Originally Posted by RobbieTunes

This comes up about 4 times a year. Different shows, areas, organizations, etc. make their own rules and determine their own criteria. Time and people treat things different ways. The issue and questions are fraught with debate.

Some people would never consider a Kestrel to be classic carbon bike, though it's been around 30 years, while other consider a Giant Cadex to be a "classic" carbon bike. The Cinelli Super Corsa debuted in 1972, but you can buy a new one today. Not sure what that makes it, but a 1972 is a classic, for sure. Some think the Cervelo P3C is the "classic" triathlon bike, while others point to Dave Scott and Mike Pigg on Centurion Ironman bikes, modified for triathlon use, as "classic."

When I came to this forum, an older aluminum Cannondale would not be considered a classic, but they now have a following and have changed so much over the years, there are "classic" Cannondales. Klein models are fairly recent, but since Klein stopped being Kleins, many of the Klein models are considered "classic Kleins," because they have features and an appeal to a certain group of fans.

Vintage is often seen as older, with obsolete technology no longer used in it's most general form. Rod brakes, early production techniques, etc. My opinion is that there are not enough "vintage" bikes here; as there are a lot of really cool, really old bikes out there that never see the pages of Bike Forums Classic & Vintage. It takes longer to look one over thoroughly at a bike show than it does to look over 3-4 others that may be considered "classic."

Just curious, what criteria is used to determine if a bicycle is classic or vintage? Everyone has their own.

Are the terms synonymous? No.

Or is one a subset of the other, or what? No.

Just trying to understand. It's arbitrary, but customarily, needs to be accepted widely to be a criteria....or designated by an authority.