RADBMX.CO.UK
BMX General => BMX Chat => Topic started by: Gish on October 18, 2014, 08:26 PM
-
Trying to clear up as it's borderline
2003 S&M Neal Wood
It does have 1 1/8th headtube , euro B/B & option of V Brake or Caliper Brake
-
New school, early 00's weren't they?
-
New school, early 00's weren't they?
Think they were 2002 - 2004
-
It's your call, that's what the flexibility is for, probably get more appreciation in the Mid section :daumenhoch:
Race bikes had Euro BB's, V brakes and 1 1/8th head tubes in the 90's did they not :-\
-
New for me.
-
100% Mid-school for me.
The midschool years were agreed as being 1989-2003 but with a bit of flexibility either side of those years so in essence anything from 1987-2005.
These days a Neal Wood sits very firmly in midschool as it is 2003.
-
Further to my post above is this....
Just how damn scary is it to think that a Neal Wood is now hovering around midschool era instead of a modern race frame? It is what 13 years ago that it was introduced to the world and 11 years since production ended.
Damn we are getting old. :LolLolLolLol:
-
I always thought mid school ran from 1988 to 2000 and new from 2001 onwards ???
-
I'd say its mid but I'm no expert ,it's a rad frame it's an s&m so its all good :daumenhoch:
-
Definitely mid - frame designed in 2001 and ran for a few years with the same geometry/build, similar to race frames you could get back in '97. No integrated HS etc.
Euro BB - it's a race frame, if it was on a street/park bike then it would start to smack of New School (although there's frames in that category from the same year such as the T1's).
-
Definitely mid - frame designed in 2001 and ran for a few years with the same geometry/build, similar to race frames you could get back in '97. No integrated HS etc.
Euro BB - it's a race frame, if it was on a street/park bike then it would start to smack of New School (although there's frames in that category from the same year such as the T1's).
And that is from the lips of the midschool moderator so I would say it is gospel and it is what we stand by. :daumenhoch:
-
Ok hang on a minute.... We now considering bikes with integrated head tubes, euro BB's, and Canti / V brake mounts Mid school? :LolLolLolLol: :uglystupid2: How about a Speed Wagon? It has the exact same tech as a Wood, and is even made from the same material. Is that mid as well then?
-
No - it's a race frame. Different kettle of fish as said above.
They hardly frikkin changed from about 97 till 2005. If that was a street/park bike then we'd be looking borderline. Take some of the street/park frames coming out in late 2003 and you start to see the onset on new tech - shorter rear T's, micro gearing etc etc.
Oh. More importantly that frame is from 2003 - which is the end date on what we all voted on for the end of mid school. So it's mid.
-
No - it's a race frame. Different kettle of fish as said above.
You do know the Neal Wood was a race frame right?
So I ask again, What is the difference between a Neal Wood with integrated Head tube, euro BB, and V brakes, and a Speedwagon with Integrated head tube, euro BB, and V brakes?
-
I always thought mid school ran from 1988 to 2000 and new from 2001 onwards ???
The whole world does except for Rad. :daumenhoch:
-
Here we go again. :LolLolLolLol:
-
So when did that vote happen? These "era" dates are just fcuked, how can a bike from 2003 be mid school? I have bikes that are clearly "new school" but going by this they are "mid school". It's bollax.
-
Just had a re-read of this thread and going by the one year either side rule my new school Felt is actually mid school even though it is very clearly new school and so is my GT24.
-
Bloody hell guys I don't want world war 3 on this
All I want to do is show a bike at MK next year and which category would it fit in
Mid School (going by the dates on forum) or
New School retro
-
Yep - had a little bet someone would turn it into the mid debate again. We voted, the majority went for the dates we've got. This thread isn't for a debate on dates, it's if Gish's frame is Mid - which it is being from 2003. I just find it a bit disappointing that the minority of people who didn't agree with the dates to start with use threads like this to turn it into the same old date debates. Instead of doing that, post more in the Mid section and make it a bit more lively.
@Marty - have a read here: http://www.radbmx.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,171969.0.html
40 to 23 in favour of the dates we've got, as through the thread it was decided that the majority wanted either the dates we have or decades and fook off the 'school' idea in it's entirety.
The no in me last post was referring to the fact that the Neal Wood's a race frame, I was trying to point out it's easier to define a street/park bike than a race due to the fairly easy-ish to spot adoption of new school tech.
-
No - it's a race frame. Different kettle of fish as said above.
You do know the Neal Wood was a race frame right?
So I ask again, What is the difference between a Neal Wood with integrated Head tube, euro BB, and V brakes, and a Speedwagon with Integrated head tube, euro BB, and V brakes?
About 13-4 years.
I always thought mid school ran from 1988 to 2000 and new from 2001 onwards ???
The whole world does except for Rad. :daumenhoch:
No it doesn't
BMXsociety defines it as "Pretty much anything from 1988 to early 2000's can go here."
Bloody hell guys I don't want world war 3 on this
All I want to do is show a bike at MK next year and which category would it fit in
Mid School (going by the dates on forum) or
New School retro
Mid School (going by the dates on forum) job done.
Come on it was a contentious enough issue first time round surely you'd realise bringing it up again it was always going to end up a debate.
-
Yep - had a little bet someone would turn it into the mid debate again. We voted, the majority went for the dates we've got. This thread isn't for a debate on dates, it's if Gish's frame is Mid - which it is being from 2003. I just find it a bit disappointing that the minority of people who didn't agree with the dates to start with use threads like this to turn it into the same old date debates. Instead of doing that, post more in the Mid section and make it a bit more lively.
@Marty - have a read here: http://www.radbmx.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,171969.0.html
40 to 23 in favour of the dates we've got, as through the thread it was decided that the majority wanted either the dates we have or decades and fook off the 'school' idea in it's entirety.
The no in me last post was referring to the fact that the Neal Wood's a race frame, I was trying to point out it's easier to define a street/park bike than a race due to the fairly easy-ish to spot adoption of new school tech.
Not intending to start a debate but if only 63 members of a total 2495 membership voted it's hardly a majority vote at all. Sorry but calling a 2003 race frame Mid School is like calling the Haro Freestyler 30th Anniversay Frame old school, it may look like it but it ain't it. My GT24 is a race bike and a 2004 model, with an integrated headset - mid school? Hardly!
-
Not intending to start a debate but if only 63 members of a total 2495 membership voted it's hardly a majority vote at all. Sorry but calling a 2003 race frame Mid School is like calling the Haro Freestyler 30th Anniversay Frame old school, it may look like it but it ain't it. My GT24 is a race bike and a 2004 model, with an integrated headset - mid school? Hardly!
Yep - and the 63 members that voted were probably the one's that frequent and have a fair whack of input for the mid section. More probably saw the thread and didn't vote out of the 2000+ members as they had no desire to, but the vote doesn't show that number - the thread was viewed over 1400 times. The thread was up for over a week, plenty of time to see it and have an input. Thread and vote over, dates defined.
And calling a 2003 race frame mid because of the dates we decided is nowt like calling a Haro Freestyle Anni frame Old School. When was it made? Same goes for your GT24.
It's time for the facepalm - no more date debate
[attachment=1]
-
Yeah, I hardly come on here let alone post so it's not a debate then.
Frankly I couldn't give a flying fcuk but do think the rationale applied is flawed. That said, tomorrow night I'll go for a blast on my newly anointed mid school cruiser, I'm off to bed...
-
Well, at least the threads proved you can't please everyone :LolLolLolLol:
-
Yep - had a little bet someone would turn it into the mid debate again.
The tilte of the thread has been changed. The original one was very much a question about if the bike would fit into either category. A subject that requires the eras to be debated in order for a conclusion to be found. ;) It would be hard to lose that bet. :daumenhoch:
... I just find it a bit disappointing that the minority of people who didn't agree with the dates to start with use threads like this to turn it into the same old date debates. Instead of doing that, post more in the Mid section and make it a bit more lively.
If people disagree with the dates why would you expect them to participate more? I still post a fait bit on here, it a great forum with lots of good people. On the flip side, how many people with these 2003-2005 "mid" bikes are posting on here????? I dont see many myself. The difference is all the rest of us who do post keet getting told new school bikes are mid school, when none of us even build them. ;)
And to get back on topic. Its good to see 60% of people agree its new school. :daumenhoch:
-
If people disagree with the dates why would you expect them to participate more?
'Cos I'd hope people weren't childish enough to stop participating because they don't agree with the dates, but love the period enough to not waste energy in a constant debate and post something nice and cuddly in the MS section.
You don't see too many 2003-5 bikes posted as I don't think we've hit the right age range of posters yet to see em up here, although they're starting to post more nowadays (people in their early 30's) and it's great to have em on board. I've got a fair few 03/05 bikes, but I admit I rarely pop up build threads. Maybe I'll start.
I've said me two penneth - posted in here as MS mod to clarify that we agreed on MS dates (although some don't agree, but like I said you can't please everyone) and as Gish's frame is a 2003 it's MS, not NS. Nothing personal to anyone, no wanting to win or owt, just stating what we as a majority agreed on.
-
Internal headset = new school
I did warn Gish that this would drag the mid years argument back up ;D
I'll run away and hide now :LolLolLolLol:
-
Don't we just love this midschool era crap? :LolLolLolLol:
With my Admin hat on, the reason we have a midschool moderator in Danny is that essentially what he says goes. This is one of the jobs we asked of him, to make decisions on where a bike will sit and his decision is final.
Also even though we all would like to think that a 2003 bike is newschool there really is nothing 'new' about a bike that is 11+ years old.
What we think a Neal Wood looks like...
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v518/stidds/Supermodel-Obsession-Swimwear-2008-_zps3ff067d4.jpg)
What a Neal Wood really looks like....
(http://www.radbmx.co.uk/archive/albums/v518/stidds/dqt2j8_zps565391b4.jpg)
:LolLolLolLol: :LolLolLolLol:
-
I just find it a bit disappointing that the minority of people who didn't agree with the dates to start with use threads like this to turn it into the same old date debates.
I was going to let this one die a death but having just noticed this point I feel compelled to respond to you Danny.
Firstly, I was not aware that the gods of BMX had decreed that the years of Mid School be redfined, but now I know I have to say I am very disappointed and not in agreement as is my right. You obviously are wedded to the opinion that because a few people agreed with you that you are right and despite this you are not entirely comfortable with your decision as you clearly try to shut down anyone that proffers an opinion that differs with yours or dare I suggest questions that ask about the rationale employed to arrive at your decision. If you were 100% behind your decision then you would ignore posts like mine or at the very least acknowledge the point and state why but instead you choose to try and belittle/dismiss any debate or questioning of your opinion by using the image of Captain Picard which to my mind is pretty insulting although I am pretty sure you didn't intend it to be.
-
I just find it a bit disappointing that the minority of people who didn't agree with the dates to start with use threads like this to turn it into the same old date debates.
I was going to let this one die a death but having just noticed this point I feel compelled to respond to you Danny.
Firstly, I was not aware that the gods of BMX had decreed that the years of Mid School be redfined, but now I know I have to say I am very disappointed and not in agreement as is my right. You obviously are wedded to the opinion that because a few people agreed with you that you are right and despite this you are not entirely comfortable with your decision as you clearly try to shut down anyone that proffers an opinion that differs with yours or dare I suggest questions that ask about the rationale employed to arrive at your decision. If you were 100% behind your decision then you would ignore posts like mine or at the very least acknowledge the point and state why but instead you choose to try and belittle/dismiss any debate or questioning of your opinion by using the image of Captain Picard which to my mind is pretty insulting although I am pretty sure you didn't intend it to be.
Marty
This date/era etc is not up for discussion any longer. That was done a year ago and I said at the time that this was the last and only time it was going to be changed. Danny is shutting people down, as that is what the admin team asked him to do when he became the section moderator.
The Gods of BMX in this case were the members of radbmx, not Danny, not me, not the radmin team, we had nothing to do with the change. if you missed the change and the discussion then it is not our fault.
The members of rad wanted the change and that is what happened, not everybody will agree with the new dates and I am one of those members (I wanted it to be 1990-2000), we however made a democratic vote with the members of this site deciding with majority rule that a change was to be made and that is what has happened.
So this is to everybody.. NO MORE ARGUING/DISCUSSING THE YEARS OF MIDSCHOOL.
-
Laughable.
-
Laughable.
Which bit?
-
Laughable.
Which bit?
Most of it :LolLolLolLol:
I have to apologise for missing the original discussions and in a way I am secretly glad, both of my GT's, my 24 and my son's Expert are now mid school so really I only own one new school and I'm thinking that's questionable as it's a 2005 Felt Chronic. It's a little like buying a classic car only to find out that it's not actually a classic car or perhaps buying a new car to find out it's a classic car :-\.
-
Laughable.
Which bit?
Most of it :LolLolLolLol:
I have to apologise for missing the original discussions and in a way I am secretly glad, both of my GT's, my 24 and my son's Expert are now mid school so really I only own one new school and I'm thinking that's questionable as it's a 2005 Felt Chronic. It's a little like buying a classic car only to find out that it's not actually a classic car or perhaps buying a new car to find out it's a classic car :-\.
What do you want? For us as a site to change everything back just because you don't like it? The members of the midschool section were asked if they wanted the dates changed as initially I put 1990-2000 when we set up the new site and people complained.
I asked for a discussion, after a decent period, we ran a poll to ask what dates people wanted. The majority won (that is what a democratic site does.. try to keep its members happy) and things were changed.
So basically you think that process and the decision of the people that voted is laughable.
This thread and this discussion has run its course now, if you want to reply to this message then I will leave the thread open for a short while, but other than that it is going nowhere.
-
You don't see too many 2003-5 bikes posted...
I've had a couple of bikes from this era, and one slightly earlier. None were built up 'era correct' and 2 have wrong paint, no correct logos or anything, they are just bikes that we ride. As I didn't ride during this era I don't have the connection that you guys do; they are just decent affordable bikes.
-
So locking the topic as it is going away from the original question.
I think we have decided that the bike is midschool so that is where it should go.