in the year two thousaaaaaaaaand
 

ive been thinking it over and ive come to a bit of a conclusion, i think the zealous additude major bike manufacturers have about getting into the urban track market is great but unfocused. Here is what i'm trying to say, more and more people who into riding fixed are starting to cause a bit of progression in riding style where it reflects the environment...not to the extreme that a skateboarder will interpret the streets but the way in which the bike is used is more extreme that what the bike would go through on the track. I think the riding style that is currently being developed is a mix between bmx flatland riding mixed with straight up road racing mixed with urban bmx riding with a dash of cylocross to keep it consistent.


i think the bikes that are being made sort of reflect the style but not to the fullest degree. i can almost forsee a shift in the style of bikes that might be produced in the future. a bike that is almost a cross between a bmx bike a track bike...but still keeping the look and feel(geometry as well?) of old track frames. am i talking crazy? you could just say "well, ride a cyclocross bike!" but thats also too specific. i feel like the purpose of modern and vintage track bikes although fun, beautiful and fast, only meet part of the intenteded use of some riders.


a good example of what im trying to get at is the use of deep v rims....besides all of the above reasons for use a lot of people like them because they are strong, durable and stay true after taking a beating on city terrain. why not have the rest of the bike match?

And fashionable.

man....everything under the sun is a trend....just get the stuff for the right reasons...

i always joke that my bike is the demon spawn of a track and a bmx -- it's smaller and has a relaxed geometry w/ sloping top tube. additionally, most of my drivetrain is bmx and my bars are chopped straight mtb bars with bmx grips.

Do you have better photos of the Fuji yet? I want to see some details!

It's probably a lot more about multiple levels of abstract appropriation than anything else.

Evolution favors physical prowess. As such, in a highly representational society, physical prowess has a great degree of social clout. Nevertheless, systems of representation trump the original intent of the phenomenon; the sign becomes irrevocably conflated with the thing signified. Aside from being horribly unremarkable post-modern drivel, this has a lot of real-world consequences:

1) People desire to be like racers. Marketing campaigns don't even bother hinting anymore, they outrightly command us to be like the freaks of nature that can push their bodies beyond previously known limits (juice!). So what does this translate to? The coveting of the accoutrements of idealized types. Whether it's $50 Lance-branded Nike gloves that are the cheapest gloves (quality wise) in the store, or aero wheels and vintage track bikes, or NJS everything/anything. People want the things that will make them more like the person they want to be. Whether it's Michael Jordan, Lance Armstrong, Eddy Merckx, or Johnny Messenger.

2) People's opinions and preferences regarding aesthetics are abstract enough to appear genuine, only because abstraction is the measure of genuinity. People tend to get all pissy about this, because it means they like things because they like the way it makes them appear. The problem isn't that all of us are slaves to fashion, but that some people think they are or are not, and that makes their decisions somehow more objectively valid. It doesn't.

The basic point I'm trying to make here is because this is all inescapable in the modern world, it's kind of silly to talk about. Guys wrote books on this 25 years ago, and we're still acting like we don't know? Let's devote our time to something more useful, like angering mods and making fun of each other in highly innapropriate ways.

/\/\/\/\

Good read, thank you

let's talk about when humanity "jumped the shark"? i might put that around the time of the introduction of religion? hahaha, who knows...

*edited*

can someone define "modern"? no, really.

vomitron, i think about that **** while reading this list all the time, unfortunately i don't have your flare for semantics. bravo good sir bravo :beer:

This one's a doosey. I think it depends on context. "Modern" as in "modernism/modernity" or "modern architecture" or "modern art" tends to refer to the ideas which came about during the historical period of I guess 1890-1918.

They coincide with a few key technological developments: Communications (wireless, telephone), transportation (availability of bicycles and trains. Speed of transit, like Titanic, etc), science (non-euclidean geometric space, Einstein's theories of relativity, Freud), and time (standardization of time).

All of these things created a lot of debates into the role of society, and fueled developments in art that were sort of "answers" to these debates (Futurism, Cubism, stream of consciousness, Kafka's stuff). Basically, they can all be summed up as rejecting the traditionalism of yore. So in that sense, the modern is that which rejects classical/notions notions of truth, like when you paint something from all sides at once, or just the movement of an object, or don't use punctuation, or whatever.

But "modern" just means "now," so it tends to be used either way. "Modern society," for example, can be called "post-modern." However, "modernist society" was "post-classical." Is this as confusing as I think it is?

I try to make it clear by saying "modernist/in modernity" when I'm talking about the results of the historical period, and just "modern" when I'm talking about now.

Keep in mind I'm totally full of sheet here. Hope this helps.

gaaaaaaauuugggh! thread jack! or rather...im just saying that they should build up a city bike meant to be tossed around.

"modern" was so 0.000000000000001 seconds ago.

bike of the future...backward circles to urban cyclocross
http://static.flickr.com/29/94845455_df595f10ba_o.jpg

that's only one aspect of modernism. another aspect of modernism incorporates that while taking it another direction. joyce, for instance, abandoned old rules of writing (one can't pretend to deny this even after a precursory flip through ulysses or finnegans wake). yet in his writing he sought to preserve old traditions, legends--both the fenian cycle of irish folklore and the egyptian book of the dead, as examples. this coming from my knowledge of finnegans wake, the work of his i know the best.

anyhow, i like that school (sub-school?) of modernism...not a rejection of the old so much as a reaction to the new, perhaps abandoning old notions of sense in a new world devoid of sense, while holding to those things that defined the old, the tradition...roots, if you will.

is that the kelly you were bragging about (where i pointed an accusing, yet friendly finger at your shoes)? whens it going to be built up? or am i thinking of another bike....
cos i like that one.

i think someone else had the same kelly. anyway, i definitely like it.

that is ****ing rad I want that ... wonder if you can get those w/o the brake bosses in the back? Sick.

... Other examples include the IRO Rob Roy and Jamie Roy, Bianchi San Jose, Surly Cross-check, and a ****-ton of conversions.

But that Kelly is still gorgeous.

what books are you referring to that were written 25 years ago, vomitron?

I think he might be referring to The Postmodern Condition by Jean-Francois Lyotard, which was written in 1979 (27 years ago). That's just a guess, though.

another bike

Or perhaps this .

there is also the redline monocog 29er that could be run fixed...i think that is what I want...although that kelly is hot...

http://www.redlinebicycles.com/adult...cog29er-LG.jpg

It would appear as thought that was written in 1992.