidity.

It was the others who bid the price up, and, as you pointed out, _they_ had no shot at them at $105. They, too, bid what they were willing to pay. No big deal. Definitely not worth a thread here about it, especially since they are not that interesting.


----------



## XR4TI (Sep 6, 2005)

tvrbob86 said:


> Ah, yes, you are completely right. _I'm_ the idiot in this case.
> 
> I disagree about _his_ necessarily being an idiot, though. He may have wanted them at no more than $100. Who are we to say that he should have been willing to pay $5 more? He put in his bid at $100 and let it stand. Bidding what you are willing to pay and then walking away is no crime or sign of stupidity.
> 
> It was the others who bid the price up, and, as you pointed out, _they_ had no shot at them at $105. They, too, bid what they were willing to pay. No big deal. Definitely not worth a thread here about it, especially since they are not that interesting.


You're right. Stupid and idiot are mean words. But some peoples bidding tactics are just plane strange. Makes me think of just how some of the people in this world are. I'll just call them strange.


----------



## orangejust (Jun 16, 2006)

it's like those freaks who like old bikes... ;-)


----------



## CS2 (Jul 24, 2007)

stan4bikes said:


> I'm with Rumpfy on this one :skep: ...no self respecting Flag-toten member of this forum would buy those crappy non-vintage peices of poo anyhow:nono: unless like he said they were them dad-blamed furinners


Why wouldn't you buy Parallax hubs. The only real difference between them and earlier offerings is strictly cosmetic.

The following definition came from the infamous Sheldon Brown. Nowhere does he say they're crap or substandard. Granted earlier offerings were prettier. But if you want pretty buy Campy. Shimano is function first style last.



Sheldon Brown said:


> Parallax ®
> This term refers to hub shells with a larger diameter barrel, generally marketed as "mountain bike" parts. Primarily a cosmetic issue


Parallax history on Bike Pro http://www.bikepro.com/products/hubs/hubs_shimano.html


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

CS2 said:


> Why wouldn't you buy Parallax hubs. The only real difference between them and earlier offerings is strictly cosmetic.
> 
> The following definition came from the infamous Sheldon Brown. Nowhere does he say they're crap or substandard. Granted earlier offerings were prettier. But if you want pretty buy Campy. Shimano is function first style last.
> 
> Parallax history on Bike Pro http://www.bikepro.com/products/hubs/hubs_shimano.html


"the infamous Sheldon Brown"??

I agree with that turbo poster, the first guy killed the BIN (maybe he was dumb) the second guys no longer had the option to get it at $105 and bid it up to what they wanted to pay. Who cares? Happens all the time on ebay.

Why the disinterest in Parallax hubs? Because this is a vintage forum. This is kinda like the Alivio question. I think you might have better luck with that kind of stuff in a different forum.


----------



## gm1230126 (Nov 4, 2005)

He was a very smart seller who I believe knew his only way to even get the opening bid was to psyche out the original bidder. Make him think quickly that he was saving by making the opening bid. Sellers reward is that it worked and it sold beyond the original BIN.


----------



## pinguwin (Aug 20, 2004)

Fillet-brazed said:


> Why the disinterest in Parallax hubs? Because this is a vintage forum.


From bike pro:_In the 1994 model year Shimano introduced their Parallax style hubset for the Deore XT group._​I find the earlier hubs to be more aesthetically pleasing also but certainly 1994 parts are within our groups realm. Think of how many of the bikes posted here are 94's yet we don't say they are too new for the forum.

Myself, I bought a lightly used set of wheels for less than the set linked to here with parallax hubs (yeah, I'm so-so on 'em too) but they came with decent tires, silver Mavic 231's, almost-new M900 cassette, and silver Ringle QR's. The QR's and cassette are at least $50 if purchased separately. Yes, I would have preferred M730/M732 hubs but that didn't happen in this case.

'Guin


----------



## IF52 (Jan 10, 2004)

Fillet-brazed said:


> Why the disinterest in Parallax hubs? Because this is a vintage forum. This is kinda like the Alivio question. I think you might have better luck with that kind of stuff in a different forum.


So that goes back to when does vintage start. Parallax came out in 94, 14 years ago. Does vintage start 15, 20, 25 years ago? I don't like the look of Parallax hubs, but they are on a lot of the bikes that come through these hallowed halls. So if Parallax is a big no-no, does that mean you guy aren't going to show post 93 Ritchey P-21s and P-22s that might have had that kit on them?


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

IF52 said:


> So that goes back to when does vintage start. Parallax came out in 94, 14 years ago. Does vintage start 15, 20, 25 years ago? I don't like the look of Parallax hubs, but they are on a lot of the bikes that come through these hallowed halls. So if Parallax is a big no-no, does that mean you guy aren't going to show post 93 Ritchey P-21s and P-22s that might have had that kit on them?


Im just saying he'd find more interested people in parallax hubs, Trek Y frames, and the details of Alivio components elsewhere. I was mainly wondering why he used the word "infamous" for Sheldon.

(I dont think Ritchey spec'ed parallax hubs on the P bikes)


----------



## IF52 (Jan 10, 2004)

Fillet-brazed said:


> Im just saying he'd find more interested people in parallax hubs, Trek Y frames, and the details of Alivio components elsewhere. I was mainly wondering why he used the word "infamous" for Sheldon.
> 
> (I dont think Ritchey spec'ed parallax hubs on the P bikes)


I see. Yeah, infamous was clearly the wrong choice of words.

If Ritchey spec'ed Shimano from 94 on for their bikes, then it would be Parallax, no?


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

IF52 said:


> I see. Yeah, infamous was clearly the wrong choice of words.
> 
> If Ritchey spec'ed Shimano from 94 on for their bikes, then it would be Parallax, no?


Ritchey used Hugi I think:

https://oldmountainbikes.com/catalogs/ritchey/1994/ritchey_wheels1994_08.jpg

Parallax didnt carry across Shimano's full line in 94. XTR didnt come out with parallax until 96 with the M950 group (actually there are a few M910(?) parallax hubs out there and those are fairly rare). Parallax hubs were meant to be suspension hubs and Ritcheys certainly didnt need them with their rigid forks.


----------



## stan4bikes (May 24, 2006)

*oh no..not me..*



CS2 said:


> Why wouldn't you buy Parallax hubs. The only real difference between them and earlier offerings is strictly cosmetic.


I was TOTALLY making fun of Rumpfys statement...."Doubtful any VRC guys were bidding on Parallax XT hubs with 217's though...unless they're from the UK"..... The "pure" VRC members here have a very narrow view on what should be posted in this forum..

IE: from Fillet-brazed.."Why the disinterest in Parallax hubs? Because this is a vintage forum. This is kinda like the Alivio question. I think you might have better luck with that kind of stuff in a different forum."

I have no problem with Parallax parts....but that's because I'm impure


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

stan4bikes said:


> I was TOTALLY making fun of rumpfys statement. The "pure" VRC members here have a very narrow view on what should be posted in this forum..
> 
> IE: from Fillet-brazed.."Why the disinterest in Parallax hubs? Because this is a vintage forum. This is kinda like the Alivio question. I think you might have better luck with that kind of stuff in a different forum."
> 
> I have no problem with Parallax parts....but that's because I'm impure


Stan, I dont think you'd have a problem with Magna parts.


----------



## IF52 (Jan 10, 2004)

Fillet-brazed said:


> Ritchey used Hugi I think:
> 
> https://oldmountainbikes.com/catalogs/ritchey/1994/ritchey_wheels1994_08.jpg
> 
> Parallax didnt carry across Shimano's full line in 94. XTR didnt come out with parallax until 96 with the M950 group (actually there are a few M910(?) parallax hubs out there and those are fairly rare). Parallax hubs were meant to be suspension hubs and Ritcheys certainly didnt need them with their rigid forks.


Yeah, I know about the Parallax timeline. Ritchey sold frames with different build kits, at least when I was selling them they did. Here is what first flight lists as specs:

https://www.firstflightbikes.com/ritchey_specs.htm

Or this page from the 95 catalog

https://www.oldmountainbikes.com/catalogs/ritchey/1995/ritchey1995_03.jpg


----------



## IF52 (Jan 10, 2004)

Fillet-brazed said:


> Stan, I dont think you'd have a problem with Magna parts.


Hahahahahaha :lol:


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

IF52 said:


> Yeah, I know about the Parallax timeline. Ritchey sold frames with different build kits, at least when I was selling them they did. Here is what first flight lists as specs:
> 
> https://www.firstflightbikes.com/ritchey_specs.htm
> 
> ...


Yep, look at FFB's info and almost every bike in 94 and 95 list an Ultegra front hub instead of XT. A couple say XT but if you look at the Comp Shocker and the Lite Beam they both say XT with suspension front hub which has to be the Parallax. All the rest are Ultegra or regular XT which I would guess based on the other info is a non-Parallax hub.

Then in the 95 catalog link you gave me it lists an Elite wheelset which had Hugi hubs.


----------



## Shuteye (Dec 11, 2006)

Sheldon Brown passed away a few months ago. The cycling community has lost a prolific writer and archivist. I didn't know him personally, but based on his internet postings, I feel a sense of loss and would have been honored to be able to claim him as a friend.


----------



## IF52 (Jan 10, 2004)

Fillet-brazed said:


> Yep, look at FFB's info and almost every bike in 94 and 95 list an Ultegra front hub instead of XT. A couple say XT but if you look at the Comp Shocker and the Lite Beam they both say XT with suspension front hub which has to be the Parallax. All the rest are Ultegra or regular XT which I would guess based on the other info is a non-Parallax hub.
> 
> Then in the 95 catalog link you gave me it lists an Elite wheelset which had Hugi hubs.


Ah, my bad. I missed that on the page. I'm also missing the mention of Hugi hubs in the wheel page you posted. Too small. First Flight still lists it as XT and Ultegra.

But regarding the XT rear, you realize the =>94 XT rear was also parallax, right? Was a non Parallax XT rear available from 94 on?

And I know my eyes are bad, but I'm missing the mention of suspension front hub on the shocker and lite beam


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

IF52 said:


> Ah, my bad.
> 
> But regarding the XT rear, you realize the =>94 XT rear was also parallax, right? Was a non Parallax XT rear available from 94 on?


oh, was it the rear too? I just thought it was designed to stiffen up suspension forks. I was thinking of the front only this whole time...


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

Fillet-brazed said:


> Stan, I dont think you'd have a problem with Magna parts.


LOL!


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

Shuteye said:


> Sheldon Brown passed away a few months ago. The cycling community has lost a prolific writer and archivist. I didn't know him personally, but based on his internet postings, I feel a sense of loss and would have been honored to be able to claim him as a friend.


There's a whole tribute thread for that. Trust us...we know he passed away.


----------



## IF52 (Jan 10, 2004)

Fillet-brazed said:


> oh, was it the rear too? I just thought it was designed to stiffen up suspension forks. I was thinking of the front only this whole time...


Yeah, rear too. And I didn't like either one. The older style is much prettier, the parallax look crude and lacked the polished look of the earlier style.


----------



## pinguwin (Aug 20, 2004)

Fillet-brazed said:


> oh, was it the rear too?


I think that they pretty much had to make it for the rear hub also. If you kept the (nicer) older style for one hub but parallax style for the front, it would look mismatched. Something that might, to some, make it look incomplete. I agree they are much cruder looking, not just in the shape but in finish. Looks like the needed to be polished but it was the end of the day and they were too tired to bother finishing the job.


----------



## richieb (Oct 21, 2004)

I think, for many of us on here (the VRC forum) there is a not-so-fine-line between "Vintage" and "Old".

Also, to be "vintage", many of us expect a certain degree of production limitation and quality.

Yes, an Alivio-equipped might me old, and in great shape and have a (partially) cromoly frame, but to most of us, it is simply an old bike.

But, take an old Suntour XC -equipped bike from 1985 on a frame that was only produced in the dozens or hundreds of units...that is closer to "Vintage"

Parallax hubs, unfortunately, ride the gray wave between different riders'/collector's definition of "vintage". They seem to represent Shimano's following the trend of larger hubshells that WTB and Ringle started years before.

94-95 is vintage in terms of frames to many, but in parts, perhaps not so much...


----------



## pinguwin (Aug 20, 2004)

richieb said:


> Itrend of larger hubshells that WTB and Ringle started years before.


One thing in favor of the parallax hubs in question is that they are at least an XT level and not Alivio, sorry Stan.

I'm not sure what year WTB started the larger hubs (anyone?), but I would say that Bullseye definitely beat Ringle to the larger diameter hubs. I seem to remember that Ringle was early 90's and I know that Bullseye was making them in the 80's (mid 80's, anyone?).


----------



## tvrbob86 (Aug 5, 2005)

pinguwin said:


> I'm not sure what year WTB started the larger hubs (anyone?), but I would say that Bullseye definitely beat Ringle to the larger diameter hubs. I seem to remember that Ringle was early 90's and I know that Bullseye was making them in the 80's (mid 80's, anyone?).


Not MTB hubs, but Bullseyes have been around a long time.


----------



## pinguwin (Aug 20, 2004)

tvrbob86 said:


> Not MTB hubs


I know that early on, Bullseye focused on BMX, but how do they differ from mtb hubs? As long as they are available in the proper width and spoke hole count, I see no difference and I believe that Bullseye design is fairly easy to customize. I had a pair of them on my Klein in 1990.


----------



## ssmike (Jan 21, 2004)

pinguwin said:


> I'm not sure what year WTB started the larger hubs (anyone?), but I would say that Bullseye definitely beat Ringle to the larger diameter hubs. I seem to remember that Ringle was early 90's and I know that Bullseye was making them in the 80's (mid 80's, anyone?).


And before WTB made their own hubs, they were modifying existing Hi-E hubs which were also large diameter center sections.


----------



## mechagouki (Nov 30, 2007)

Believe it or not, not everyone living in the UK thinks mountain biking started in 1993, i bought my first real mountain bike (a Reynolds tubed, Suntour sporting Peugeot Atlas) in early 1988 whilst living in southern England and had wanted such a bike for a couple of years. Living in SoCal (or Colorado or British Columbia or wherever) might have given you better trails to ride and more manufacturers to choose from, but it didn't give you a monopoly on enthusiasm for the sport. The frequent digs at Euro VRC people on this forum are getting really old.............


----------



## stan4bikes (May 24, 2006)

mechagouki said:


> Believe it or not, not everyone living in the UK thinks mountain biking started in 1993, i bought my first real mountain bike (a Reynolds tubed, Suntour sporting Peugeot Atlas) in early 1988 whilst living in southern England and had wanted such a bike for a couple of years. Living in SoCal (or Colorado or British Columbia or wherever) might have given you better trails to ride and more manufacturers to choose from, but it didn't give you a monopoly on enthusiasm for the sport. The frequent digs at Euro VRC people on this forum are getting really old.............


I apologize if my post about "furinners" was taken as a slam. It was totally a satire of the attitude of some of the members here.  I agree, the frequent negativity adds absolutely nothing to the forum.


----------



## mechagouki (Nov 30, 2007)

stan4bikes said:


> I apologize if my post about "furinners" was taken as a slam. It was totally a satire of the attitude of some of the members here.  I agree, the frequent negativity adds absolutely nothing to the forum.


That's OK, being English by birth means I understand sarcasm, I didn't take offense at your post.

Of course I know that really, everyone else on here shares the same innocent love for fun, beautiful bikes of all ages and from all manufacturers, regardless whether they be fillet brazed air-hardened steel exotics hung with Record OR, or Tange MTB framed, mass produced offerings from the orient sporting Exage or XC Comp. There's no elitism or snobbery on this forum!


----------



## Shuteye (Dec 11, 2006)

This isn't about "we so cool and know he passed away". It is about respect, from one older guy to a passed on other, gently reminding folks that he is gone and was never "infamous".


----------



## bushpig (Nov 26, 2005)

mechagouki said:


> Believe it or not, not everyone living in the UK thinks mountain biking started in 1993, i bought my first real mountain bike (a Reynolds tubed, Suntour sporting Peugeot Atlas) in early 1988 whilst living in southern England and had wanted such a bike for a couple of years. Living in SoCal (or Colorado or British Columbia or wherever) might have given you better trails to ride and more manufacturers to choose from, but it didn't give you a monopoly on enthusiasm for the sport. The frequent digs at Euro VRC people on this forum are getting really old.............


It isn't the Euro VRC people - its the English!  Compare the popular vintage builds in the UK to those found in Germany, Switzerland or Italy. All respect to the USA (and Canada too) but if you want to see consistently top end, immaculate builds check out bikes on the German board (or in the galleries and postings of German, Swiss and Italian forum members). I spend a bunch of time on the German board just to dig their amazing builds.

As much as the UK guys get paid out here (and I know that they like to return the favor on their site) I find the builds to be fairly similar to what we see here. If anything, even the "junkers" that they post tend to have more TLC since they are restorations. The big advantage that US and Canadian mountain bike guys have is the abundance of bikes that are to be found here, particularly locally. Most of the Euro guys seem to move heaven and earth to put their bikes together.

/rant off.


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

richieb said:


> I think, for many of us on here (the VRC forum) there is a not-so-fine-line between "Vintage" and "Old".
> 
> Also, to be "vintage", many of us expect a certain degree of production limitation and quality.
> 
> ...


Well said.


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

mechagouki said:


> Believe it or not, not everyone living in the UK thinks mountain biking started in 1993, i bought my first real mountain bike (a Reynolds tubed, Suntour sporting Peugeot Atlas) in early 1988 whilst living in southern England and had wanted such a bike for a couple of years. Living in SoCal (or Colorado or British Columbia or wherever) might have given you better trails to ride and more manufacturers to choose from, but it didn't give you a monopoly on enthusiasm for the sport. The frequent digs at Euro VRC people on this forum are getting really old.............


Toughen up.


----------



## stan4bikes (May 24, 2006)

Rumpfy said:


> Toughen up.


OK enough...This is an open forum, not your private little club. It is read, enjoyed and used by people from all over the WORLD. Thanx for all the work you've done but sometimes why don't you just leave it alone. Quit being so proud of being a "bike snob" and just think about being polite. Or have you forgotten how?

I'm sure I'll get roasted for this but that's fine, I've been roasted before and will be again. Until this becomes a Private forum, it belongs to all of us and we shouldn't have to accept these insults. Let's welcome everyone and make the forum stronger. It's not only the "junker, rusty, production" bikes that are driving people away, it's peoples attitudes.


----------



## CS2 (Jul 24, 2007)

Fillet-brazed said:


> Im just saying he'd find more interested people in parallax hubs, Trek Y frames, and the details of Alivio components elsewhere. I was mainly wondering why he used the word "infamous" for Sheldon.
> 
> (I dont think Ritchey spec'ed parallax hubs on the P bikes)


Infamous was meant as a compliment. Just like the young guys use "Bad" even though they mean good. I'm really tiring of having to explain myself to you. Exactly who appointed you as the forum Nazi? You seem to delight in disecting my every post. I'm new to the VRC scene and ask questions to get information. That's the purpose of the forums. If that's not the purpose then maybe you should rename the the VRC Expert Only Forum.


----------



## mechagouki (Nov 30, 2007)

Rumpfy said:


> Toughen up.




Grow up..................


----------



## bushpig (Nov 26, 2005)

CS2 said:


> Infamous was meant as a compliment. Just like the young guys use "Bad" even though they mean good.


In fact "The Infamous" was used in a similar manner by Queens hip hop kings Mobb Deep.


----------



## IF52 (Jan 10, 2004)

richieb said:


> Also, to be "vintage", many of us expect a certain degree of production limitation and quality.


So where do old Yetis fall in there? They all seem to have broken and been repaired at some point? Or how about some of the later Somerville Fats, which apparently didn't get any primer before paint and have issues with rusted out seat tubes. Or old Manitous and the like which all seem to break. Or how about many Ritcheys, especially the TIGed ones which were basically farmed out to production shops in Japan and merely finished in TR's shop. Or even smaller guys like Steve Garn of BREW who built really light steel race bikes that were basically single season bikes. There good quality but built so light for their time that they tended to eat themselves. Or how about the original klunkers, those bikes lead the way to the modern mtb, but were basically modded mass production junk.


----------



## bushpig (Nov 26, 2005)

IF52 said:


> So where do old Yetis fall in there? They all seem to have broken and been repaired at some point? Or how about some of the later Somerville Fats, which apparently didn't get any primer before paint and have issues with rusted out seat tubes. Or old Manitous and the like which all seem to break. Or how about many Ritcheys, especially the TIGed ones which were basically farmed out to production shops in Japan and merely finished in TR's shop. Or even smaller guys like Steve Garn of BREW who built really light steel race bikes that were basically single season bikes. There good quality but built so light for their time that they tended to eat themselves. Or how about the original klunkers, those bikes lead the way to the modern mtb, but were basically modded mass production junk.


Yetis have unique design and were made in the US with limited numbers. Ditto Fats. I haven't seen a Bradbury Manitou cracked and those are the really collectible ones. Only certain Ritchey's were made in Japan and those are less desirable. I dunno about Brew.

An original klunker has collectible value due to provenance - I'd wager that an original Repack bike would bring a lot more coin than would a beat Schwinn Excelsior. The difference being the history and the tweaks.


----------



## IF52 (Jan 10, 2004)

bushpig said:


> Yetis have unique design and were made in the US with limited numbers. Ditto Fats. I haven't seen a Bradbury Manitou cracked and those are the really collectible ones. Only certain Ritchey's were made in Japan and those are less desirable. I dunno about Brew.
> 
> An original klunker has collectible value due to provenance - I'd wager that an original Repack bike would bring a lot more coin than would a beat Schwinn Excelsior. The difference being the history and the tweaks.


I understand the exclusivity part. My point is that you can't assume quality with some of these bikes. Yetis are unique and made in the US, but a design that is notorious for breaking does not signify quality in my books. Nor do frames that were so rushed that the painter didn't have time to prime before topcoat. Desireable, yes. Unique, yes. Quality? maybe not so much. And so many of the more elitist neuvo mtn bikers on these forums lump the two together as if it is a given, which it isn't.


----------



## bushpig (Nov 26, 2005)

IF52 said:


> I understand the exclusivity part. My point is that you can't assume quality with some of these bikes. Yetis are unique and made in the US, but a design that is notorious for breaking does not signify quality in my books. Nor do frames that were so rushed that the painter didn't have time to prime before topcoat. Desireable, yes. Unique, yes. Quality? maybe not so much. And so many of the more elitist neuvo mtn bikers on these forums lump the two together as if it is a given, which it isn't.


It is like anything else - quality isn't a given. I have a prototype C Record group that is on a mid-80s (NOS) Cinelli Laser Corsa frame. Pretty collectible stuff but you certainly wouldn't want to ride it. The brake mechanism doesn't work and is prone to breaking and the frames sleek detailing is accomplished through the magic of bondo.

Similarly, you can pick up a Chilean Cabernet Sauvignon and be basically guaranteed a straight up decent drinking wine. Spend big bucks on some grand vintage and you have decent odds of getting vinegared junk.

I dig the cottage industry bikes. When a guy builds a bike in his garage (or production facilities that aren't that far removed from it) there will be variances. And when these guys were rushing production to build a new sport even moreso. The really elite builders, in my mind, are those guys who handcrafted everything and made everything perfect. Charlie C, Steve Potts, Tom Ritchey, Doug Bradbury - these are the guys that stick out in my mind but I know there are many others.

In any case, just because a Duralcan Specialized with XTR M900 rides as well or better than many higher woot bikes doesn't mean much to me. I disagree with Colker in that I am passionate about the bikes as art. The Specialized, for example, is a great bike but it doesn't do anything for me as art.


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

IF52 said:


> So where do old Yetis fall in there? They all seem to have broken and been repaired at some point? Or how about some of the later Somerville Fats, which apparently didn't get any primer before paint and have issues with rusted out seat tubes. Or old Manitous and the like which all seem to break. Or how about many Ritcheys, especially the TIGed ones which were basically farmed out to production shops in Japan and merely finished in TR's shop. Or even smaller guys like Steve Garn of BREW who built really light steel race bikes that were basically single season bikes. There good quality but built so light for their time that they tended to eat themselves. Or how about the original klunkers, those bikes lead the way to the modern mtb, but were basically modded mass production junk.


BP has responded well, but I must comment on the TIG'd Ritcheys. This only took place for a year or two and it was done at the Toyo shop by guys that Tom personally instructed prior to hiring them. Saying he farmed stuff out to production shops (plural) just doesnt sound right. It was only one fabrication shop, for a short time, and Tom personally finished up the frames to make sure they were right. This included fillet brazing the seatstay to seat tube junction. Tom's frames have a pretty amazing reliability record, Tim Rutherford's race bike notwithstanding. He did amazing work.


----------



## IF52 (Jan 10, 2004)

Fillet-brazed said:


> BP has responded well, but I must comment on the TIG'd Ritcheys. This only took place for a year or two and it was done at the Toyo shop by guys that Tom personally instructed prior to hiring them. Saying he farmed stuff out to production shops (plural) just doesnt sound right. It was only one fabrication shop, for a short time, and Tom personally finished up the frames to make sure they were right. This included fillet brazing the seatstay to seat tube junction. Tom's frames have a pretty amazing reliability record, Tim Rutherford's race bike notwithstanding. He did amazing work.


I'm not saying you're wrong by any stretch, but where does your information come from? From the time I started working at a shop that sold them in 1988 until I left in 96 we were told that Tom only did finish work on the TIG frames. I also heard from an industry insider recently (not Earl) that Tom really only built bike himself for the first few years he was in business and after that even the fillet bikes were built overseas and finished at his shop. That goes against everything I had heard so I am a bit dubious of that info. But coming from who it did I have to consider it.

What's the Tim Rutherford story?


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

IF52 said:


> I'm not saying you're wrong by any stretch, but where does your information come from? From the time I started working at a shop that sold them in 1988 until I left in 96 we were told that Tom only did finish work on the TIG frames. I also heard from an industry insider recently (not Earl) that Tom really only built bike himself for the first few years he was in business and after that even the fillet bikes were built overseas and finished at his shop. That goes against everything I had heard so I am a bit dubious of that info. But coming from who it did I have to consider it.
> 
> What's the Tim Rutherford story?


Well, it came from Tom himself... the catalogs also indicate the same.

what you just stated about the brazed stuff is also way off from what Ive heard.

Tim broke his P23 in a race.


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

stan4bikes said:


> OK enough...This is an open forum, not your private little club. It is read, enjoyed and used by people from all over the WORLD. Thanx for all the work you've done but sometimes why don't you just leave it alone. Quit being so proud of being a "bike snob" and just think about being polite. Or have you forgotten how?
> 
> I'm sure I'll get roasted for this but that's fine, I've been roasted before and will be again. Until this becomes a Private forum, it belongs to all of us and we shouldn't have to accept these insults. Let's welcome everyone and make the forum stronger. It's not only the "junker, rusty, production" bikes that are driving people away, it's peoples attitudes.


You're right.


----------



## IF52 (Jan 10, 2004)

Fillet-brazed said:


> Well, it came from Tom himself... the catalogs also indicate the same.
> 
> what you just stated about the brazed stuff is also way off from what Ive heard.
> 
> Tim broke his P23 in a race.


Yeah, way off of what I had heard in the past too. The only way I could work it out is that Tom Ritchey is a brand, and has been since the 80s, so to say all the bikes were built by Tom Ritchey ® isn't inaccurate. But yeah, not what I had heard about the fillet bikes.

That said, we had been told directly by folks at Ritchey that the TIG bikes were all welded elsewhere and finished in the shop. I think most notably around the time the Outback came out and from that point on. Or it might have been when Earl ordered his Ascent, I can't recall right off.


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

IF52 said:


> That said, we had been told directly by folks at Ritchey that the TIG bikes were all welded elsewhere and finished in the shop. I think most notably around the time the Outback came out and from that point on. Or it might have been when Earl ordered his Ascent, I can't recall right off.


yes, it did happen, but not from that point on. I think it started in 86 with the Ascent and after a year or so they were TIG'd in CA at Ritchey (not necessarily by Tom, unlike the brazed bikes).


----------



## hollister (Sep 16, 2005)

Rumpfy said:


> You're right.


bullshat

its the internet. its an open forum. people have a right to disagree and or not like stuff. stan has a right to get pissed, you got a right to be a bike snob.

scratch that, lets be all saccharin sweet all the time.



grow up, and toughen up people. or just take it with a grain of salt


----------



## kb11 (Mar 29, 2004)

Fillet-brazed said:


> yes, it did happen, but not from that point on. I think it started in 86 with the Ascent and after a year or so they were TIG'd in CA at Ritchey (not necessarily by Tom, unlike the brazed bikes).


I'll throw in my $.02  The frames that were tig'd at Toyo were just the front triangle / chainstays / rear dropouts and seatstays. The Seatstays were not attached. TR personally aligned the dropouts, set the seatstay bridge and brazed the seatstays to the seatpost, then added all the braze-ons. He probably spent more time on each frame to finish up than it took to tig in Japan. TR was basically a one man show and had a few employees doing the builds, etc. Hince the "Handcrafted by TR" decals on the tig'd bikes. Also the production of these tig'd bikes was in the hundreds, not thousands. In '88 or so all the tig'd bikes were done in TR's shop untill sometime in '91 when they went back to Japan for the tig'd frames. Dont know why but I'm guessing TR was not happy with the product comming out of Japan at that time. TR even alluded that he personally tig'd many a frame himself during that time. The bottom line is that TR had a hand in every Ritchey bike that went out the door.


----------



## MrOrange (Jun 21, 2004)

hollister said:


> bullshat
> 
> its the internet. its an open forum. people have a right to disagree and or not like stuff. stan has a right to get pissed, you got a right to be a bike snob.
> 
> ...


Hey.

There's something in your nose.


----------



## hollister (Sep 16, 2005)

MrOrange said:


> Hey.
> 
> There's something in your nose.


my finger?


----------



## Boy named SSue (Jan 7, 2004)

kb11 said:


> I'll throw in my $.02  The frames that were tig'd at Toyo were just the front triangle / chainstays / rear dropouts and seatstays. The Seatstays were not attached. TR personally aligned the dropouts, set the seatstay bridge and brazed the seatstays to the seatpost, then added all the braze-ons. He probably spent more time on each frame to finish up than it took to tig in Japan. TR was basically a one man show and had a few employees doing the builds, etc. Hince the "Handcrafted by TR" decals on the tig'd bikes. Also the production of these tig'd bikes was in the hundreds, not thousands. In '88 or so all the tig'd bikes were done in TR's shop untill sometime in '91 when they went back to Japan for the tig'd frames. Dont know why but I'm guessing TR was not happy with the product comming out of Japan at that time. TR even alluded that he personally tig'd many a frame himself during that time. The bottom line is that TR had a hand in every Ritchey bike that went out the door.


Weren't there two versions of the decal? Handcrafted by Tom Ritchey and just Hand Crafted withotu mention of by who. I thought the ones he did the finish work on only got the second type eventhough he did do work on them.


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

Boy named SSue said:


> Weren't there two versions of the decal? Handcrafted by Tom Ritchey and just Hand Crafted withotu mention of by who. I thought the ones he did the finish work on only got the second type eventhough he did do work on them.


There was "Handcrafted by Tom" for the TIG'd bikes and "Handmade by Tom" for the brazed bikes.


----------



## XR4TI (Sep 6, 2005)

hollister said:


> bullshat
> 
> its the internet. its an open forum. people have a right to disagree and or not like stuff. stan has a right to get pissed, you got a right to be a bike snob.
> 
> ...


Agreed. It's the f_cking internet. No one has the right to change anyone. People can say what they feel. If you don't agree with what a person says, well, tough. This is real life not high school. If someone needs a perfect world (mtb forum), than they should start their own. Good luck. Because there's no such thing as perfect. If everyone here was Mr. Goodytwoshoes this forum wouldn't be so much fun. I don't agree with what everyone says all the time but I don't try to change them. Christ. I'm pissed. Besides, I think Rumpfy was the one who started VRC. He can say whatever he wants. I think most or all of what he says is true. Don't need a bunch of fakes running the world. Now, lets get out the gloves.


----------



## MrOrange (Jun 21, 2004)

hollister said:


> my finger?


am I supposed to pull on that?


----------



## Boy named SSue (Jan 7, 2004)

Fillet-brazed said:


> There was "Handcrafted by Tom" for the TIG'd bikes and "Handmade by Tom" for the brazed bikes.


I thought there was one that read along the lines of 'Handcrafted Ritchey Mountainbike" which kept Tom out of it altogether.


----------



## hollister (Sep 16, 2005)

MrOrange said:


> am I supposed to pull on that?


...


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

Boy named SSue said:


> I thought there was one that read along the lines of 'Handcrafted Ritchey Mountainbike" which kept Tom out of it altogether.


you may be right on that. I dont have any of those decals.


----------



## MrOrange (Jun 21, 2004)

hollister said:


> ...


pfffft.

This is cooler.
rft:


----------



## alexk (Sep 30, 2005)

mechagouki said:


> Believe it or not, not everyone living in the UK thinks mountain biking started in 1993, i bought my first real mountain bike (a Reynolds tubed, Suntour sporting Peugeot Atlas) in early 1988 whilst living in southern England and had wanted such a bike for a couple of years. Living in SoCal (or Colorado or British Columbia or wherever) might have given you better trails to ride and more manufacturers to choose from, but it didn't give you a monopoly on enthusiasm for the sport. The frequent digs at Euro VRC people on this forum are getting really old.............


The sometimes frequent digs occur because of some interesting behaviour, mostly displayed via E(vil)bay. An MTB enthusiast residing in the UK paid US$462 for a pair of NOS Mavic 231 rims about 6 months ago. Obviously more money than sense, hence the occasional dig at UK and European based VRC MTB enthusiasts. As a comparison I paid less than half that for a very good condition Bontrager Race Lite frame.


----------



## bushpig (Nov 26, 2005)

Fillet-brazed said:


> you may be right on that. I dont have any of those decals.


Ha ha - snob! (I'm the same though!)


----------



## mechagouki (Nov 30, 2007)

XR4TI said:


> Besides, I think Rumpfy was the one who started VRC. He can say whatever he wants.


Now _that_ is flawed logic.

And I would of thought Rumpfy would have had more respect for the UK VRC crowd after the UK Retrobike ( http://www.retrobike.co.uk/ ) site gave his Tomac replica the honour of Bike Of The Year. Or maybe that was just another example of their bad taste?


----------



## hollister (Sep 16, 2005)

MrOrange said:


> pfffft.
> 
> This is cooler.
> rft:


oh dear

:lol:

(right click, save)


----------



## XR4TI (Sep 6, 2005)

mechagouki said:


> Now _that_ is flawed logic.
> 
> And I would of thought Rumpfy would have had more respect for the UK VRC crowd after the UK Retrobike ( http://www.retrobike.co.uk/ ) site gave his Tomac replica the honour of Bike Of The Year. Or maybe that was just another example of their bad taste?


I don't want to speak for anyone but, now he has to kiss your ass for having the superior bike? You're taking things to serious. Nothing said here is meant in a vindictive manner. It's humor and nothing more.


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

mechagouki said:


> Now _that_ is flawed logic.
> 
> And I would of thought Rumpfy would have had more respect for the UK VRC crowd after the UK Retrobike ( http://www.retrobike.co.uk/ ) site gave his Tomac replica the honour of Bike Of The Year. Or maybe that was just another example of their bad taste?


So I should blow smoke up everyone's ass? I would rather you tell me my bikes sucked if thats how you really felt. At least it would be the truth. And since I'm a big boy, I can probably take it.

I have respect for John and a lot of the guys on Retrobike. I have respect for the guys there who build solid vintage mtb's and hang them out on the trial. It just so happens that a lot of the builds I find repulsive reside in the UK. Its a stereotype with sarcasm. A loving nomer.

Oh...and your 2000 Klein Mantra with disc brakes. Lame. It's a lame bike.


----------



## bushpig (Nov 26, 2005)




----------



## stan4bikes (May 24, 2006)

isn't the ability to edit a wondrous thing  

the trick is doing it quick enough that no-one sees the original.......but you never know who might have....


----------



## stan4bikes (May 24, 2006)

XR4TI said:


> I don't want to speak for anyone but,...then don't... now he has to kiss your ass for having the superior bike? You're taking things to serious. Nothing said here is meant in a vindictive manner. are you sure?, are you speaking for others again? It's humor and nothing more. I don't think so..but that's just my opinion


Let's move on, this thread has timed out...


----------



## hollister (Sep 16, 2005)

stan4bikes said:


> isn't the ability to edit a wondrous thing
> 
> the trick is doing it quick enough that no-one sees the original.......but you never know who might have....


scaredy cat


----------



## XR4TI (Sep 6, 2005)

stan4bikes said:


> Let's move on, this thread has timed out...


You're the instigator Stan.


----------



## mechagouki (Nov 30, 2007)

Rumpfy said:


> Oh...and your 2000 Klein Mantra with disc brakes. Lame. It's a lame bike.


Ouch, I guess I hurt someone's feelings!

Fortunately the KLEIN only owes me about $700, and was built as a daily rider, not a garage queen, so I'm not going to take your schoolyard taunt too seriously. I am somewhat amused at the thought that I pissed you off so badly that you wasted your time looking me up on Retrobike.

Sorry BP, it's unfortunate that you have to mod all this childishness...............


----------



## alexk (Sep 30, 2005)

Love the change in direction of this thread.  Now where's that oxy-acetylene torch....


----------



## KDXdog (Mar 15, 2007)

Talk about a thread going off the tracks! 

My 2 cents. people tend to be a bit harsh here at times. So what? Take it, give it back, or leave it. "Filled-B' tends to jump on my post too at times. Doesn't bother me at all.

Sometime this VCR site is a bit inside, but then again, what's the big deal?

Rum-man is entitled to his opinion, like the rest of us.

Sheldon would enjoy people talking about him. He's smiling up there!

UK is still pissed that half of them have american fathers from WWII. Get over it, without us, you'd be speaking German or Russian.

Ted Wojick also built bikes for Ritchey. I'm willing to bet other skilled builders aslo did sub-contracted work for Tom. One man shop would have trouble keeping up on all his lines. I was in ted's shop years back, and saw Ritchey road frames. Ted also did prototype work for other builders too!


----------



## stan4bikes (May 24, 2006)

*No....*



XR4TI said:


> You're the instigator Stan.


I'm actually the HOOVER...and yes I exist in a vacumm  ..

but I do _ride_ an Instigator, great bike even if its not Vintage, Retro or Classic  but it does have Suntour pedals on it :thumbsup:


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

mechagouki said:


> Ouch, I guess I hurt someone's feelings!
> 
> Fortunately the KLEIN only owes me about $700, and was built as a daily rider, not a garage queen, so I'm not going to take your schoolyard taunt too seriously. I am somewhat amused at the thought that I pissed you off so badly that you wasted your time looking me up on Retrobike.
> 
> Sorry BP, it's unfortunate that you have to mod all this childishness...............


You shouldn't take my taunt too seriously...thats the whole point. Though you still felt the need to explain your bike to me.

I didn't look you up on Retrobike...your profile is one click away here on MTBR.


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

alexk said:


> Love the change in direction of this thread.  Now where's that oxy-acetylene torch....


A little heated debate is fun. Airing of grievances, why not.


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

XR4TI said:


> You're the instigator Stan.


Haha!

Total instigator.


----------



## hollister (Sep 16, 2005)

Rumpfy said:


> A little heated debate is fun.


a lot is even better


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

hollister said:


> a lot is even better


Well...no one has been called any names yet, so thats good.


----------



## hollister (Sep 16, 2005)

Rumpfy said:


> Well...no one has been called any names yet, so thats good.


must resist temptation....

must resist....

bloomin idjit


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

hollister said:


> must resist temptation....
> 
> must resist....
> 
> bloomin idjit


You white textin' SOB!


----------



## mechagouki (Nov 30, 2007)

Rumpfy said:


> You shouldn't take my taunt too seriously...thats the whole point. Though you still felt the need to explain your bike to me.
> 
> I didn't look you up on Retrobike...your profile is one click away here on MTBR.


You judged my bike based on it's build list

You really should check out my new avatar, give in to the URT vibe

Seriously though, I never meant to cause anyone offense, and if I did, I apologise.

And I actually do really like your JT replica (and no, I'm not just saying that). I wanted that bike quite badly BITD.

And I would like to make it clear to XR4TI that I never requested ass-kissing to assuage my discomfort at owning an inferior bike, that's just not my bag man:nono:


----------



## hollister (Sep 16, 2005)

Rumpfy said:


> You white textin' SOB!


you just had to check

and now I'm gonna report you to BP for calling me a name


----------



## XR4TI (Sep 6, 2005)

I love it! This forum would've dried up years ago without heated debating. Maybe not.


----------



## scant (Jan 5, 2004)

bushpig said:


> Yetis have unique design and were made in the US with limited numbers. Ditto Fats. I haven't seen a Bradbury Manitou cracked and those are the really collectible ones. Only certain Ritchey's were made in Japan and those are less desirable. I dunno about Brew.
> 
> An original klunker has collectible value due to provenance - I'd wager that an original Repack bike would bring a lot more coin than would a beat Schwinn Excelsior. The difference being the history and the tweaks.


I've just read this entire thread (IE all 4pages thus far) & its going off on a few different tangents so I'll just give my 2c/p.

BP. I'm not sure if I've relayed this story before, but just incase not. I had the chance to buy an original Bradbury Manitou a few years back. if they're rare in the US, then they're dinosaur droppings in the UK!. I felt really guilty when the seller drove the 2hrs to my place, only for me to point out the massive crack where the seatube tapered down (unfortunately I didnt get a pic of the actual crack).

















I totally agree with the wine analogy. Given that the yeti C26 in a pile of tubes & lugs made such a high figure while essentially broken it'll always be limited number, valued brands that make the highest sums. people appreciate the quality wether broken or not (The new DB manitou owner was estatic  & yes I know the C26 was later rebuilt)

The occasional sky rocket high price ebay purchases, cook bros stems, klein forks, mavic 231cd rims etc etc always drawer a large amount of attention.I guess every single one of us has had an exceptionally cheap, if not free deal in the past & probabily the same number have paid an absolute preminium for something we really wanted. I guess it all evens out with the mavic 217 wheel example. I kinda like to see people paying over the odds occasionally as it shows how passionate people still are about the older stuff.. a lot of my friends are new skool riders & have never heard of potts/ cunningham, fat chance etc..

I dont love the parallex looks either, pure shimano marketing? everyone dissagrees on the defination of VRC timelines, I seem to remeber Furtado using parallex & that feels fairly BITD to me now.

Yup, a lot of UK retro builds suck. As a UK citizen (no US grandfathers here thanks, traced back in the doomsday book  perhaps I'm a little less biased/ defensive about some of the weird & wonderful "builds" that appear from time to time. I cant explain it either...

but hey lots of cool/rare builds at a fairly constant rate & some very well informed forum members make this a cool site, so keep up the good work people


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

stan4bikes said:


> isn't the ability to edit a wondrous thing
> 
> the trick is doing it quick enough that no-one sees the original.......but you never know who might have....


i have done it many times.. i am fuming and post something aggressive. then i decide i screwed up and take it out. so?

otoh you are instigating ... whinning incessantly and when things get heavy you pretend it's everyone else sillyness. you use irony as if it makes the whole thing humorous when it's the same whinning. just stop it.
you like odd bikes that one likes? fine. post them and ignore the abuse or tell everyone to Foff. whatever. just quit whinning and instigating.


----------



## singletracktourist (Jul 27, 2005)

colker1 said:


> i have done it many times.. i am fuming and post something aggressive. then i decide i screwed up. so what?
> 
> otoh you are instigating ... whinning incessantly here and when things get heavy you pretend it's everyone else sillyness. you use irony as if it makes the whole thing humorous when it's the same old whinning. just stop it.
> you like odd bikes that one likes? fine. post them and ignore the abuse. tell everyone to Foff. whatever. just quit whinning and instigating. the board won't adopt your collecting standard.


Well said. I think that's an accurate assessment of Stan4Bikes from what I've seen.

There's always pages and pages of google image for Stan and friends: http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=huffy+bike&btnG=Search+Images&gbv=2


----------



## anthonyinhove (Nov 3, 2007)

Although I don't personally share it as a hobby, I can well understand why somebody would be a vintage enthusiast and the bikes that fit the vintage definition are superb. 

But what I don't understand is why in a forum called Vintage, Retro and Classic, there is hostility towards things that are retro or classic but not vintage. And also apparently a disdain for retrobike.co.uk because it isn't a vintage forum, even though it doesn't set out to be. e.g., I assume that 7-speed STX is not vintage, but it is certainly retro and I would argue classic - AND it actually works superbly whenever you need it to, although I appreciate that I'm just demonstarting my abject Britishness by mentioning that irrelevance. As a result there is mention in this thread that Alivio is not vintage and so should be discussed elsewhere. So something that is retro should not be discussed in the Vintage, Retro and Classic forum?

Wouldn't it be clearer if you just changed the name of this forum to Vintage, and maybe there should be another Mtbr forum for the lesser beings who are also interested in and enthusiastic about retro and classic bikes?


----------



## bushpig (Nov 26, 2005)

anthonyinhove said:


> Although I don't personally share it as a hobby, I can well understand why somebody would be a vintage enthusiast and the bikes that fit the vintage definition are superb.


Some people "slag" the Retrobike site and some don't. My personal opinion is that there is a lot of enthusiasm and a lot of great bikes to be seen there so people that ignore it are missing out.

The moniker "Vintage, Retro, Classic" was coined by Rumpfy to capture the idea of nice older mountain bikes. The words to support in depth deconstruction to tease out their meaning. Even if they did, there are a lot of different ways that people end up interpreting them. For some it is just age i.e. that that words delineate three time periods with classic the oldest and retro the newest. Others have their own interpretation. Forum regular Fillet-Brazed will often point out that "retro" refers to something new that has the characteristics of something old. I think it would be fair to say that the stereotypical UK build is retro e.g. some bits are old and some are new, but with the old bits giving a "retro" feel.

I know there is a range of opinion, but from my perspective STX and Alvio are neither V, R or C. They are basic, generic parts. Shimano makes stuff that works so it wouldn't surprise me that these parts work, but I don't have much interest in seeing pics of 'em


----------



## mechagouki (Nov 30, 2007)

But STX RC is okay right?


----------



## stan4bikes (May 24, 2006)

mechagouki said:


> But STX RC is okay right?


Blue Collar VRC is just fine with STX- RC


----------



## bushpig (Nov 26, 2005)

stan4bikes said:


> Blue Collar VRC is just fine with STX- RC


LOL - when's the Hoov going to change his sign-in name!


----------



## stan4bikes (May 24, 2006)

*and to what pray tell?*



bushpig said:


> LOL - when's the Hoov going to change his sign-in name!


Do you have a suggestion my good man?


----------



## stan4bikes (May 24, 2006)

colker1 said:


> i have done it many times.. i am fuming and post something aggressive. then i decide i screwed up and take it out. so?
> 
> otoh you are instigating ... whinning incessantly and when things get heavy you pretend it's everyone else sillyness. you use irony as if it makes the whole thing humorous when it's the same whinning. just stop it.
> you like odd bikes that one likes? fine. post them and ignore the abuse or tell everyone to Foff. whatever. just quit whinning and instigating.


You know, I thought about your comments for a few days...and you are correct. I am going to ignore the abuse and tell you to F-OFF


----------



## mechagouki (Nov 30, 2007)

stan4bikes said:


> You know, I thought about your comments for a few days...and you are correct. I am going to ignore the abuse and tell you to F-OFF




Here we go again!


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

bushpig said:


> Some people "slag" the Retrobike site and some don't. My personal opinion is that there is a lot of enthusiasm and a lot of great bikes to be seen there so people that ignore it are missing out.
> 
> The moniker "Vintage, Retro, Classic" was coined by Rumpfy to capture the idea of nice older mountain bikes. The words to support in depth deconstruction to tease out their meaning. Even if they did, there are a lot of different ways that people end up interpreting them. For some it is just age i.e. that that words delineate three time periods with classic the oldest and retro the newest. Others have their own interpretation. Forum regular Fillet-Brazed will often point out that "retro" refers to something new that has the characteristics of something old. I think it would be fair to say that the stereotypical UK build is retro e.g. some bits are old and some are new, but with the old bits giving a "retro" feel.
> 
> I know there is a range of opinion, but from my perspective STX and Alvio are neither V, R or C. They are basic, generic parts. Shimano makes stuff that works so it wouldn't surprise me that these parts work, but I don't have much interest in seeing pics of 'em


What? Did somebody call? 

Anthonyinhove says: "STX is not vintage but it is certainly retro". No, it _is_ vintage but it is _not _retro. Vintage simply means old. Retro means something new styled after the past.

A retro example would be a 2008 Potts with a rigid fork, roller cams and some thumb shifters similar to what WTBNate put together a couple years ago. Something like this is a perfect fit here and was enjoyed by many.

Something vintage for mtbs in my eyes is typically pre-1990. Everyone has their own interpretation of when the vintage period starts. In other hobbies vintage might only pertain to pre WW-II... Its subjective as to what time period this would include. I think people also think of vintage things as nice things - maybe because there isnt a lot of people interested in showing off/restoring/working on low end stuff.

Classic is something that is timeless and beautiful IMO. This is probably the hardest category to describe I think.

Alivio is vintage, but some may find it not very interesting to look at or talk about, including me. I think the UK jokes are mainly about the somewhat typical random, non-period correct builds (often with Spin or similar wheels). Neither way is better than the other. Its just a matter of taste and style. Just my opinion...


----------



## stan4bikes (May 24, 2006)

Fillet-brazed said:


> What? Did somebody call?
> 
> Anthonyinhove says: "STX is not vintage but it is certainly retro". No, it _is_ vintage but it is _not _retro. Vintage simply means old. Retro means something new styled after the past.
> Agreed
> ...


And well stated, my fellow forum member:thumbsup:


----------



## gm1230126 (Nov 4, 2005)

stan4bikes said:


> Do you have a suggestion my good man?


stanHASALLTHEBIKES


----------



## stan4bikes (May 24, 2006)

*nope, won't work...*



gm1230126 said:


> stanHASALLTHEBIKES


Because I sold one today so at LEAST one other person has one for sure


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

I'm not sure the debate is so much on the definitions of 'vintage, retro, classic' as it is over some of the items posted really being worth the time and effort to collect/photograph/post.

Definitions vary (see the sticky at the top of this forum), but I think we can all generally figure it out.

_What_ is being collected and how the bikes are being built, however, is a different story.


----------



## anthonyinhove (Nov 3, 2007)

Fillet-brazed said:


> What? Did somebody call?
> 
> Anthonyinhove says: "STX is not vintage but it is certainly retro". No, it _is_ vintage but it is _not _retro. Vintage simply means old. Retro means something new styled after the past.
> 
> A retro example would be a 2008 Potts with a rigid fork, roller cams and some thumb shifters similar to what WTBNate put together a couple years ago. Something like this is a perfect fit here and was enjoyed by many.


No, I am rarely axiomatic myself, but that is completely wrong.

Retro literally means 'back' and in its general usage means 'harks back to the past'. Thus it can mean new, but it can equally be anything, new or old, that harks back to a previous era. If you seriously think that everything marked retro on eBay or everything in Retrobike is new, then you're out in a tiny minority of those who use the English language.

Thus in practical terms, a 1998 Explosif with V-brakes, Paralax hubs, 517 rims and many other things that would be routinely disparaged on this forum is properly, according to the English language, 'retro', but not (by my personal definition at least) 'vintage' (although it will be one day).


Fillet-brazed said:


> Something vintage for mtbs in my eyes is typically pre-1990. Everyone has their own interpretation of when the vintage period starts. In other hobbies vintage might only pertain to pre WW-II... Its subjective as to what time period this would include. I think people also think of vintage things as nice things - maybe because there isnt a lot of people interested in showing off/restoring/working on low end stuff.
> 
> Classic is something that is timeless and beautiful IMO. This is probably the hardest category to describe I think.
> 
> Alivio is vintage, but some may find it not very interesting to look at or talk about, including me. I think the UK jokes are mainly about the somewhat typical random, non-period correct builds (often with Spin or similar wheels). Neither way is better than the other. Its just a matter of taste and style. Just my opinion...


Mention was made earlier of the correct meaning of 'vintage' (and here one has to be axiomatic, because this word is defined in the dictionary), which is based on a quality threshold, which Alivio almost certainly fails. Vintage is a term that is all about wine and while it originated simply as attaching a date to a year's production, its usage is all about quality and it is used mainly as an indicator of quality.

In practical terms, it seems to me that this is best translated here to mean that an 88 Romax is a vintage bike, an 88 $50 supermarket bike is not vintage.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

stan4bikes said:


> You know, I thought about your comments for a few days...and you are correct. I am going to ignore the abuse and tell you to F-OFF


huh... you think about it. you don't actually tell anyone to F off. that's the secret of keeping it cool.
quit the whinning.


----------



## mechagouki (Nov 30, 2007)

This could take years and cost millions of lives......................


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

*Should we pull out our dictionaries? *



anthonyinhove said:


> No, I am rarely axiomatic myself, but that is completely wrong.
> 
> Retro literally means 'back' and in its general usage means 'harks back to the past'. Thus it can mean new, but it can equally be anything, new or old, that harks back to a previous era. If you seriously think that everything marked retro on eBay or everything in Retrobike is new, then you're out in a tiny minority of those who use the English language.
> 
> ...


Yes, vintage comes from wine industry and refers to a quality wine, but see definition three which is used for just the age of something - as in: "This is vintage 1942". http://mw1.m-w.com/dictionary/vintage

Retro: http://mw1.m-w.com/dictionary/retro I see nothing there saying 'already old'. Re usually means again. Just as you say "harks back to the past", something old doesnt hark back to the past - it is the past. Each of those definitions is about going back like you say. You cant "go back" with something already old because its already there. So it has to mean something _not vintage_ that hearkens to the days of old. You wouldnt say a 1942 car is very old-fashioned, because it _is_ old. Just like you wouldnt (properly) say a 1942 car is retro - it doesnt "hark back to the past". A 2006 VW Beetle _is_ retro because it _does_ "hark back to the past" like you say. But, that said, you could take a 1995 DBR and put some non-period correct thumb shifters on it and now it does take it back a bit which would be retro, I guess. Thats why we call a lot of the builds over there "UK Retro".

Thats my take anyway. We all use words differently.


----------



## stan4bikes (May 24, 2006)

colker1 said:


> huh... you think about it. you don't actually tell anyone to F off. that's the secret of keeping it cool.
> quit the whinning.


Ahhh, now I get it :thumbsup: it's like a mind meld 

I'm joking with you if you didn't get it colker1 have a great day.


----------



## anthonyinhove (Nov 3, 2007)

Fillet-brazed said:


> Yes, vintage comes from wine industry and refers to a quality wine, but see definition three which is used for just the age of something - as in: "This is vintage 1942". http://mw1.m-w.com/dictionary/vintage
> 
> Retro: http://mw1.m-w.com/dictionary/retro I see nothing there saying 'already old'. Re usually means again. Just as you say "harks back to the past", something old doesnt hark back to the past - it is the past. Each of those definitions is about going back like you say. You cant "go back" with something already old because its already there. So it has to mean something _not vintage_ that hearkens to the days of old. You wouldnt say a 1942 car is very old-fashioned, because it _is_ old. Just like you wouldnt (properly) say a 1942 car is retro - it doesnt "hark back to the past". A 2006 VW Beetle _is_ retro because it _does_ "hark back to the past" like you say. But, that said, you could take a 1995 DBR and put some non-period correct thumb shifters on it and now it does take it back a bit which would be retro, I guess. Thats why we call a lot of the builds over there "UK Retro".
> Thats my take anyway. We all use words differently.


I agree we all use words differently, and all the more reason to be indulgent rather than intolerant towards one another. I am completely in agreement with what it says in the link you provided:
Etymology: French rétro, short for rétrospectif retrospective 
'relating to, reviving, or being the styles and especially the fashions of the past : fashionably nostalgic or old-fashioned <a retro look> '

Since when was a retrospective exhibition ever an exhibition of only an artist's current work? In what sense does 'reviving the styles and fashions of the past' imply only by using new products to do so? It's perfectly obvious that a guitarist can revive the styles and fashions of the past by using a genuine Les Paul. Are you seriously saying that it's your view that only if it were a modern replica could the use of a Les Paul be said to be harking back to the past?

I'm over here and you're over there and things may be different, but I feel pretty sure that in the real world, if you bought yourself a 65 Corvette, your neighbour might say 'hey, I see you've gone retro, that's a great car'. And presumably you would say 'no my man, I have done nothing of the sort, for that is in fact a genuine 65 Corvette and only if it were a modern replica of a 65 Corvette would you be justified in accusing me of going retro. My lawyer will be in touch with you shortly over that vile slander.'


----------



## stan4bikes (May 24, 2006)

This thread has gotten too deep for this blue collar guy. Way too much thinking is involved.


----------



## bushpig (Nov 26, 2005)

anthonyinhove said:


> Since when was a retrospective exhibition ever an exhibition of only an artist's current work?


Just because retrospective is in the etymology of retro doesn't mean they are synonyms.

Using the artist analogy a 70s retro show and a 70s retrospective show will typically be two different things.

Language and words have more complexity than can be found through an abbreviated dictionary citation though. The dictionary listing will nearly always provide a shorthand summary.

In "Vintage, Retro Classic" however, we don't have three words, we have a phrase that was coined by Rumpfy. So, it is easy to determine the meaning, we can ask Rumpfy.

I reiterate that it is pointless to deconstruct each word to tease out the intended meaning when we have the authority who spoke the phrase and who isn't shy about expressing his opinion.

More than that the bickering over definitions is really just question begging - people will start with what they think the words should mean and then will proceed to show that their opinion is correct.

In the end, riding, enjoying and collecting mountain bikes isn't defined or limited by the words (or phrase) "Vintage, Retro Classic". It is a fluid concept whose definition continues to evolve through the actions of the participants in the various groups who pursue the interest. This isn't about constitutional interpretation, it is about what guys who dig this stuff do.


----------



## crconsulting (Apr 11, 2004)

*Since were using cars as a comparison point.*



anthonyinhove said:


> I'm over here and you're over there and things may be different, but I feel pretty sure that in the real world, if you bought yourself a 65 Corvette, your neighbour might say 'hey, I see you've gone retro, that's a great car'.'


Since were using cars as a comparison point.....

http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/automotive_news/4255134.html
"2009 Dodge Challenger Has Retro Muscle"
"Details that make the Challenger an intriguing retro-muscle ride"

New model car styled for that "vintage" look


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

anthonyinhove said:


> I agree we all use words differently, and all the more reason to be indulgent rather than intolerant towards one another. I am completely in agreement with what it says in the link you provided:
> Etymology: French rétro, short for rétrospectif retrospective
> 'relating to, reviving, or being the styles and especially the fashions of the past : fashionably nostalgic or old-fashioned <a retro look> '
> 
> ...


Have you heard from my lawyer yet? 

The music analogy doesnt really make sense here. Regardless, I also gave the example of something not new that could be retro with the 1995 DBR with thumbshifters. The thumbshifters take it back, or make it retro in a sense. Another good example of retro is Paul's Thumbies - new but styled after the past. Retro is fairly commonly used to refer to something old, but that doesnt make it correct. That's all Im saying.

Notice the title of this article and the ages of the cars discussed (nothing close to vintage there and hey, there's even a British machine in there):

http://www.motortrend.com/classic/features/c12_0612_down_the_road_editorial

And interesting that crconsulting's magazine example also uses it correctly. It's no big deal, this has all been hashed out if you read the sticky up there.


----------



## anthonyinhove (Nov 3, 2007)

bushpig said:


> Just because retrospective is in the etymology of retro doesn't mean they are synonyms.
> 
> Using the artist analogy a 70s retro show and a 70s retrospective show will typically be two different things.
> 
> ...


Much as I respect Rumpfy's achievements, if his definition of retro is indicated by his opening post "Doubtful any VRC guys were bidding on Parallax XT hubs with 217's though...unless they're from the UK" then it's a very narrow one. Clearly he's saying that an M750 hub on a 217 rim is neither V, R nor C, and no self-respecting VRC reader would buy a pair even for $100. Unless they were British of course, who are clearly held to know nothing about V, R nor C.

My point is that if you use a sensible real-world definition of retro then an M750/217 is clearly retro and should be welcome in this forum. It's a good wheel and if I saw a good pair for $100 I would buy them. I'm perfectly happy to agree that my 94 Kilauea with those wheels, XT Vs, spds and a Z2 isn't vintage, but IMO anyone who thinks it isn't retro or isn't worthy inhabits a very small, narrow space.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

anthonyinhove said:


> Much as I respect Rumpfy's achievements, if his definition of retro is indicated by his opening post "Doubtful any VRC guys were bidding on Parallax XT hubs with 217's though...unless they're from the UK" then it's a very narrow one. Clearly he's saying that an M750 hub on a 217 rim is neither V, R nor C, and no self-respecting VRC reader would buy a pair even for $100. Unless they were British of course, who are clearly held to know nothing about V, R nor C.
> 
> My point is that if you use a sensible real-world definition of retro then an M750/217 is clearly retro and should be welcome in this forum. It's a good wheel and if I saw a good pair for $100 I would buy them. I'm perfectly happy to agree that my 94 Kilauea with those wheels, XT Vs, spds and a Z2 isn't vintage, but IMO anyone who thinks it isn't retro or isn't worthy inhabits a very small, narrow space.


yes it is narrow but purposefully narrow. is it bad? maybe not.

otoh what's retrobike-uk's focus? i don't get it. anything goes. 
it seems also that the functional side of things does not matter. why not have a straight M900 xtr build w/ a black salsa stem and black bars? the beauty of it is how flawless it worked. there is no appreciation for the silver/ black/ gray industrial look of the original high end workhorse groups. everything is dressed in outrageous collor combinations w/ parts that don't work well in the first place. those bikes don't even look like they were built to be ridden in the dirt.
i have nothing against england or the english but the taste in those build.. i don't get it.
spin composite wheels? ugh!!


----------



## IF52 (Jan 10, 2004)

Maybe British taste really is accurately displayed on DIY programs like Changing Rooms and Bargain Hunter. Would you let Laurence Llewelyn-Bowen get hold of your bike? Blech!


----------



## mechagouki (Nov 30, 2007)

I think the big difference between the MTBR VRC forum and Retrobike is that Retrobike is generally a lot more light-hearted, I would advise members of this forum who feel less than comfortable with the VRC definitions used here to spend some time on Retrobike, it's by no means a Brits-only site and all new members are made welcome. 

I still come to the MTBR forum because a lot of the members here have a wealth of knowledge about the more exotic products to have come out of this (lets face it, still very young) 'sport' that we love. People here are maybe a little more passionate and hence disagreements arise.

As for colourful 'UK-builds', you'd want a colourful bike if you lived somewher it rains eight months a year, who wants to look out the window at a grey sky and then only have an entirely monochrome bike to go ride? 

I have to admit though, I've never (even BITD) understood why anyone would want SPINS or Rev-Xs on their bike..............but that's just my personal taste.


----------



## anthonyinhove (Nov 3, 2007)

colker1 said:


> yes it is narrow but purposefully narrow. is it bad? maybe not.
> 
> otoh what's retrobike-uk's focus? i don't get it. anything goes.
> the functional side of things does not matter. why not have a straight M900 xtr build w/ a black salsa stem and black bars? the beauty of it is how flawless it worked. there is no appreciation for the silver/ black/ gray industrial look of the original high end workhorse groups. everything is dressed in outrageous collor combinations w/ parts that don't work well in the first place. those bikes don't even look like they were built to be ridden in the dirt.
> ...


There are two separate issues, one of bike taste, the other of nationalistic prejudice.

I agree with you over everything you say about taste, although I absolutely disagee that "the functional side of things does not matter" - if that is a VRC axiom, then it is clearly very different from the Retrobike ethic.

But on the nationalistic prejudice issue, can I just say that I have never seen a Spin on the trail? There are far fewer in the UK than on the Continent of Europe, where they were quite popular and I expect the great majority in the world are in the US. Ditto all the coloured bling stuff - all found their market mainly in the US, also in Europe, much less in the UK. So all this nationalistic stereotyping is misplaced. And in fact if you check you will find that most of the colourful builds on Retrobike (about which we may well agree) are not the work of UK members.

But you are right that Retrobike is a very relaxed and inclusive environment, and if you feel that is a bad thing, then we disagree.

Do you not find that sometimes a lady you work with walks in with a new hair do? And your immediate reaction is 'My God, what a scarecrow! I wonder if she's suing?' But I wouldn't mind betting that you don't say that, you say something like 'ah, a new hair do, very attractive' don't you?


----------



## crconsulting (Apr 11, 2004)

anthonyinhove said:


> But on the nationalistic prejudice issue, can I just say that I have never seen a Spin on the trail? There are far fewer in the UK than on the Continent of Europe, where they were quite popular and I expect the great majority in the world are in the US. Ditto all the coloured bling stuff - all found their market mainly in the US, also in Europe, much less in the UK. So all this nationalistic stereotyping is misplaced. And in fact if you check you will find that most of the colourful builds on Retrobike (about which we may well agree) are not the work of UK members.


Dude, Don't sweat it....
As long as you guys keep building the best F1 cars, all is forgiven....


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

anthonyinhove said:


> Much as I respect Rumpfy's achievements, if his definition of retro is indicated by his opening post "Doubtful any VRC guys were bidding on Parallax XT hubs with 217's though...unless they're from the UK" then it's a very narrow one. Clearly he's saying that an M750 hub on a 217 rim is neither V, R nor C, and no self-respecting VRC reader would buy a pair even for $100. Unless they were British of course, who are clearly held to know nothing about V, R nor C.
> 
> My point is that if you use a sensible real-world definition of retro then an M750/217 is clearly retro and should be welcome in this forum. It's a good wheel and if I saw a good pair for $100 I would buy them. I'm perfectly happy to agree that my 94 Kilauea with those wheels, XT Vs, spds and a Z2 isn't vintage, but IMO anyone who thinks it isn't retro or isn't worthy inhabits a very small, narrow space.


Jeeeezus f'ing Christ. Stop. Stop being so fcuking sensitive. It's a joke. It's a sarcastic stereotype of the British 'vrc' bike builds.

The comments are not in spite and I can only surmise that the humor is lost in (written) translation.

But hey....if you want to go back and pull Rumpfy quotes and over analyze them, be my guest.


----------



## bushpig (Nov 26, 2005)

My WTB Phoenix has parallax hubs. It is cool. It may not be V (its from 96) but certainly R and C. That is all.


----------



## ssmike (Jan 21, 2004)

This is as much fun as following a 29er thread


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

crconsulting said:


> Dude, Don't sweat it....
> As long as you guys keep building the best F1 cars, all is forgiven....


haha! Yeah, its not a big deal - mostly just observations of different taste. I did like your new hair-do analogy. Hopefully we're not so much a bunch of women around here that we have to walk on egg shells.  Personally, I prefer honesty. I can take it. I like that we speak our minds around here.


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

ssmike said:


> This is as much fun as following a 29er thread


This is way more fun cause Im not nauseous. 

BP, lets see pics of that there retrorig... (and dont you mean Paradigm hubs?)


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

anthonyinhove said:


> There are two separate issues, one of bike taste, the other of nationalistic prejudice.
> 
> I agree with you over everything you say about taste, although I absolutely disagee that "the functional side of things does not matter" - if that is a VRC axiom, then it is clearly very different from the Retrobike ethic.
> 
> ...


You seem intent on sticking up for Retrobike but I'm not sure why. No one is putting Retrobike down. I think its a great resource. It doesn't cater to my personal style and interest in early mountain bikes, but its a great community none-the-less.

I do agree with Colker on several points though. Relaxed and inclusive environment is great...but the doors are so open to any bike that it dilutes how one might define V, R, or C.

It's like having a Porsche 911 specific club....but since my Karmen Ghia is a similar shape, also has tires....I'm in the club too. And my Dodge Aries also uses fuel. It's also in the club.

My 2003 Ventana is aluminum and has anodized blue parts on it. So does a 93 Yeti ARC. Therefore my Ventana is VRC.

So what is the purpose of this club anymore?


----------



## anthonyinhove (Nov 3, 2007)

crconsulting said:


> Dude, Don't sweat it....
> As long as you guys keep building the best F1 cars, all is forgiven....


Now, now, no need to depart from the facts - the Italians build the best F1 cars, and some would say the best bike kit as well.


----------



## bushpig (Nov 26, 2005)

anthonyinhove said:


> Now, now, no need to depart from the facts - the Italians build the best F1 cars, and some would say the best bike kit as well.


But the Brits have the best F-1 sex scandals! Achtung, mein auto is kaput!


----------



## anthonyinhove (Nov 3, 2007)

Fillet-brazed said:


> haha! Yeah, its not a big deal - mostly just observations of different taste. I did like your new hair-do analogy. Hopefully we're not so much a bunch of women around here that we have to walk on egg shells.  Personally, I prefer honesty. I can take it. I like that we speak our minds around here.


Yes but you see we English believe in old-fashioned (if not retro) courtesy and allow that to temper our honesty.

Why only the other day, as you may have read, a certain English gentleman famously insisted on speaking in German and thereby getting himself into all sorts of bother, even though he insists that it was purely as a courtesy to the young German lady that he happened to be whipping at the time. What better example could you wish the English to set? And how appropriate that such a fine gentleman should be the President of the FIA. Urrggh, where's that bucket?


----------



## CS2 (Jul 24, 2007)

bushpig said:


> But the Brits have the best F-1 sex scandals! Achtung, mein auto is kaput!


How did we go from stupid bidders to sex scandals?


----------



## anthonyinhove (Nov 3, 2007)

bushpig said:


> But the Brits have the best F-1 sex scandals! Achtung, mein auto is kaput!


crossed in the post - you fiend! You spoiled my story!


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

anthonyinhove said:


> Yes but you see we English believe in old-fashioned (if not retro) courtesy and allow that to temper our honesty.
> 
> Why only the other day, as you may have read, a certain English gentleman famously insisted on speaking in German and thereby getting himself into all sorts of bother, even though he insists that it was purely as a courtesy to the young German lady that he happened to be whipping at the time. What better example could you wish the English to set? And how appropriate that such a fine gentleman should be the President of the FIA. Urrggh, where's that bucket?


haha. I like your first line's use of 'retro'. I agree and most definitely believe there is a time and a place for tempering honesty (I am married) 

I want to hear this story. BP mentioned the British F1 scandal but used German to talk about so I assume these are one in the same? Sounds juicy.


----------



## bushpig (Nov 26, 2005)

It involved five prostitutes, Nazi roll play, a secret video camera, and tea drinking.

http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/3003_nazi_orgy.shtml

Googling will get you pictures


----------



## crconsulting (Apr 11, 2004)

bushpig said:


> But the Brits have the best F-1 sex scandals! Achtung, mein auto is kaput!


LOL!! Stranger than fiction....

Right out of a Quentin Tarantino Flick


----------



## Buonarroti (Mar 19, 2004)

I once put up a stem on ebay that you could get at Nashbar, Performance, etc. It was a generic, ordinary stem, and yet this beat up stem that cost me about $12 new sold for $32 with 14 bids on it. Some people get into bidding wars, and they just don't want to lose. Who knows.


----------



## mechagouki (Nov 30, 2007)

Buonarroti said:


> I once put up a stem on ebay that you could get at Nashbar, Performance, etc. It was a generic, ordinary stem, and yet this beat up stem that cost me about $12 new sold for $32 with 14 bids on it. Some people get into bidding wars, and they just don't want to lose. Who knows.


Oh,

well everything is just crystal clear now, thanks:thumbsup:


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

mechagouki said:


> Oh,
> 
> well everything is just crystal clear now, thanks:thumbsup:


Haha!

Ok that was funny.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

anthonyinhove said:


> There are two separate issues, one of bike taste, the other of nationalistic prejudice.
> 
> I agree with you over everything you say about taste, although I absolutely disagee that "the functional side of things does not matter" - if that is a VRC axiom, then it is clearly very different from the Retrobike ethic.
> 
> ...


?!?
yeah... i wouldn't question taste from a lady but it's not the case since retrobike is made up of males.
i said i like england... so the all the rant on nationalism and prejudice have nothing to do w/ what i posted. 
retrobike is not about england but that specific community. as much as mtbr/ rbr won't define what the US is about... thank goodness.
as far as functional... when i see xtr shunned away and suntour xc pro shifting in place i know functional is not the main motive.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

mechagouki said:


> I think the big difference between the MTBR VRC forum and Retrobike is that Retrobike is generally a lot more light-hearted, I would advise members of this forum who feel less than comfortable with the VRC definitions used here to spend some time on Retrobike, it's by no means a Brits-only site and all new members are made welcome.
> 
> I still come to the MTBR forum because a lot of the members here have a wealth of knowledge about the more exotic products to have come out of this (lets face it, still very young) 'sport' that we love. People here are maybe a little more passionate and hence disagreements arise.
> 
> ...


mtbr is about vintage bikes and biking. retrobike is about... something else i don't know exactly what. 
it's not "more relaxed". i don't feel tense here.
retrobike's taste on builds is very different from VRC. i am not into GT zaskar or kona kilauea or klein or serotta and i am a bit bored w/ looking at yo eddys w/ color coordinated builds. so i open VRC to look at other bikes: salsa, wtb, ritchey, wickeds, specialized, mikkelsen, bontrager...
that's it.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

CS2 said:


> How did we go from stupid bidders to sex scandals?


cause we believe in upgrades.


----------



## mechagouki (Nov 30, 2007)

colker1 said:


> mtbr is about vintage bikes and biking. retrobike is about... something else i don't know exactly what.
> it's not "more relaxed". i don't feel tense here.
> retrobike's taste on builds is very different from VRC. i am not into GT zaskar or kona kilauea or klein or serotta and i am a bit bored w/ looking at yo eddys w/ color coordinated builds. so i open VRC to look at other bikes: salsa, wtb, ritchey, wickeds, specialized, mikkelsen, bontrager...
> that's it.


I don't use the expression "more relaxed" anywhere in the text you quoted, and I never said anyone felt 'tense' on MTBR VRC, please don't misquote me.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

mechagouki said:


> I don't use the expression "more relaxed" anywhere in the text you quoted, and I never said anyone felt 'tense' on MTBR VRC, please don't misquote me.


c'mon. please don't turn this into an uptight kinda like Politics Forum discussion.

if you didn't use relaxed it was something w/ a similar meaning so i stand by my comment.


----------



## UmbrousSoul (Jul 19, 2007)

Just going to comment, I closed my scambay account a long time account with all of the fraud, hacking of accounts for information, and counterfiet items, I wasn't going to have it anymore. Do I have to mention the fees? I couldn't make anything from what I COULD sell, so I don't want to mention anymore (it seems you must pay more to sell anything or it doesn't get any bids).

I still have paypal..


----------



## mechagouki (Nov 30, 2007)

colker1 said:


> c'mon. please don't turn this into an uptight kinda like Politics Forum discussion.
> 
> if you didn't use relaxed it was something w/ a similar meaning so i stand by my comment.


I said "light-hearted", it has a very different meaning, get yourself a dictionary.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

mechagouki said:


> I said "light-hearted", it has a very different meaning, get yourself a dictionary.


dictionaries are not lighthearted.


----------



## mechagouki (Nov 30, 2007)

Good point,

shall we let this thread die now?


----------



## hollister (Sep 16, 2005)

mechagouki said:


> Good point,
> 
> shall we let this thread die now?


then stop bumping it back up


----------



## mechagouki (Nov 30, 2007)

hollister said:


> then stop bumping it back up


look who's talking...................................


----------



## hollister (Sep 16, 2005)

mechagouki said:


> look who's talking...................................


you really want the last word on this don't you


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

hollister said:


> you really want the last word on this don't you


Pushing almost 700 posts in the new forum already?! Geez man.


----------



## XR4TI (Sep 6, 2005)




----------



## ckevlar (Feb 9, 2005)

So did ritchey have anything to do with building any of his bikes or did he just like getting dressed up with hookers and barking orders to who did?


----------



## CS2 (Jul 24, 2007)

ckevlar said:


> So did ritchey have anything to do with building any of his bikes or did he just like getting dressed up with hookers and barking orders to who did?


I'm not sure what this has to do with people bidding up auactions. OTH, I do like his moustache. 

Tim


----------



## ckevlar (Feb 9, 2005)

I was trying to be funny:bluefrown: :bluefrown: :bluefrown: 
I just read through the whole thread and the two things that stuck in my mind were the points of ritchey not making the bikes that said made by ritchey and the post about the formula 1 head honcho and his aschwitz hoes.:skep:


----------



## CS2 (Jul 24, 2007)

ckevlar said:


> I was trying to be funny:bluefrown: :bluefrown: :bluefrown:
> I just read through the whole thread and the two things that stuck in my mind were the points of ritchey not making the bikes that said made by ritchey and the post about the formula 1 head honcho and his aschwitz hoes.:skep:


I still like the moustache.

Tim


----------

