Author Topic: Midschool date, year, era, decade etc. I need your input (Read 20933 times)

ED209 · « **Reply #100 on:** February 24, 2014, 01:36 PM »

this thread is getting all...

fischflo · « **Reply #101 on:** February 24, 2014, 01:55 PM »

so if it's a 1987 something with double plates you CAN still post/enter your bikes either in old OR mid school....?
In other word: the change would essentially be a header named "89ish" with the asterik that there are some exceptions allowed?

stidds · « **Reply #102 on:** February 24, 2014, 01:56 PM »

Quote from: rodriguez on February 24, 2014, 01:01 PM

Do you think 89 (including S&M from 87) is an acceptable compromise?

I am happy for 89 but I don't want to start saying but we can also include S&M from 87 as then somebody else says but how about my GT, Robinson, Auburn, Haro and then it becomes a great big circus again.

See my two options is keep 1987 as the start like it is now and push the end date slightly, or just go with decades and no schools, so the site will consist of bikes from 70's, 80's, 90's etc that way if you have S&M from 1987 it is in the 80's, how can anybody argue that is incorrect?

Dannywhac · « **Reply #103 on:** February 24, 2014, 02:07 PM »

Quote from: stidds on February 24, 2014, 01:56 PM

I am happy for 89 but I don't want to start saying but we can also include S&M from 87 as then somebody else says but how about my GT, Robinson, Auburn, Haro and then it becomes a great big circus again.

That wouldn't happen though Sean if you phrase it as bikes from 87 and 88 must have double plate dropouts (ie THE big sign that a bikes reeeeeal early mid school). Don't phrase it like I said as a single brand but an advancement in tech that can't be disputed and won't be seen as brand favouritism.

stidds · « **Reply #104 on:** February 24, 2014, 02:18 PM »

Look I will go with whatever you guys want, however we have to have a difinitive start date and a method that is workable and compatable with the rest of the site.

I am not having all the other era's with start and end dates and the midschool era defining their own flexible dates. Remember I have to sell the changing of the dates etc to the admin team and flexible dates will just not be tolerated by the owners/admin/moderators.

I just want you to give me something tangible, that I can use. I know that there is a cross over period, but all schools have that but they have had to compromise, which is something you guys will have to do also.

Dannywhac · « **Reply #105 on:** February 24, 2014, 02:22 PM »

Fair play

Said what I thought, and I understand that Rad needs the sections set firm.

In that case then I'm gonna go for 1987 as a start and 2003 as an end.

stidds · « **Reply #106 on:** February 24, 2014, 02:27 PM »

Quote from: Dannywhac on February 24, 2014, 02:22 PM

Fair play

Said what I thought, and I understand that Rad needs the sections set firm.

In that case then I'm gonna go for 1987 as a start and 2003 as an end.

I do appreciate yours and everyone elses comments, I am playing devils advocate at all turns here, but I am only trying to show what is needed.

As I said this is the very last time that a vote/decision/change is on the cards, so what needs to be sorted is what changes are to be made as after this any posts about it will be deleted without notice.

So give me a ideas on years or decades, 1" headsets etc anything real that so we can start making a poll, which will then be put to a vote.

Discostu · « **Reply #107 on:** February 24, 2014, 02:30 PM »

Start 1989, finish 2003

That Swan Guy · « **Reply #108 on:** February 24, 2014, 02:38 PM »

Now and again you come across a thread you just wish you'd never started reading

I like the years

stidds · « **Reply #109 on:** February 24, 2014, 02:38 PM »

Quote from: Discostu on February 24, 2014, 02:30 PM

Start 1989, finish 2003

I have to admit I do like the look of 1989 as a start date Stu.

Dannywhac · « **Reply #110 on:** February 24, 2014, 02:45 PM »

So without sounding like I'm banging me head against a wall/dead horse being flogged

Why leave out all the real early mid stuff like the K9-Dzine, Mad Dog, Privateers and so on. Would like people who think that 89 as a set date should force these bikes into the old school catagory when they're not old school? Not having a pop - just would like to hear their justification from you 1989'ers.

I suspect though that people might have a tad of a thing about bashguards marking the start - when they really weren't what midschool was about tbh. Again - not having a pop, just wanna hear to convince me

rodriguez · « **Reply #111 on:** February 24, 2014, 03:04 PM »

Quote from: Dannywhac on February 24, 2014, 02:45 PM

So without sounding like I'm banging me head against a wall/dead horse being flogged

Why leave out all the real early mid stuff like the K9-Dzine, Mad Dog, Privateers and so on. Would like people who think that 89 as a set date should force these bikes into the old school catagory when they're not old school? Not having a pop - just would like to hear their justification form you 1989'ers.

This is exactly the problem, I suppose it's being suggested just to try and reach a compromise even though it's wrong as we are being pushed into a corner over deciding a year.

When the site was started up again it was 87 IIRC and that's when all the whinging started because bikes that clearly didn't fit were moved into the section.

I'm in favour 87-03 so that all of what's considered mid-school is included in the section, can't lose the early stuff if it can't be included by amendment

Gnarlyscoots · « **Reply #112 on:** February 24, 2014, 03:16 PM »

I for one would not put my '87 TNT into mid school. It is a still riding pro riders frame set and he said he raced it from '87 - '89 in 'old school'. All the parts he had fitted to the bike too were old school so, starting at '87 will force me into an era I shouldn't be in.

fischflo · « **Reply #113 on:** February 24, 2014, 03:21 PM »

dordy:
"I just find it funny that later streetbeats gt and them trickstar 2 things can be classed as mid school in the show and shine along side of standard/s&m/2hip/Hoffman etc. "
(http://www.radbmx.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,171048.msg1718922.html#msg1718922)

Dannywhac · « **Reply #114 on:** February 24, 2014, 03:23 PM »

And I'd find it funny that my 1988 Mad Dog should go in the old school section. Full circle

And I bet if you asked Dordy he'd agree.

fischflo · « **Reply #115 on:** February 24, 2014, 03:33 PM »

if strictly handled dates really are a given (and for BOTH -rad forum and show and shine)
perhaps we can minimize these cases of feeling funny by approximating/naming the decades vintage, os, ms, ns

ED209 · « **Reply #116 on:** February 24, 2014, 03:53 PM »

lets just do it on weight and f**k the years

could we have 87 for certain 'stated' manufacturers and '89 - 2003' for a general catchall?

skidmark · « **Reply #117 on:** February 24, 2014, 03:59 PM »

If this thread carries on, I think most people reading it will be driven to throwing themselves under a bus, thus removing the need for any decision at all....or is that the aim?

Setting a year will only perpetuate the moans, but that appears to be the only acceptable answer. I may have missed the point, but why is a crossover period not possible, with a list of defining features for frames? I don't see why that would fuel any more grief than a specific year will.

I also think that setting years is essentially forcing rules on people, which is never welcome.

Basically, you either allow members some leeway, which I realize may result in more hassle for mods etc, or you peeve them off....damned if you do and damned if you don't springs to mind.

ED209 · « **Reply #118 on:** February 24, 2014, 04:16 PM »

yeah what Sen said really...

ooo here's that bus......... and Seans driving!

OllyHall · « **Reply #119 on:** February 24, 2014, 04:20 PM »

It is very hard as like some have said in 87/88/89 there are some very mid bikes but also very old school stuff, I find it shocking to see a trick star in the mid section.... Or a 87 sport but that's just how I feel... And my taste

stidds · « **Reply #120 on:** February 24, 2014, 05:03 PM »

Quote from: skidmark on February 24, 2014, 03:59 PM

If this thread carries on, I think most people reading it will be driven to throwing themselves under a bus, thus removing the need for any decision at all....or is that the aim?

Setting a year will only perpetuate the moans, but that appears to be the only acceptable answer. I may have missed the point, but why is a crossover period not possible, with a list of defining features for frames? I don't see why that would fuel any more grief than a specific year will.

I also think that setting years is essentially forcing rules on people, which is never welcome.

Basically, you either allow members some leeway, which I realize may result in more hassle for mods etc, or you peeve them off....damned if you do and damned if you don't springs to mind.

No the aim is for you guys who are supposed to know and the ones doing all the moaning to sort out what you want.

The reason for no cross over period is because that is not the way we are going to run things, as I said before all the other era's have a date that they work to so MS is also going to have to compromise.

Who is to say what that cross over period would be, 2 years, 3 years, 4 years, when you have a sliding scale it slides further and further depending on where you want you bike to appear.

We also run the biggest OS get together in the world, this runs a massive S&S that takes about 4-5 hours to judge, during this judging to then have to decide is this a cross over year bike, has it got double thickness dropouts etc etc is just too much to ask. Remember judges/mods/admin get paid nothing for all these hours we put in to ensure the weekend runs smooth, we barely have time to think, let alone enjoy the weekend.

Is it too much to ask that we have some compromise and assistance from MS era to ensure that we continue this site smoothly?

Remember it is only a problem if you make it into one.

fischflo · « **Reply #121 on:** February 24, 2014, 05:15 PM »

...when did 14 mm axles for fs bikes become common?

stidds · « **Reply #122 on:** February 24, 2014, 05:18 PM »

Quote from: fischflo on February 24, 2014, 05:15 PM

...when did 14 mm axles for fs bikes become common?

See even that would do, it doesn't have to be a year etc, we can say 14mm axles etc as I said it just needs to be a line in the sand that we can say _________________________ this is where RADBMX say midschool started.

Dannywhac · « **Reply #123 on:** February 24, 2014, 05:21 PM »

Would it be ok to ask again for people saying 1989 as the start date to justify it please?

I can tell you why 1987 would be my choice if we can't 'feather' the start of MS:

1. First appearance of U Brakes on a bmx.
2. A huge change in freestyle techniques.
3. Appearance of 'beefing up' (ie double dropouts) to cope with point 2.
4. A start of change in geometry to cope with point 2.
5. The start of true rider owned companies.
6. The start of the major decline of the large BMX companies (buy dropping sponsorships, bike quality takes a nose-dive - these are the companies that 2 years later will try on the old bashy model to flog a dead horse).

Love you all.

fischflo · « **Reply #124 on:** February 24, 2014, 05:33 PM »

good points.

However then the first appearance of 1 1/8th headsets would by the same token designate the start of New School?