Midschool date, year, era, decade etc. I need your input

[rodriguez]

What happens 2003 onwards?

Im not for or against anything thats been put forward but new school won't be for long. Decades are going to have to come into it at some point otherwise each but off is gonna be a recurring nightmare. Would be wise to look at the bigger picture and not just the bit you like

Just a thought 

I know where you are coming I was thinking about that too today, using 03 New School will have been going for around 10 years or so bikes haven't changed a whole heap during that time, I was wondering what will cause the next big sea change.

How many new schoolers (under 25) are on/join the site? Not many if any at all I think the young fellas are on bmx-forum now or the come up and most of them think anything pre-2010 is old school.

The sections are basically just to cater for ourselves a load of middle age men at the moment it's new school because that's what it is to us and that's what it'll be till it isn't.

I don't think it's for us to worry about as they'll probably name it themselves whenever it happens.

[Dannywhac]

2003 sorta marks the smaller BB, weight over burliness, start of micro drive proper coming into proper effect etc - it's arbitrary again though as you could equally go for 2005 

[ED209]

Don't av a go at me, I can this thread is going nowhere fast so just put it to the vote and let us decide
87-2003
89-2003
90-2000
Etc etc

you kids have no attention span ... as Sean said ... its worth discussing at length and getting right once and for all 

Olly - I think you are working too hard and bit touchy = on your period 

[Lenny-Lentini]

Ok here it is Brothers

79-88 Old School

89-99 Mid School

2000-05 Heavy School

05-11 Light School

12-Today New School

The Dates might need jigging but I like the names.

ponder the Faith. L

[OllyHall]

I like that Lenny!!

[ED209]

I like that Lenny!!

'The Voice' agrees! 

 

[ED209]

good work Len but its not quite there ... but what its brought out is that we don't need a vote with lots of choices.

We need to keep the discussion going until we have a consensus of opinion about what is the best way to date 'mid school' then once we have that we have a new thread with a vote that says 'do you agree' or 'do you not agree' ... if you DON'T agree then say why ... then we add that in a try again ... but the way things are headed I reckon we will get something we agree on first time 

Just gotta keep it moving forward and refining the idea ... it actually pretty interesting discussion 

[ED209]

...so how about...

(including exceptions from 1987 ) 1989 - 2003 (including exceptions up to 2005)

or ...

(>1987) 1989 - 2003 (<2005)

...which allows for anyone with early of late 'midschool' to include it in the area they want it in 

[OrgasmDonor]

...so how about...

(including exceptions from 1987 ) 1989 - 2003 (including exceptions up to 2005)

or .

(>1987) 1989 - 2003 (<2005)

...which allows for anyone with early of late 'midschool' to include it in the area they want it in 

This does make sense and was kinda a given before the rad site change. As I said, I personally think mid is 89-99 but posted my 87 revcore in the mid section as it felt more mid than old

[fischflo]

So it's just a vote on ONE period (89-2003) versus the decade idea, or is the decade idea ruled out?

AND especially if indeed just a YES/NO vote then it would be useful to add the main arguments in the actual vote, as -as i take-, this vote aims at wide participation and there'll be many who will not be arsed to read the whole shebang here

1989 : as Stu:
"This was then the era that S&M amongst others started to come to the fore, if you look back at videos of the late 80's/early 90's you don't really see anyone riding an S&M but plenty of haro's and gt's are about. Yes the S&M was probably a better and stronger bike back in 88 but it hadn't gained any popularity at that time.  "

2003 : Rod
"04ish="US BB phased out, freewheels phased out in favour of cassette and introdution of micro gearing, 48h to 36h, movement towards light and strong as opposed to heavy and strong."

Danny
"It's when you start seeing true micro gearing, the dropping of US BB's and a new 'make it light and strong' approach kicking in that for me defines the start of new. Although as any kid at a park and they don;t give a fook about owt earlier than last year  "

Philbert:
"This for me ran up until about 03. Then new school made a real headway with companies jumping on the standard bandwagon and using lighter tubing from strengthened metals, smaller chainrings, euro, Spanish, and mid bbs were becomingly widely available."

[ED209]

Its not definitely ANYTHING  that was just an idea... if its not working we chuck it out if something better comes along.

So it's just a vote on ONE period (89-2003) versus the decade idea, or is the decade idea ruled out?

AND especially if indeed just a YES/NO vote then it would be useful to add the main arguments in the actual vote, as -as i take-, this vote aims at wide participation and there'll be many who will not be arsed to read the whole shebang here

1989 : as Stu:
"This was then the era that S&M amongst others started to come to the fore, if you look back at videos of the late 80's/early 90's you don't really see anyone riding an S&M but plenty of haro's and gt's are about. Yes the S&M was probably a better and stronger bike back in 88 but it hadn't gained any popularity at that time.  "

2003 : Rod
"04ish="US BB phased out, freewheels phased out in favour of cassette and introdution of micro gearing, 48h to 36h, movement towards light and strong as opposed to heavy and strong."

Danny
"It's when you start seeing true micro gearing, the dropping of US BB's and a new 'make it light and strong' approach kicking in that for me defines the start of new. Although as any kid at a park and they don;t give a fook about owt earlier than last year  "

Philbert:
"This for me ran up until about 03. Then new school made a real headway with companies jumping on the standard bandwagon and using lighter tubing from strengthened metals, smaller chainrings, euro, Spanish, and mid bbs were becomingly widely available."

[Dannywhac]

(>1987) 1989 - 2003 (<2005)

That works for me as well - little bit of light slapping into another section if we end up with a non extra gussets welded FST etc in 'ere and bob's your uncle.

That also give +- a decade for new school. Guess we don't have to worry 'bout a new-new section for that till we get the bmx equivelant of hoverboards 

[ED209]

(>1987) 1989 - 2003 (<2005)

That works for me as well - little bit of light slapping into another section if we end up with a non extra gussets welded FST etc in 'ere and bob's your uncle.

That also give +- a decade for new school. Guess we don't have to worry 'bout a new-new section for that till we get the bmx equivelant of hoverboards 

mmm hoverBIKES! I could get all 'Tom Justice' then 

[fischflo]

Its not definitely ANYTHING  that was just an idea... if its not working we chuck it out if something better comes along.

unless it's some more peeps proposing for the 1987 startdate (which doesn't really seem necessary if there's an Admin consensus on that soft moderation ...err hows that sound ..solution), then i suggest a vote on smth like that
                              (>1987) 1989 - 2003 (<2005)    VERSUS      decades
simply cause quite a few seem to favour that decade thong.

[stidds]

unless it's some more peeps proposing for the 1987 startdate (which doesn't really seem necessary if there's an Admin consensus on that soft moderation ...err hows that sound ..solution), then i suggest a vote on smth like that
                              (>1987) 1989 - 2003 (<2005)    VERSUS      decades
simply cause quite a few seem to favour that decade thong.

All I can say is this, if you guys really think that you/we can really make it work with 'sliding dates' for the MS section, with the aid of a couple of section moderators, and you all think at this stage even before any vote is taken that is the way forward, then I can propose the idea to the other admin/mods and see what they think.

If they come back with a yes then that is the way we can go, if they say no then a solid set in stone start and finish date will have to be thought up.

[fischflo]

lay inna word for us pro-moderationers, pro-sliding daters, Stidds que sera, as the Romans say

[ED209]

We don't even need sliding dates ... just a statement that flexibility of 2 years either side of these years is acceptable if the owner / builder / rider feels it justifies inclusion in the mid school section.

Regarding 'decades' as Sean has said, that will be a major change and may not justify the work involved ... if not more in favour of the 89-03 with 2 year flexibility 

[fischflo]

..thought it was 3 versus 5 years that would have to be shifted (with the 89-03 versus decade solutions).........?

[Gary72]

STATMENT
Flexibility of 2 years either side of years 1989 - 2003 is acceptable

Can someone second this motion?


I also propose that the date of any said BMX is determined by its frame.

Hear, Hear.   Said like some MP in the commons

[ED209]

STATMENT
Flexibility of 2 years either side of years 1989 - 2003 is acceptable

Can someone second this motion?


I also propose that the date of any said BMX is determined by its frame.

Hear, Hear.   Said like some MP in the commons

seconded 

[ED209]

..thought it was 3 versus 5 years that would have to be shifted (with the 89-03 versus decade solutions).........?

huh? how does '3 verses 5 years' come into it?

1989-2003 - flexibility for submission 2 year before and 2 years after these dates.

[Dannywhac]

Yep - agree with (all the posts) above. It does leave the decade thang hanging (of which I was in two minds quite a few posts ago before weighing up the odds of restructure etc) I guess, unless the fellas who were pro that change their mind.

Least it now seems like we've all come the the conclusion as a group that there's two options 

Most active thread in 'ere for quite some time, which cheers me up on the fact that there's still a lot of the old passion kicking around for them there dark ages 

Ed - think Fisch was saying 'bout 2003 vs 2005 being a firm date for the end as there's a few 'votes' for each in the thread. The +/- allows for that though

[fischflo]

-sorry Danny, i'll read ur post in a sec-

This what i meant:

Regarding 'decades' as Sean has said, that will be a major change and may not justify the work involved ... if not more in favour of the 89-03 with 2 year flexibility 

so according to this view this decade option is too much of a royal fuss in comparison anyway

to which i answered/reminded, quoting moiself:

if 1989 wins you'll have to shift 1987 and 1988 and 2003 =3 years
 if decades you shift 1987, 88, 89 and 2001, 2002 = 5 years

to whichh ED now sais:

huh? how does '3 verses 5 years' come into it?

1989-2003 - flexibility for submission 2 year before and 2 years after these dates.

to which I reply:
...what's wrong with that comparison ....... i thought the 1987, 1988 bikes were the exception, so all in all that comparison i gave shows that its not -as you partrayed- a decent versus a GARGANTUAN CHANGE

->so the decade option is not really a no no , so let's not rule that out 

[pickle]

STATMENT
Flexibility of 2 years either side of years 1989 - 2003 is acceptable

Can someone second this motion?


I also propose that the date of any said BMX is determined by its frame.

Hear, Hear.   Said like some MP in the commons

thirded 

[ED209]

..thought it was 3 versus 5 years that would have to be shifted (with the 89-03 versus decade solutions).........?

understand now 

so where we are at is the proposal for a vote on the dating of mid school in 2 different ways "

'(>1987) 1989 - 2003 (<2005)'    VERSUS      Decades

If this is correct Sean and I will put it to the admin / moderators team and let you know shortly