Classic & Vintage - Bikes fron the 90's if not vintage what are they?

So there are the bikes from the 90's that are great bikes... they are light, smoewhat modern, but not newer bikes... yet they are not vintage.... so what are they

I think you just told us what they are.

P.S. - look at this thread: http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=474125

Mike so you had the same question... so there is no real answer to this... what if I take an old frame from the 80's and put an STI gruppo on it... what then happens is it classic or just a pile of garbage?

It's a vintage bike with updated components :) .

East Hill

So there are the bikes from the 90's that are great bikes... they are light, smoewhat modern, but not newer bikes... yet they are not vintage.... so what are they

Bargains.

you guys aer making this sound all too simple... hehehehe.... I am so green to all of this it is not even funny

call me kermit

Right now the bikes of the 90's are too old for the guy looking for the latest tech advancements. But they are too new for many of the C&V crowd.

So that can make them bargains, if you pick the right bike.

Bargains.

+1! I love my Hardrocks!

Jerry

No problem, I just ride them.
http://i297.photobucket.com/albums/mm215/roccobike_2008/BianchiCampione001.jpg
Notice the brifter upgrade on the 93 Bianchi Campione.
http://i297.photobucket.com/albums/mm215/roccobike_2008/Nishiki1992005.jpg
The other bike is a 92' Nishiki Ariel. I also just acquired a 97 Gary Fisher Hoo Koo E Koo this week, and I have a 94 Specialized Rockhopper that looks like its a keeper. Sorry no pics with those.
http://i297.photobucket.com/albums/mm215/roccobike_2008/Cannondale004.jpg This is a 96 SR500 Silk Road, road bike with head shock. I also have a 91 SR400 and a 96 R600. I love those 90's bikes.
EDIT: Up until August of this year, the 96 SR500 was my main road bike. It's been updated with 105, 9-Speed triple brifters, but otherwise remains as seen here.

The word "vintage" on it's own really means nothing. It implies that it is "old" but to be used properly it HAS to be used with a year or decade, ie: "this bike is a 60's vintage". It is a wine term that "Vintners" used to declare a wine all made from kind of grape but is now widely misused there also.

It is not so much that the word is misused as much as the meaning of the word has evolved from its origins. Many, many words have done this.

Nothing wrong with 90's bikes. I just wasn't riding then.
After all, the only 90's bike I have is the only set of 6-sp triple STI's I've seen.

The thing I don't like about most '90's bikes is that most of them are welded. Most welded steel frames aren't attractive to me, I like lugs. With that being said, the '97 Pinarello Vuelta I acquired recently, with a beautiful lugged steel frame, is by far the best bike I've ever owned. I really can't imagine a better road bike for me. So, generally, I don't like '90's bikes very much. But a '90's bike is my favorite bike.

I think the '90's are difficult to classify in a lot of ways, and not just in regard to bikes-

So there are the bikes from the 90's that are great bikes... they are light, smoewhat modern, but not newer bikes... yet they are not vintage.... so what are they

Fun, provided you like them ;)

I love my early '90s Guerciotti with lugged Columbus EL tubing:

(Old photo)
http://www.jaysmarine.com/guerciotti90_4.jpg

I consider it worthy of the C&V forums - it is made in the C&V tradition. Lugged steel is always C&V, in my opinion - in the least, classic.

-Kurt

ok, so this bike counts here? Not that I will lhave it much longer it does not fit me... boo hoo... I love this bike and the way it rides it is just not comfortable for anything but around the block... it is a 54 and I am 5'4" so it is just too big for me...... but she is a beautyhttp://i442.photobucket.com/albums/qq146/bmaxwell1/bikes009.jpg?t=1224380961 (http://javascript<b></b>:void(0);)


http://i442.photobucket.com/albums/qq146/bmaxwell1/bikes001.jpg?t=1224380814

So there are the bikes from the 90's that are great bikes... they are light, somewhat modern, but not newer bikes... yet they are not vintage.... so what are they

I say it depends. The 90's Specialized Sirrus was the high point as as "common man's racer." and the last of the Steel Sirrus' Same frame angles as the '80's Allez/Sirrus, but with rack braze-ons. The early '90's still had hardtail steel MTB's Some rather distinctive like the Nishiki Alien/Ariel. As for age, the earliest are already 10 years old and not so common.

Right now the bikes of the 90's are too old for the guy looking for the latest tech advancements. But they are too new for many of the C&V crowd.

So that can make them bargains, if you pick the right bike.

OK, here I go on my soap box.
When it comes to road bikes, I'm 100% with cb400bill. You can find mid-level, 90's bikes with 7 or 8 speed brifters for well under $400. These bikes are comparable, if not better than, new, $800, SORA level bikes. Some might compare 90s bikes to $1000, Tiagra level bikes. Ask yourself, is someone on a new road bike is really faster than someone of equal capability on a 90's road bike. In my opinion, there is very little, if any advantage.
However, most mountain bikes from the 90's would not compare well to a new mountain bike except for perhaps the lowest, entry level models. I just acquired a 97 Gary Fisher Hoo Koo E Koo, a nice mid to upper mid-level bike. It's steel frame is a nice retro frame, but the fork, brakes and shifters don't compare to todays components. Even if I spent the bucks to add new components, the frame design is outdated. IMHO, an average MTBer on a new bike has a distinct advantage over someone of equal capability on a 90's mountain bike. IMHO, unless one acquires a upper end 90's bike in good shape for around $150, it's not much of a bargain.

If it was bmx, it's simple. Mid school. The older bikes being old school. Straight caliper brakes, skinny tubing, 3/8" axles. Once the U brake started showing up, OS tubing, 14mm axles, Gyros instead of rotors, etc.. they became "mid school". Maybe 90's bikes are mid vintage, lol....,,,,,BD

But yes, Bargains they are. The techie hammer heads won't be caught dead on them, and most are too new looking for us vintage guys. Road bike design (at least visually) peaked in the mid to late eighties in my humble opinion. Once you lose aesthetics, why bother?:D Lugs with near modern components=awesome.,,,,BD

so since I started this thread, what is your opinion of my bianchi... that is the last one up there...

i mean does it count in the old school frame of things....

so since I started this thread, what is your opinion of my bianchi... that is the last one up there...

http://i442.photobucket.com/albums/qq146/bmaxwell1/bikes001.jpg?t=1224380814

I think it is a great looking bike. I wish it were your size so you could keep it. If I were you I would sell it and replace it with something similar that fits you.

Edit: Maybe you could just buy a new frame and move the components over. Then sell your frame.

I agree, it depends.

I buy my bikes, first, to ride and, second to collect.

IMHO, collectability of 90's bikes depends on where the bikes stand, functionally and historically, regarding design, materials, and competition.

For example, my main road bike is my Litespeed Ultimate. When I started looking at Ti bikes, that was the design and configuration I wanted, even though the last Ultimate was 2005. I ended up with a 1998 Ultimate with the slightly curved seatpost to allow for the shorter chain stay. This is historically significant because a couple of years later, the ICF banned curved frame tubes. The next phase of the Ultimate with the cutout seat tube was ridden to a number of sprint championships between 2000 and 2002.

So, from my personal collectability point of view, the Ultimate is collectable because of materials, design, and competition. And, it rides like a rocket and looks hot.

Then there are the funny bikes of the late 1980's and early 90's. I am always surprised that there is not more interest in the funny bikes on this forum. Instead, the funny bike discussions usually deteriorate into complaints about aching backs and enlarged prostrates. I find the funny bikes interesting because, historially, they arose as aerodynamics was becoming more important. Even though they became a dead end because of ICF rules, they are historically interesting. In addition, I find the designs artistically interesting. And, my 1987 Team Fuji is a blast to ride.

And what about my 1989 Trek 660, classic Europeon "Crit" geomentry, of which am the original owner? This was, I believe, was the last year that Trek offered a higher end steel, lugged, racing bike.

So, my collecting criteria are, in part, subjective and my collection eclectic.

Maybe it comes down to a Shelby Cobra type analysis: Does the bike give me a woody?

Just my .02 I would call '90s bikes, especially steel ones with quality composition and components "classics" at this point.
They will appreciate in time and more so after 25 years or there abouts and become collectible vintage.
The quality '70s rides will gain the coveted highly collectible antique status.

OK, here I go on my soap box.
When it comes to road bikes, I'm 100% with cb400bill. You can find mid-level, 90's bikes with 7 or 8 speed brifters for well under $400. These bikes are comparable, if not better than, new, $800, SORA level bikes. Some might compare 90s bikes to $1000, Tiagra level bikes. Ask yourself, is someone on a new road bike is really faster than someone of equal capability on a 90's road bike. In my opinion, there is very little, if any advantage.
However, most mountain bikes from the 90's would not compare well to a new mountain bike except for perhaps the lowest, entry level models. I just acquired a 97 Gary Fisher Hoo Koo E Koo, a nice mid to upper mid-level bike. It's steel frame is a nice retro frame, but the fork, brakes and shifters don't compare to todays components. Even if I spent the bucks to add new components, the frame design is outdated. IMHO, an average MTBer on a new bike has a distinct advantage over someone of equal capability on a 90's mountain bike. IMHO, unless one acquires a upper end 90's bike in good shape for around $150, it's not much of a bargain.

So the MTBs from the 90's are vintage? :D

so If I am hearing this correctly... as long as it is a steel frame it is a C&V candidate.... so the components aren't the deciding factor the material of the frame is.... is that what I am hearing in here tonight?

so the components aren't the deciding factor the material of the frame is.... is that what I am hearing in here tonight?

Not in all cases, but what you describe is sometimes true. Look at the post-1976 Raleigh Super Course or the Crescent Pepita Special as good examples.

The SC had a less then impressive (in my book, anyway) Suntour/SR group with a particularly cheap crankset despite being a single-butted 531 frame. Something like the Trek 610.

As for the Crescent - it could be had with full NR, or just the same, the full Nervex-lugged model could be purchased with components that one would be ashamed to put even on a gaspipe POS. Truth be told, the Crescent craftsmanship was nothing spectacular in the first place, but it was reasonably decent.

-Kurt

ogetting confused againok : but all is good, this has been helpful for me thanks to all who have participated so far.

The word "vintage" on it's own really means nothing. It implies that it is "old" but to be used properly it HAS to be used with a year or decade, ie: "this bike is a 60's vintage".


It is a wine term that "Vintners" used to declare a wine all made from kind of grape but is now widely misused there also.

I agree with the first part. I think you derailed yourself on the second. As I understand it, all wine is a certain vintage. That is, the grapes are harvested in a certain year, crushed and made into wine. The year of the harvest and making into wine is the vintage year. Some vintages (years) are good vintages. Others are not so good a vintage. I could be wrong. If so, perhaps a wine afficionado here can correct me.

Mike so you had the same question... so there is no real answer to this... what if I take an old frame from the 80's and put an STI gruppo on it... what then happens is it classic or just a pile of garbage?


Yes, almost exactly the same question. I do think there is an answer but it is not a black and white answer. There are shades of grey between brilliant white and ultra-deep black.

Personally, I do not even know what an STI gruppo is but I'll assume it's new gear. I'd say you have a older bike that's been updated. My bike is a 1975. It's cool. It's old enough but it's not an "antique".

Vintage - It's fairly old but known by many who are still alive. It's something you remember wanting or had during your earlier years (a la "Rosebud" in Citizen Kane) that is no longer generally available. The thing is, YOU want it or appreciate it. It's from YOUR generation.

Classic - When the next and subsequent generations also lust after and truly appreciate that thing you loved, and are usually willing to pay big bucks for it, then it becomes a classic.

Does the bike give me a woody?

Thanks, I just spit coffee all over the keyboard. That line sums it all up doesn't? It's also funny because that is exactly what I said when I first saw my Wheaties Paramount and couldn't wait for the auction to end. Anyway thanks so summing it up so perfectly.

Mutt

ok mike... the sti is the shifters in the brake levers... the gruppo is the compnents are all of the same group... and no this bike that I have is from 94 and it is all original.... there...

with that said I like how you put that vinage is... if it what you lusted after in your day.... because this is almost the bike I was lusting after when I was wanting to get into cycling big time in the 92-93 although I was lusting after one with 600 ultegra and carbon fiber.... this one was my second choice... I guess that is why I have held on to it for the last 5 years even though it is too large for me..... it is my what could have been bike....

So the MTBs from the 90's are vintage? :D

Pretty much in my book. Certainly their designs are dated. I know it violates the "25 year rule", but I don't believe that applies to mountain bikes because the technology is advancing so rapidly.

I would suggest that there's absolutely nothing wrong with updating a bike's components, as long as you retain the original parts. Clean them. Lube them. Put grease or a rust inhibitor on/around them and put them away. I think the hard part is preserving the rubber goodies (lever covers, tires) and handlebar taping.

What is essential, in my opinion, is to ride the bike. These things are not (yet) museum pieces. If you want a museum piece,...

You can be vintage just by being old. Mae West.
You can be classic and still be young. Charlize Theron.

Now, there are some classic vintage. Ingrid Bergman.
And, there are many classic styles: Marilyn Monroe, Kate Hepburn, Natalie Wood.

That polished Ti Litespeed frame on eBay is a classic, despite that phugly fork, even if it isn't vintage. And you can still get a "new" Cinelli frame that is classic, but not vintage.

I'm sure there were some '90's bikes that some would consider classic, just as an '86 Stumpjumper may be considered a vintage mountain bike. But, I would not consider an '83 Raleigh Rapide to be a classic, as it's simply a lugged steel heavy bike from 1983.

To me, there has to be a little extra appeal, or nod towards something that makes you want another one, or go back and get one years later, that makes it classic. Classic and vintage is something that makes you want it pretty much even when it's old.

Sophia Loren.

very well said Robbie... that is what I was looking forl... justification to consider my 94 making me eligible for this forum... other than my age that is... heheheh... because I am getting to be both vintage and classic.....:D

Pretty much in my book. Certainly their designs are dated. I know it violates the "25 year rule", but I don't believe that applies to mountain bikes because the technology is advancing so rapidly.

25 year rule?

You never heard me say anything of the sort. :) I rather like those 90's rigid framed MTBs also - at least the ones that I can carry up the stairs from the basement without having to stop and catch my breath.

I've got a 1990 Stumpjumper with a rigid frame that I'm building as a grocery/utility bike. It's perfect for that role.

OK, here I go on my soap box.
When it comes to road bikes, I'm 100% with cb400bill. You can find mid-level, 90's bikes with 7 or 8 speed brifters for well under $400. These bikes are comparable, if not better than, new, $800, SORA level bikes. Some might compare 90s bikes to $1000, Tiagra level bikes. Ask yourself, is someone on a new road bike is really faster than someone of equal capability on a 90's road bike. In my opinion, there is very little, if any advantage.
However, most mountain bikes from the 90's would not compare well to a new mountain bike except for perhaps the lowest, entry level models. I just acquired a 97 Gary Fisher Hoo Koo E Koo, a nice mid to upper mid-level bike. It's steel frame is a nice retro frame, but the fork, brakes and shifters don't compare to todays components. Even if I spent the bucks to add new components, the frame design is outdated. IMHO, an average MTBer on a new bike has a distinct advantage over someone of equal capability on a 90's mountain bike. IMHO, unless one acquires a upper end 90's bike in good shape for around $150, it's not much of a bargain.

Funny you mention $150 for an upper level 90's mountain bike.....exactly what I paid for this:

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k292/bylar13/013-2.jpg

Bike weighs 24.5lbs. I removed the rack!

now would you consider that a good weight or not?

now would you consider that a good weight or not?

For me and the bikes that I ride, 24.5lbs is a good weight. Also 24.5lbs for a bike w/ a lugged, steel frame and no carbon fiber, is pretty good IMHO. I have to say that ride is very nice.

I also have one of those rigid-framed, 1990's MTB's. I keep it "clean" - no racks, accessories, no clutter.

I like it much more than a sprung bike for my purposes - comfortable riding around town. It is a fun bike. I prefer balloon slicks - mine are Schawalbe Kojak's. If I were silly enough to try a century ride, this would not be the bike of choice but it could do it.

Crazy-looking right chainstay. Not a bad idea to eliminate chain slap at that...

-Kurt

25 year rule?

You never heard me say anything of the sort. :) I rather like those 90's rigid framed MTBs also - at least the ones that I can carry up the stairs from the basement without having to stop and catch my breath.

Sorry USA Zorro, I was referring to the general application of the 25 year rule, I did not mean to imply that you were quoting it. Yes, those nice quality, rigid framed MTBs from the 90's are exactly the type of bike I'm referring to.

ok, so I just took my bianchi out for a little spin and yes again I am reminded of just how much too big she is for me... felt great riding but the cross bar hits me tight.... youch.... anyway... I am stuck in gear... both the fron ring and the back ring are stuck on the smallest ring... any suggestions as to why my thumb levers arn't working? Or should I start a new thread?

Sorry USA Zorro, I was referring to the general application of the 25 year rule, I did not mean to imply that you were quoting it. Yes, those nice quality, rigid framed MTBs from the 90's are exactly the type of bike I'm referring to.

I've been tongue almost in cheek for most of this thread. I do like those MTBs, and I know that some folks have an unspoken 25 year rule, but I've never really subscribed to that. I'm that "big tent" guy. :D

The only MTB I've ever owned. Nothing really classic about it. Nothing really vintage about it.
But, the feeling of being that kid jumping his Sting-Ray clone over a wagon in the yard?
That's classic and vintage.

http://velospace.org/files/t_P1040655.JPG