# defining vintage mountain bikes



## ray (Dec 28, 2004)

Being a newcomer here was interested in knowing if there is a working definition of vintage.I tried a search on the topic that really didn't result in much clarification.So,,any points of reference to define vintage,age?,components?etc.BTW this is a great forum.Thanx,ray


----------



## Shayne (Jan 14, 2004)

*Well To Me....*

..vintage bikes and components are 10 yrs or more old; mid '90's and prior.


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

Shayne said:


> ..vintage bikes and components are 10 yrs or more old; mid '90's and prior.


Its hard to define. To me a 1995 hardtail doesnt look hardly any different than a 2005 hardtail. I wouldnt call a 1995 Honda CR250 vintage or a 1995 Mercedes vintage. Or even a 1985 car we wouldnt call vintage.

For me, vintage bikes are 80s bikes. Thats just me. The first decade of mtbs are what I enjoy the most. Theyre just different. Much more time was spent making those old bikes.


----------



## lucifer (Sep 27, 2004)

I would tend to agree but then what do we call the early to mid 80s bikes? Antique seems a little too harsh. 

When you think about it 10 years is an eternity in mountain bike development.
We should put together a sticky post that serves as a photo timeline of a representative bike of each year from say 80 to 95 I'll offer up my nukeproof as an example of 1995 red anodized over indulgence


----------



## lucifer (Sep 27, 2004)

Oh and I would have to disagree about the 95 to 05 hardtail comparison on the points of...
disc brakes
two or three times as much travel on the front end and the hideously ugly new geometry that they use because of it
less knobby tires on the new ones
long vs short stems
color vs boring 
etc etc etc


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

ray said:


> Being a newcomer here was interested in knowing if there is a working definition of vintage.I tried a search on the topic that really didn't result in much clarification.So,,any points of reference to define vintage,age?,components?etc.BTW this is a great forum.Thanx,ray


This will be a tough question to answer. There really is no concrete way to define it and there will be several correct answers IMO.

Lets just say we hardly see anything posted here later than...say...95/96.

'Vintage', 'Retro', 'Classic' are terms used in pretty broad reference to older MTB's.


----------



## lucifer (Sep 27, 2004)

Checklist for vintage mountain bikes

1) Marginal or better yet no suspension
2) A frame that was built by a person not a machine. Preferably steel or ti but arty aluminum is ok too.
3) Lots of parts that were cut by a robot out of a hunk of aluminum. Or for the older bikes lots of parts that either looked like road bike parts or motorcycle parts.
4) Fat knobby tires
5) A stem that could pleasure a woman (nod to D8) 
6) Bar ends


----------



## Tracerboy (Oct 13, 2002)

*Add to checklist for vintage mountain bikes...*



lucifer said:


> Checklist for vintage mountain bikes
> 
> 1) Marginal or better yet no suspension
> 2) A frame that was built by a person not a machine. Preferably steel or ti but arty aluminum is ok too.
> ...


More stuff seen on vintage mtbs;

1. Biopace
2. Rollercam brakes.
3. HiteRite
4. Splatter paint
5. Brush style graphics.
6. Straight blade chromoly forks.
7. U-brakes
8. Moose style handlebars
9. Tioga T-bones
10.Dayglo yellow and green components
11.Sella Flite Ti saddles
12.Ground Controls
13.Tioga Farmer Johns
14.ODI Mushroom grips
15.Budweiser water bottles
16.Ringle purple anodized water bottle cage
17.Purple anodized anything!
18.Pineapple Bob.
19.A Diamond Back Apex with the purple smoked paint.
20.Shimano 7speed topmount shifters!

Thats about it.


----------



## DWF (Jan 12, 2004)

By my own definition it's any bike that was not built "suspension corrected", i.e. any bike that predated early RockShox/Manitou flood.


----------



## ssmike (Jan 21, 2004)

DWF said:


> By my own definition it's any bike that was not built "suspension corrected", i.e. any bike that predated early RockShox/Manitou flood.


I like that definition. But can also envision a sub-category of vintage suspension bikes like the Pro Floater.


----------



## kb11 (Mar 29, 2004)

I'd say anything that came with above the bar thumb shifters


----------



## vdubbusrider (Jul 28, 2004)

i define it as any bike that sold for top dollar at least ten years ago but that has managed to keep a good portion of it's re-sale value. a 20 year old low end mountain bike that would sell for $20 is is just an old bike but a fat chance that can still bring in $700+ is defineltly vintage.


----------



## Shayne (Jan 14, 2004)

*Vintage Defines A Time Period Though*

It doesn't really have anything to do with value or collectability.
A 1989 Hardrock is just the same vintage as a 1989 Epic. Clearly the Epic is more desireable but they are both vintage.

Value of vintage bikes is in the eye of the beholder. Some things that people would just as soon throw away are worth a mint to others.

I think too many people out there are concerned about what things are worth. Its about riding, not money.


----------



## Guitar Ted (Jan 14, 2004)

*I agree: Vintage defines a time period*

Since the MTB is relatively "young", you don't have to go back very far to attain "vintage" status. I would also add that it can encapsulate a particular design/ fashion/technology element that no longer is prevalent today. ( rigid forks, thumb shifters, neon, and elevated chainstays come to mind) So, yes, suspension could be seen in a "vintage" way when you think of it in those terms. ( elastomers, bolt on crowns, and short travel) I think of "classic" as a timeless design, ( Cunningham) and retro is really definitive of something modern done in an "old" way, in my mind. My 2 cents!


----------



## loonyOne (Dec 25, 2003)

Shayne said:


> It doesn't really have anything to do with value or collectability.
> A 1989 Hardrock is just the same vintage as a 1989 Epic. Clearly the Epic is more desireable but they are both vintage.
> 
> Value of vintage bikes is in the eye of the beholder. Some things that people would just as soon throw away are worth a mint to others.
> ...


Well put Shayne! For me, a person that doesn't have a lot of dough, I think it's neat to have a touch of history at whatever cost one can justify to afford. And the ride is important as well.

The best riding bikes I have personally ever ridden are my '96 'Bonny' Race and a '96 Fisher Marlin that I used to have. Are the two bikes similar, kind of...but by _status, _not even close. The Fisher had the true Fisher ride quality (as I have ridden other, older Fishers, just not very long), but the model name and the fact that it was a Taiwan-welded frame hold it back from being a 'classic' in my book. But the fact that it had the 'Fisher' ride, keeps it mentionable. And 'Bonny', well, a Bontrager is what it is...everyone that has ridden one knows. Although, I have yet to ride my '97(?) Bontrager Privateer...owned for less than a month and the build is not done.

My other two bikes, a '90 Trek 930, and a ?? year Schwinn High Plains (I think I remember tracking it down to near '89). The Trek is a lugged frame that is actually vintage Trek, in comparison the the Schwinn that is a low enough model to have riveted rear brake bosses...not something that is considered to be vintage, mostly by vanity. That bike was rescued from a pickup headed for the county landfill...incomplete, but the frame/fork intact. Both are not highly sought after bikes, and are not on the 'most wanted' list, but does that mean that they are any less vintage or retro...because they're "not worth anything"??

Sure, I would LOVE to have a 'Goat, or a hand-brazed Ritchey, or Potts, the list goes on and on...but I don't. I have what I have, and I ride all that I have, and considering my area, and the availability of vintage/classic rides, it isn't a bad stable...just not a garage full of 'Goats, Ritchey's, Trimbles, and what-have-you.

A touching post and definitely difficult for me to peg down. I'm not the most knowledgable MTB person here, but I have a niche for the older stuff. Me thinks a tee many martooni's (Busch Lights) again. Hope I didn't come off as a babbling moronic sap...not who I am.


----------



## richieb (Oct 21, 2004)

with specific reference to Fishers...I believe the true vintage fishers would be from when the company was still called Fisher, and not Gary Fisher. Second comes to pre-trek fishers.

In general, Vintage to me seems to be when the sport was in its infancy...before suspension was mass-produced for th US fork companies in Taiwan...when Manitous were CNC'd, Rockshox were in the Mag-series, etc...

as for frames...vintage is something unique and from a period of time that helped define the sport...

like 57 VW Beetle is just as vintage as a 57 chevy...

rb


----------



## neveride (Feb 7, 2004)

*I know its not scientific*

but for me, anything up to 95ish is somewhat vintage. Bikings gone through some huge changes in a short amount of time, as seemes to be the cycle. Look back to the 50's and 60's. Balloon tires were the way, then came the stingray's and for a while there were all sorts of weird things going on (variety of suspension, yes suspension, disc brakes, weird shifter combinations, tire sizes, and so on). Then in the seventies, it leveled off, with minimal amount of changes. The 80s brought back the fat tire bike, and things once again went wild. Indexed shifting, from top mounts to rapid fire to gripshift, materials (steel, aluminum, ti, carbon), flats to flats with bar ends to risers, suspension. If you don't consider the first and 2nd generation suspension forks vintage, you probably didn't ride one.

I started riding mountain bikes when I was 14 in the mid to late 80's. My first mountain bike was barely that, but right away I got upgradeitis, working as a bus boy and using my tips to by new cranks (i remember replacing those heavy shimanos with steel rings with some early toplines) and the steel stem with an Atac. I remember saving up to get a Rock Shox 1, and me and a buddy, both of us still in high school, being the first at local races with a suspension fork.

Certainly everything's cyclical, and we've all got our favorite periods for whatever reasons (nostalgia plays a big part for me, and my fave is 90 through 95, my college years, is when I rode the most). The owner of the first shop I worked at, and still retain a pretty great relationship with, restores and is obsessed mostly with balloon tire and rays and crates, but with just about every new thing he'll pull out some old part from the 20's through the 70's to show its been done before (I recall the light weight craze in the early 90's and people drilling stuff out, and him pulling out 60's and 70's road parts pred drilled at the factory). "Classic" for him isn't mountain bikes, thats never been his real love, classic are crates and the pre 60's balloon tire bikes, though he's got an 88 or 89 aluminum schwinn in mint shape, with pre micro drive Suntour that has angles right off a cruiser that we'll pull up now and again for a looksee. There are also a bunch of his regulars that wouldn't know the difference between my 04 Turner and my 90ish Klein, neither has any value to them, but they think they're 97 or 2000 Schwinn cruiser they bought for 250 bucks new is worth thousands cause it looks similar to a 50's black phantom. To each their own.

Car afficiandos can tell you the specific date that makes a car classic or vintage. There is a year period (not sure, 20 or 30) and much of it is insurance reasons (you get a car insured as classic, so long as you're not driving it more than "x" amount). Someone above posted that too many people are starting to place a dollar value on what makes classic. I'd agree. I've got a 58ish balloon tire bike thats worth a bit and have been offered way too much for, but I prefer having the bike to the cash. I know I've spent way too much myself on a part here and there, but I'm not into reselling, I'm going to use everything I bought as though it was new. Heck, I sold or gave stuff away in the past that now I see going for hundreds on ebay, and sure I wish I had that stuff, but not to sell, but to build up a new bike.

But maybe its best just to let it be state of your own mind.


----------



## 83stumpjumper (Feb 14, 2011)

Since mountain bikes really only started to hit the scene around 1981, I think that only bikes from the early to mid 80's would qualify as classic. Certainly nothing with any type of suspension on it. I still ride a 1997 Stumpjumper Comp. for the trails, and I don't consider it classic, it's just an older bike. Nor do I think it will ever be a classic as the years move forward. I refrain from using the term "vintage" because that is really used to describe wine.


----------



## Shogun700 (Jun 15, 2009)

I've only been around this stuff for a couple years, and I wasn't a part of the MTB scene aside from casual awareness in the 80's and 90's. From my observations on this and a couple other websites, it sorts itself out like this, at least in my head: 

Vintage-the beginnings and first wave: 80's bikes, or older, with paint and graphics going from sedate to wild as the decade progressed. Common themes (with exceptions)-steel frames, horizontal top tubes, long stays, chainstay brakes/u brakes/rollercams, 1" steerers, thumb shifter (friction and index) strength over weight, form follows function. Most bikes available were serious, but as you head into the late 80's the entry-level (cheap) stuff starts to appear.

Classic-the 'golden era': A pretty short window between 1990 (give or take) and the end of the cantilever brake/full rigid era in the middle 1990's. For me characterized by incredible variance in product and ideas-sloping top tubes, long seat posts, aluminum/ti frames, larger steerers, outrageous brake designs and construction, rapidfire shifters, early suspension designs, lightweight over strong, form over function. This seems to be the most fondly remembered time for a lot of you as the bikes moved away from any similarities to road bike and began to diversify within the 'MTB' category The end of this era is littered with the remains of all the boutique companies with great looking product, but not the resources to weather lawsuits and increasing overseas competition. 

'Retro'-I suppose anything that someone under 25 years old or so thinks of as 'old school'. Includes all steel frames, rim brakes of any sort, bright paint, pre-2000 suspension forks, early full suspension bikes. In some cases it doesn't have to be old, just seem that way-barcons and cantis are all over the place now, but I get the impression nobody wanted anything to do with them 10 years ago. Fixies are a modern phenomenon, but totally retro.


----------



## Oldfatbaldguy (Nov 4, 2010)

Ancient thread but a great one to bring back up.

My first "real mtn bike" was a Ross; I still have it, and recently put all the original parts back on it, except the brake lever that was broken and the reflectors which I threw away. 

Heavy tank, but its mine, and given that exotic hand-built bikes didn't appear in this area until the mass-producers educated the market I will call it my own classic. It gives me pleasure to ride it again, and thats enough.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

Oldfatbaldguy said:


> Ancient thread but a great one to bring back up.
> 
> My first "real mtn bike" was a Ross; I still have it, and recently put all the original parts back on it, except the brake lever that was broken and the reflectors which I threw away.
> 
> Heavy tank, but its mine, and given that exotic hand-built bikes didn't appear in this area until the mass-producers educated the market I will call it my own classic. It gives me pleasure to ride it again, and thats enough.


It's a vintage thread!


----------



## bing! (Jul 8, 2010)

Classic cars are generally defined as 20 years and older. For me, the same applies to bikes. Most late 90s bikes don't have a retro appeal to me, just yet. 80s bikes are where its at IMO.


----------



## 83stumpjumper (Feb 14, 2011)

The classic mountain bikes are from the early and mid 1980s. Anything after that is just an old mountain bike. That doesn't mean it's junk, just not a classic.


----------



## Xizang11 (Feb 3, 2008)

I think most of the folks who post on here look for the pre-1990 stuff. To me, that's like the car collectors who gather pristine pre-WW2 Duesenbergs and Auburns and show them off at pebble beach. I really like the stuff that was coming out when I was a kid (the stuff I couldn't afford). I really like the 1992-2000 bikes the best. That's when every brand was coming out with a new full suspension design every few years, and they were all still building steel hardtails at the same time. Give me a Nishiki Alien or a Breezer Twister or a GT RTS or a Diamondback V8. It might just be an "Old Bike", but it'll put a smile on my face every time.


----------



## mik_git (Feb 4, 2004)

it seems young people these days think old school is around 2005

for me vintage is before the late 80's, classic early to late 90's (cause thats when all the "good" bikes were made  )


----------



## KrisKringle (Mar 17, 2011)

mik_git said:


> it seems young people these days think old school is around 2005
> 
> for me vintage is before the late 80's, classic early to late 90's (cause thats when all the "good" bikes were made  )


 I think that would best state it right there. The 80's are the beginnings of production Mountain bikes the 90's is when mountain biking started to evolve and find itself.

and in all honesty I find it hard to want the new stuff maybe i'm a geezer idk. My newest bike is a 2002 Gary Fisher definitely not vintage or classic, but not new either. And its full rigid......I still ride my old rides off road too. I am just more careful. My old race Amplifier rarely sees the trail I worry about it. It is a piece of my history I don't want to damage.


----------



## datasurfer (Nov 24, 2006)

I've noticed that these semi-rigid rules constraining a vintage mountain bike to the decade of the 1980's or a classic mountain bike to the first 5 years of the 1990's go by the wayside when people find certain coveted late 90's or early 2000's bikes such as the WTB Phoenix, Bontrager Races and Racelites, Salsa El Kaboings, Fat Chance Shock-a-billy's and Yo Eddy's, Ritchey NiTi's, just to name a few. I propose that just as important as the age of the bike is the provenance of the builder. It seems that certain bike builder's later creations are accepted here If the builder was also fabricating during the so-called Golden Era of MTBing.


----------



## laffeaux (Jan 4, 2004)

datasurfer said:


> I've noticed that these semi-rigid rules constraining a vintage mountain bike to the decade of the 1980's or a classic mountain bike to the first 5 years of the 1990's go by the wayside when people find certain coveted late 90's or early 2000's bikes such as the WTB Phoenix, Bontrager Races and Racelites, Salsa El Kaboings, Fat Chance Shock-a-billy's and Yo Eddy's, Ritchey NiTi's, just to name a few. I propose that just as important as the age of the bike is the provenance of the builder. It seems that certain bike builder's later creations are accepted here If the builder was also fabricating during the so-called Golden Era of MTBing.


I think the distinction is how they ride. Bikes from the 80's ride fairly different from "modern" bikes. Bikes from the early 90's ride fairly similar to current bikes, but use shorter travel forks. Once frames were designed around 80mm forks (late 90's) for all intents and purposes, they ride the same as a bike that you'd by new.

My single speed frame is 15 years old and has a 80mm fork. Other than the fact that it's older than a "modern" bike, it rides the same. If I replaced that frame with a new bike the only difference that I'd look for is a larger diameter wheel.

So, IMO, it's hard to think of late-90's bikes as "classic" (and I own several) when they're not a whole lot different from a modern bike.


----------



## longfinkillie (Jan 28, 2011)

My definition of classic or vintage is seeing a bike and still wanting it 10 to 15 years later. Which is why I only ride/buy vintage, because today's bikes seem unnatural. Just like the old 70's Playboy playmates compared to today's the curves don't look right.


----------



## kb11 (Mar 29, 2004)

laffeaux said:


> So, IMO, it's hard to think of late-90's bikes as "classic" (and I own several) .


I assume the wife is OK with that as long as your moved them out of the kitchen?


----------



## 83stumpjumper (Feb 14, 2011)

I agree that mountain biking really started to become it's own thing in the early '90s. New frame geometry and then all the suspension. I'd consider that the third wave of MTB history. But I stand fast in saying that classic or vintage bikes are restricted to the years between 1981-1985. That was the first wave of MTB's. Around 1984, all the bike companies were scrambling to put out a mountain bike, once they saw it wasn't just a fad the industry was going through. That continued from the mid to late '80s. Different technologies came to play in the 1990s that couldn't have been dreamed of by the early designers. I'd say were up to about the 7th generation of mountain bikes now. 
Who knows what will appear in the next 5 years? My prediction, anti- lock brakes!


----------



## HungarianBarbarian (Jul 24, 2008)

bing! said:


> Classic cars are generally defined as 20 years and older.


:skep: 
I don't think the term classic refers to the age of a vehicle. When I was in high school 20 years ago a classic car was most anything made before 1970. Today most any car made before 1970 is considered classic, very few cars produced since 1970 are considered classic. I can't think of any 1992 model car that is considered a classic.

I look at cars produced in the 50's and 60's and performance was increasing dramatically up until 1969 pretty much across the board for all cars. This was the golden age of American cars. After 1969 performance didn't increase much until the 1990's. Same thing with mountain bikes. The 80's were the golden age and performance increased dramatically until 1989. From 1990-1995 most of the changes made were things that no one would want to ride today, push-push shifters (although the SRAM shifters that came on my 2010 $2000 bike are pretty much the same crap), suspension forks that barely worked, cantilever brakes that are uglier and less effective each year, etc.


----------



## laffeaux (Jan 4, 2004)

kb11 said:


> I assume the wife is OK with that as long as your moved them out of the kitchen?


She gets a little weird when bikes come upstairs, but she seems to be okay with them in the basement. Gone are the glory days of kitchen bike maintenance.  I need to get a refrigerator for the basement.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

laffeaux said:


> She gets a little weird when bikes come upstairs, but she seems to be okay with them in the basement. Gone are the glory days of kitchen bike maintenance.  I need to get a refrigerator for the basement.


Lol, and a bed!


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

HungarianBarbarian said:


> :skep:
> I don't think the term classic refers to the age of a vehicle. When I was in high school 20 years ago a classic car was most anything made before 1970. Today most any car made before 1970 is considered classic, very few cars produced since 1970 are considered classic. I can't think of any 1992 model car that is considered a classic.
> 
> I look at cars produced in the 50's and 60's and performance was increasing dramatically up until 1969 pretty much across the board for all cars. This was the golden age of American cars. After 1969 performance didn't increase much until the 1990's. Same thing with mountain bikes. The 80's were the golden age and performance increased dramatically until 1989. From 1990-1995 most of the changes made were things that no one would want to ride today, push-push shifters (although the SRAM shifters that came on my 2010 $2000 bike are pretty much the same crap), suspension forks that barely worked, cantilever brakes that are uglier and less effective each year, etc.


Now the '70's and early 80's Jap cars are becoming classic.


----------



## digitalayon (Jul 31, 2007)

Seems to be a lot of opinions. Some guys here go by klein or Bontrager only or pre-trek GF. Much of this is to the person who is actually riding it. I guess some will collect it but feel it is too rare a bike to get a scratch on they waste it....others will like it for how cheap it is when they are getting the blue book value. I myself will take a old frame and put as much modern stuff on as I can afford. Still vintage in my eyes. But I also like it to preform. Back then some bike companies would spend more on the paint jobs for the lower end bikes just to match some lower end components on the bike. Now we're not talking real huge differences in cost on paint. But it gives a bigger margin for a bike with cheaper compos. And I love the "eye of the beholder" comment......My first mountain bike was a Nishiki road bike converted using flat handlebars with knobbier tires. And it out preformed my friends on their brand new roadmaster and huffy MTB's they got for X-mas....hell I couldn't afford the new huffy back then. I was 12 years old. I got the Nishiki from a thrift store for 5 bucks.


----------



## thebronze13 (Jan 10, 2011)

Built4Speed said:


> More stuff seen on vintage mtbs;
> 
> 1. Biopace
> 2. Rollercam brakes.
> ...


21, Raised Chainstays


----------



## longfinkillie (Jan 28, 2011)

*Old Eldridge Grade-Whoo Hoo!*

Deleted


----------



## girlonbike (Apr 24, 2008)

Mountain Cycle Shawn said:


> Jap cars.


 rude.


----------



## jeff (Jan 13, 2004)

girlonbike said:


> rude.


Cars of Japanese decent?


----------



## bing! (Jul 8, 2010)

Personally, besides age, a good vintage bike has to have style cues that date it to a period. Styles cue come in the form of frame design, parts, paint and component specs/combinations.

My own vintage thing is mostly in the frames. I like to ride old frames. Im not particular about components or looks. I just like to get old steel frames into as-new perfect working condition and enjoy riding them as a wine afficionado would drink a glass of vintage wine. If i get could put any more money in this, i would definitely build them as period as some of you do.


----------



## Mr.Magura (Aug 11, 2010)

With bikes I'd say it depends also what sort of bike it is.
For instance a road bike from 1990 could hardly be called a vintage, as they are very close to what we have today. A cross country MTB on the other hand would be quite different, if from 1990. I guess the most extreme case of this, would be downhill MTB's, as a DH bike made prior to the year 2000 sure is vintage, as the development within the DH branch is pretty hefty.


Magura


----------



## bing! (Jul 8, 2010)

HungarianBarbarian said:


> :skep:
> I don't think the term classic refers to the age of a vehicle.


I didnt make it up.

clas·sic car
Classic car is a term used to describe an older car, but the exact meaning is subject to differences in opinion. The Classic Car Club of America, maintain that 20 years to 45 years old for a car to be a classic (over 45 years fall into the Antique segment).

Examples of 80-90s classics that are becoming collectible are the Mazda Miatas, Corvettes, the Acura NSX, Toyota Supras, MR2, air cooled 911s etc etc. Since 90s era cars are still readily on the market, values arent going up. There is also the issue of proprietary standards in ecus and grand fathered regulations on emmissions, smog certification, modding, safety etc etc, that makes pre1974 classics more desirable.


----------



## HungarianBarbarian (Jul 24, 2008)

lol


----------



## telebikerdog (Jun 28, 2010)

How's this for vintage. The press fit bottom bracket on my 92 Klein rascal finally gave out a couple of months ago. After searching high and low, I discovered the service department at the Trek store in Boulder actually had the original Klein BB tool.


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

telebikerdog said:


> How's this for vintage. The press fit bottom bracket on my 92 Klein rascal finally gave out a couple of months ago. After searching high and low, I discovered the service department at the Trek store in Boulder actually had the original Klein BB tool.


Good for them for having the tool! Usually its the old school shops that have that kinda thing.


----------



## old'skool (Jul 2, 2011)

Built4Speed said:


> More stuff seen on vintage mtbs;
> 
> 1. Biopace
> 2. Rollercam brakes.
> ...


I have a surprisingly large ratio of items on that list. Except my Apex is an Axis


----------



## mik_git (Feb 4, 2004)

hahaha, my smoke finish apex came with biopace, straigh blade forks, t-bone, farmer johns (cousin) and 7 speed thumbies, and now has added a flite, 7 out of 20 not too bad... add in flexstem,m old stlye onza bar ends and power grips...

over here we have a catagory of racing for "targa" tarmac rallying, that has veteran (ye ancient), vintage (ye oldie), classic (50-70), modern classic(80-90), and modern (probably more than that too)


----------



## DoubleCentury (Nov 12, 2005)

Rumpfy said:


> Good for them for having the tool! Usually its the old school shops that have that kinda thing.


It once was an old-school shop: Cutting Edge Sports


----------



## jeffgothro (Mar 10, 2007)

bing! said:


> Classic cars are generally defined as 20 years and older. For me, the same applies to bikes. Most late 90s bikes don't have a retro appeal to me, just yet. 80s bikes are where its at IMO.


That's the same benchmark I use to define vintage bikes. In fact, several months from now (next year to be exact) my 92 G.T. Richter 8.0 turns 20 years old.


----------



## abaris (Feb 13, 2010)

So What Is The Difference between Vintage, Retro, and Classic?


----------



## laffeaux (Jan 4, 2004)

abaris said:


> So What Is The Difference between Vintage, Retro, and Classic?


I think that you need to re-read a lot of these threads. 

Vintage = old
Retro = new, but made in an older style
Classic = well made (most often associated with old, but could be associated with new)


----------



## aa240sx (Jun 28, 2008)

I tend to agree with the statement above. What's even tougher to categorize is just how much of the bike has to be from that era? Sadly, 7 speed derailleurs and shifters are not only tough to come by but technically speaking, how reliable and how much would you really want to use them if you actively rode your vintage, retro or classic bike today on trails. 

I'm currently putting together what I would call a classic by these definitions. It's an 95 Ventana Marble Peak, but with newer components. I plan to ride it just like any other newer late model bike and I'm sure it will hold up fine considering the components on the bike are 3 years old or newer. I even went so far as to pickup the last disc brake lower chain stay part from Ventana so I could run discs. 

Maybe we can call bikes that are 10 years old or older that use modern components what the hot rodding guys call them, 'resto-mods'? By that definition, they're still classics but they also get used and aren't just museum pieces.

Case in point? Any aluminum hardtails such as Yeti FRO, Klein Adroits, etc. The fatigue and pounding that these aluminum hardtails have experienced over 20 years of hard riding would really make it tough for me to want to slap on a set of new Crank Brother's wheels, a Reba XX fork and 10 speed drivetrain on it and ride it at Whistler Park. I'm sure if stress fractures didn't exist before, they would appear in no time. Sorta ranting here, but I do think there should be category for trailer queens too.


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

aa240sx said:


> I tend to agree with the statement above. What's even tougher to categorize is just how much of the bike has to be from that era? Sadly, 7 speed derailleurs and shifters are not only tough to come by but technically speaking, how reliable and how much would you really want to use them if you actively rode your vintage, retro or classic bike today on trails.
> 
> I'm currently putting together what I would call a classic by these definitions. It's an 95 Ventana Marble Peak, but with newer components. I plan to ride it just like any other newer late model bike and I'm sure it will hold up fine considering the components on the bike are 3 years old or newer. I even went so far as to pickup the last disc brake lower chain stay part from Ventana so I could run discs.
> 
> Maybe we can call bikes that are 10 years old or older that use modern components what the hot rodding guys call them, 'resto-mods'? By that definition, they're still classics but they also get used and aren't just museum pieces.


Laffeaux is right on with his post. I think the bikes with a combo of new and old can be called retro. It may not be perfectly accurate, but the fact that it's got some new and some old makes it kind of a throwback of sorts...


----------



## girlonbike (Apr 24, 2008)

aa240sx said:


> Sadly, 7 speed derailleurs and shifters are not only tough to come by but technically speaking, how reliable and how much would you really want to use them if you actively rode your vintage, retro or classic bike today on trails.


Not that tough to find. I find them every time I go to a swap and all over ebay everyday. Pretty easy to find on vintage bikes on CL too. Totally reliable. Over 20 years old and they're still performing well on bikes.


----------



## Austin Dave (Jul 7, 2010)

I think it's true that most of us (well, maybe not Eric), have a soft spot for some indefensible old-but-not-vintage bike.

I love '84 Schwinn High Sierras--the year that had that cheap black chrome and the Rube Goldberg seat and the awesome bullmoose bars. Why? I have no earthly idea.










I saw one for sale last year--basically new--for $60 (not the one above). I should have bought it.

They're old, they're bikes, they turn my crank--but they aren't vintage bikes, IMHO.


----------



## pinguwin (Aug 20, 2004)

That High Sierra is certainly vintage, more than most bikes on this forum. It might not be considered a classic. There was nothing wrong with the HS, it was a good, mid-line mountain bike of the time and was a good value. It was my first mtb in 1984 and I kept it for three years until stolen from inside my house (suspect is was a college roommates friend or something).

Just a nit, I think that's an '85 model. The 84 model was available in "smoked pearl" and I think the black version was in 1985.


----------



## Austin Dave (Jul 7, 2010)

pinguwin said:


> That High Sierra is certainly vintage, more than most bikes on this forum. It might not be considered a classic. There was nothing wrong with the HS, it was a good, mid-line mountain bike of the time and was a good value. It was my first mtb in 1984 and I kept it for three years until stolen from inside my house (suspect is was a college roommates friend or something).
> 
> Just a nit, I think that's an '85 model. The 84 model was available in "smoked pearl" and I think the black version was in 1985.


I can appreciate your appreciation, P. thanks for the reply. I do think the one I like is an 84. I think that was the only year they had the 'Moose bars, and that funky seat. But model years for bikes are sometimes strange, right? Here's an ad from MOMBAT.

I think the "classic" vs. "vintage" point you make is a helpful distinction in this thread. If it this bike is "vintage" it is a case study in the difference between "vintage" and "classic".


----------



## laffeaux (Jan 4, 2004)

Austin Dave said:


> I think it's true that most of us have a soft spot for some indefensible old-but-not-vintage bike.


Yep. There are bikes that I think that are super cool, that most of the guys on here wouldn't be bothered to care about. That's what's nice about "old bikes" - sometimes you can get a bike that means a whole lot to you for very little money. If if makes you happy that's all that matters.


----------



## unicrown junkie (Nov 12, 2009)

girlonbike said:


> Not that tough to find. I find them every time I go to a swap and all over ebay everyday. Pretty easy to find on vintage bikes on CL too. Totally reliable. Over 20 years old and they're still performing well on bikes.


 I just tore apart a old 6Spd Deore thumbshifter last night, in the hopes of seeing what piece it is internally that needs to be modified for 9 gears.

To say the least I lost the super small ball bearings in short order. But as noted, these dang things are mighty tough, only part I see wearing prematurely is that said disk I was talking about. And it looks like it isn't an easy part to fabricate at home.

I just put together the Ibis last night with the 7 spd versions, looking good!


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

Austin Dave said:


> I think it's true that most of us (well, maybe not Eric), have a soft spot for some indefensible old-but-not-vintage bike.


I don't have time for $h!tty bikes.


----------



## Howley (Nov 23, 2005)

The first new MTB I bought was a first generation 1982 or 1983 Schwinn High Sierra. Anyone know the actual first year? 

My gray matter can't count as well anymore. My wife told me I have been wrong all year...thinking I am 54 when I am realy only 53...ug...


----------



## pinguwin (Aug 20, 2004)

I believe the first year for the High Sierra was 1984. I was riding a HS in August of 1983 but have been told that it was first for sale for the 84 model year. I bought a 1984 model year (in smoked pearl) as my first bike. My brother had connections in the bike biz and may have had access to models that others did not.


----------



## Austin Dave (Jul 7, 2010)

pinguwin said:


> I believe the first year for the High Sierra was 1984. I was riding a HS in August of 1983 but have been told that it was first for sale for the 84 model year. I bought a 1984 model year (in smoked pearl) as my first bike. My brother had connections in the bike biz and may have had access to models that others did not.


I think this is right. There is nothing at all in the '83 catalog about mountain bikes and this page is in the '84 book. (Notice that P's Smokey Pearl is avail, in fine print.) But bike model years often have lots of overlap, it seems.


----------



## aa240sx (Jun 28, 2008)

aa240sx said:


> I tend to agree with the statement above. What's even tougher to categorize is just how much of the bike has to be from that era? Sadly, 7 speed derailleurs and shifters are not only tough to come by but technically speaking, how reliable and how much would you really want to use them if you actively rode your vintage, retro or classic bike today on trails.
> 
> I'm currently putting together what I would call a classic by these definitions. It's an 95 Ventana Marble Peak, but with newer components. I plan to ride it just like any other newer late model bike and I'm sure it will hold up fine considering the components on the bike are 3 years old or newer. I even went so far as to pickup the last disc brake lower chain stay part from Ventana so I could run discs.
> 
> ...


Here's my finished resto-mod, classic or what have you.



It's basically pieced together from parts off a Giant Trance 2 and some parts bin related items like the Deus XC cranks, Crossride wheelset and Weyless seat clamp :thumbsup:



Shot of the disc brake attachment. As far as I know, I think I may be the last one to have purchased the NOS from Ventana USA directly about 4 days ago.

Set the sag and go. She rides great and I can't wait to hit the trails this weekend. The pivot arms are supposedly custom jobs not manufactured by Ventana, but I have no idea. I'm also not sure that they actually do anything to increase stock travel, but it does give the bike a much taller bottom bracket height, which you can notice riding it. Bought the frame at a garage sale a week ago for a song.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

Nice! Looks like a MC San Andreas BB height.


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

Looks like a modern bike to me.


----------



## tductape (Mar 31, 2008)

Perfectly defined here:

http://forums.mtbr.com/vintage-retro-classic/1981-ritchey-fillet-brazed-biplane-fork-736651.html


----------



## Oldfatbaldguy (Nov 4, 2010)

RE Schwinn High Sierra's

In my posession are two documents that suggest the High Sierra as being around before 1984

One, a Schwinn owner's guide printed in 1983; this one is very similar to the one hanging from the bike in the pic on the MOMBAT site, except only two-color, and the only bikes listed are Sidewinder 10, Sierra, and High Sierra... Mombat lists about 6 bikes


Two: an article from March/April 1984 Mother Earth News listing specs on several MTN bikes current as of 9/1/83 (presumable when the article was put together. Lists the same bikes, but the article also suggests the staff got a bike on loan to test.

I bought my first Mtn Bike in 1984, a Ross. I remember looking at the Schwinns: I didn't like the brake levers, which were the same lightweight models they used on the street bikes. The bike I looked at had a BMX-style handlebar on a gooseneck. This is pictured in the old owners manual I have, as well. This bike was also not very comfortable: short wheelbase and not enough cockpit made it feel like you were on top of the bike, hard to move your weight around. It steered funny with no reach in the handlbars.

Later on, they had bullmoose bars or a welded one piece bar/extension/stem, but that would have been model year 1985 or 1986 I think.


----------



## pinguwin (Aug 20, 2004)

Fat Guy,

That's actually believable about the 9/1 date. Often later in the year, the next years model is available. I was just looking at a 2012 bike about two weeks ago and test rode it (but didn't buy as I opted for a nicer version coming out later this year) even though it's officially for next year. 

It might be more accurate to say that the 1984 model year was the first but the actual date when it's made available to the public is somewhat variable. I do know that I was riding a High Sierra before 9/1/83 but my brother used to be in the bike dealer sphere.

If you could scan those things in and post, I'd be interested.


----------

