0 Members and 9 Guests are viewing this topic.
good points. However then the first appearance of 1 1/8th headsets would by the same token designate the start of New School?
Mid started in 89.
Quote from: Discostu on February 24, 2014, 05:51 PMMid started in 89. Justify it Stu - just for my piece of mind why?It's easy to say but back it up with factoids.
Quote from: Dannywhac on February 24, 2014, 06:01 PMQuote from: Discostu on February 24, 2014, 05:51 PMMid started in 89. Justify it Stu - just for my piece of mind why?It's easy to say but back it up with factoids.Why not? 89 would be my ball park but as said, and I agree fully, setting decades is the most correct way to go, the only way to go. People dont like change but the 'school' thing has always just been a phrase. Other than the hassle of renaming sections, how can anybody argue with the logic of correctly catagorising bikes?
I am interested in the 14mm years, as I gave up racing in late 85 and I never saw or heard of 14mm axles until I got back in the sport in 2001.That to me seems a good point if we can pin it down to its introduction.
Quote from: OrgasmDonor on February 24, 2014, 06:15 PMQuote from: Dannywhac on February 24, 2014, 06:01 PMQuote from: Discostu on February 24, 2014, 05:51 PMMid started in 89. Justify it Stu - just for my piece of mind why?It's easy to say but back it up with factoids.Why not? 89 would be my ball park but as said, and I agree fully, setting decades is the most correct way to go, the only way to go. People dont like change but the 'school' thing has always just been a phrase. Other than the hassle of renaming sections, how can anybody argue with the logic of correctly catagorising bikes?Because I want to know - it might change my mind. Called debate.Saying that I ain't forcing anyone to justify it. Just wanna know as it's a piece of piss to come on the thread and just say a year without a decent reason.Fook it - I'm going with 1997-1998. No reason And yeah - like I talked bollocks about on Saturday, decades would be the way to go and drop schools, but that looks like a fook load of hassle to rejig the site?
When the bashy era started and most of the frames started to change shape, simples! I don't support the ad990 argument as they only came out on haro's and gt's for a couple of years and then they disappeared when the bashy era started, only to re-appear in 91. In 87/88 there were only a few bikes that had ad990's and they were basically the same as the 86 models with a few small changes and ad990 mounts,It wasn't until 1989 when all the big changes started to happen, frames looked completely different, and a different type of riding began, gone were the days of riding in your team outfits on your nicely presented Haro or gt. You had anarchic adjustment, life's a beach, 2hip, hammer pads and a bell moto lid, and everyone started to ride hardcore, totally different to what had happened before, now it was balls out and underground.Yes S&M started before 89 but it didn't really start to hit it off until the 90's! Luckily for Haro and gt the riders were still supporting them but strangely enough the hardcore riding ended up making a mockery of their frames and forks, which eventually ended there popularity as riders moved on to better made equipment built by riders to be ridden. 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.
1987-2003 Follows on from old school on the forum, That no one is moaning about and pushes NS up a year that no one will moan about That's my line in the sand. But there are far more worthy men on here than me.As for the 14mm axle! My 2001 mid school FBM has 10mm drop outs, I think quite a few mid frames have 10mm drop outs that got hacked to take 14mm.
Quote from: skidmark on February 24, 2014, 03:59 PMIf 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.
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.
"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."
Sean just do it by decades and if peoples don't like it then it's just tuff shit