Who would like to see a classic bike section?

[Rhythm Thief]

A facetious posting such as "A thread in Gallery entitled "Old Photos with bikes incidental to overall effect"? - Hardly rational or logical; rather designed to 'wind up' others I think.

My statement seems to mean, exactly what I intended it to mean . . .

Peanut made a perfectly reasonable proposal for a new (sub) section and even offered to help (in practical terms) as much as possible.

IMO, it seems a shame that his (and others, inc. myself) enthusiasm for a new sub-section has had such a churlish response (comments which you have chosen to ignore) from certain forum members - some of whom have suggested that we 'try other forums'.

Using that approach, it would be very difficult to 'justify' many of the sections on this forum. Health, Fitness & Training - why don't you 'try other forums' that do that ?; Politics & Life - why don't you 'try other forums' that do that ?; Road Rides, Audax, and Sportives why don't you 'try other forums' that do that - Bike Radar/CTC etc, etc ?

The "churlish responses" began only after this post from Peanut:

like everything else on Cycle Chat, anything new and useful or enthusiastically proposed is shot down in flames by the armchair knockers who sit on their flat bottoms, do nothing and critisize others for their efforts and interests.

Remember the LE JOG thread? all the whingers and knockers ruined that after a considerable amount of work had been invested by others.

Where is it now ? yes buried and forgotten because those prepared to do something got fed up with all the armchair whingers and pulled out

maybe we should just have another thread for trolls and knockers

until that point, people were being pretty rational. The points made were that there's no need for a classic bikes section as it's all dealt with in the Special Interests section. Which is true enough. I think Noodley's post about "old photos with bikes incidental to overall effect" was a humorous response to a very specific post by someone else, no more or less. I respectfully suggest that if you genuinely found it offensive or hurtful you may be either being oversensitive or reading a little too much into it.

 

[peanut]

The "churlish responses" began only after this post from Peanut:



until that point, people were being pretty rational. The points made were that there's no need for a classic bikes section as it's all dealt with in the Special Interests section. Which is true enough. I think Noodley's post about "old photos with bikes incidental to overall effect" was a humorous response to a very specific post by someone else, no more or less. I respectfully suggest that if you genuinely found it offensive or hurtful you may be either being oversensitive or reading a little too much into it.

give it a rest RT for gods sake.

You've made your position quite clear enough . You're just arguing for arguments sake now.

 

[peanut]

I suggest that anyone interested in classic bikes should go on over to the special's section or wherever we are going to find a corner

Looking forward to seeing all those gorgeous 'real steel' steeds and others.

I confess that my first post is likely to be about a rare early ultralite aluminium frameset made by 'The Magician' ?

 

[raindog]

Is the Steel Is Real thread going to be moved then? Or have we got to start it all from scratch?

 

[Rhythm Thief]

give it a rest RT for gods sake.

You've made your position quite clear enough . You're just arguing for arguments sake now.

No. Why should I? You've asked for opinions, been very rude to people who happen not to agree with you, then got very uppity when they've had the temerity to defend their positions. All I'm doing (without resorting to rudeness, you'll notice) is putting across my point of view. If your response to that is a huffy "give it a rest RT for gods sake", perhaps you should start thinking about whether you're a bigger part of the problem than the solution.

 

[peanut]

RT nearly 60 people have managed to do exactly as they were requested to do ....vote .
No-one has ever asked for you to spoil this poll by your continuous arguments and flaming. Certainly no-one has asked you to give your opinion on anything .

Just read through your posts and ask yourself how anything that you have said on this poll has added anything informative or useful that you could not have achieved by ticking a box like 60 other members have managed to do without a problem or a word.

The only members who have not managed to achieve this is you and Noodley.

Goodbye RT you are now on here on your own. Have fun

 

[Arch]

RT nearly 60 people have managed to do exactly as they were requested to do ....vote .
No-one has ever asked for you to spoil this poll by your continuous arguments and flaming. Certainly no-one has asked you to give your opinion on anything .

Just read through your posts and ask yourself how anything that you have said on this poll has added anything informative or useful that you could not have achieved by ticking a box like 60 other members have managed to do without a problem or a word.

The only members who have not managed to achieve this is you and Noodley.

Goodbye RT you are now on here on your own. Have fun

Oh, that's not fair, what about me? (I voted too, BTW)...

 

[Rhythm Thief]

RT nearly 60 people have managed to do exactly as they were requested to do ....vote .
No-one has ever asked for you to spoil this poll by your continuous arguments and flaming. Certainly no-one has asked you to give your opinion on anything .

Sorry, I had no idea you were running the forum according to some kind of vote and then shut up rule. You rather asked for everything you got by your sniffy response on page three. Or possibly four.

Just read through your posts and ask yourself how anything that you have said on this poll has added anything informative or useful that you could not have achieved by ticking a box like 60 other members have managed to do without a problem or a word.

Well, none of my posts were downright rude, for a start. Most of them were in order to explain why I didn't think a Classic Bikes section was a good idea. However, since you're almost certainly not reading this, and don't appear to be up for any opinions which don't match your own, I appear to be wasting my time.

 

[bonj2]

Yello ,Pubrunner and others have suggested it might be a good idea to have a seperate section on classic bikes . I agree it would be excellent. How many others would like to see a seperate section on oldies ?

I think we are talking classic rather than vintage so I imagine 60's to 80's ?

If this was feasable I would be very keen to volunteer my time to contribute and moderate or anything else I can do.

here you go
http://www.seriouscyclingforums.com/forums/viewforum.php?f=21
you can be the mod of it if you like

 

[pubrunner]

It does seem a shame that you've put so much effort into this thread, which you could have spent on the subject you've been arguing for and would have built up a pretty big body of evidence for your suggested new area.

I agree, Peanut has put all lot of effort into this thread; sadly, much of it has been spent trying to 'defend' his viewpoint. A viewpoint shared by 17 others (of the ones that voted).

Equally, a few others have 'put all lot of effort' into opposing his views; criticism rather than constructive criticism.

 

[Noodley]

I agree, Peanut has put all lot of effort into this thread; sadly, much of it has been spent trying to 'defend' his viewpoint. A viewpoint shared by 17 others (of the ones that voted).

Equally, a few others have 'put all lot of effort' into opposing his views; criticism rather than constructive criticism.

Peanut and you have only put effort into criticising others for having different opinions to you.

There has been no constructive input from either of you regarding why there is a need for a Classic bikes section on the forum. As I have said repeatedly there are sections which would cover the subject. Perhaps if you gave attention to building the subject in these sections then there would be 'evidence' of whether there was any requirement to have a sub-section?

And as regards peanut being a moderator I find his behaviour on this thread should negate him from any such role. He has accused others of 'flaming' yet he is the one whose behaviour falls most into the definition of the term which he posted. He has been rude to people who have attempted to discuss the matter and put forward their opinion; whether or not he wanted them or asked for them I don't really think comes into it, as the very nature of a forum will mean that this will happen whether peanut, you, I or anyone else wants it. And as for then starting another critical thread, well that is IMO entirely juvenile.

But the offer is there from bonj.

 

[pubrunner]

Peanut and you have only put effort into criticising others for having different opinions to you.
.

All that I have criticised, is comments from those who have deliberately sought to disrupt our proposal through spiteful & facetious comments - have you not noticed any ?

As I have said repeatedly there are sections which would cover the subject. Perhaps if you gave attention to building the subject in these sections then there would be 'evidence' of whether there was any requirement to have a sub-section? .

I started the original Rory O'Brien thread over 2 years ago; at the time, I found it difficult to know which section it should go in to; I put it into Beginners. I also produced a posting on Paris bikes - that went into KnowHow; I recently produced a posting on a Tommy Soens bike - KnowHow. A thread appreciating the Rory O'Brien thread was put into Cafe. I have tried to 'build' the subject, but frankly, I've been put off by not knowing which section I should make the postings.

Problem is, it can be difficult to locate older postings when they are 'lost' within a mass of non-cycling topics on a forum such as Cafe. I only 'found' the Rory O'Brien appreciation thread quite by chance - when I did a search on the name.

I've just done a search on 'Paris' and I'm getting lots of links to Paris (the city) and the Paris-Roubaix race; but I was looking for the Paris Bike company of London, that made classic lightweights in the 1950s.

And as regards peanut being a moderator I find his behaviour on this thread should negate him from any such role. He has accused others of 'flaming' yet he is the one whose behaviour falls most into the definition of the term which he posted. He has been rude to people who have attempted to discuss the matter and put forward their opinion; whether or not he wanted them or asked for them I don't really think comes into it, as the very nature of a forum will mean that this will happen whether peanut, you, I or anyone else wants it. And as for then starting another critical thread, well that is IMO entirely juvenile.
.

I would not seek to condone rudeness, but in my opinion, Peanut has been subjected to a great deal of 'flak' over something in which he has a keen interest. We all have our own personal line of interests; sometimes others cannot understand why that may be the case. But do we all have to explain our rationale for having interests in particular areas ? I have no interest (or knowledge) regarding carbon fibre bikes; if others have, then 'good luck' to them. I've no knowledge or particular interest concerning Fixed or Recumbent bikes; they have supporters and good luck to them.

Some have argued that those with an interest in the older bike should post in Cafe or Know How ? Using that argument, I'd be interested to know just why that same 'rule' wasn't applied to those with interests in Fixed & Singlespeed and Recumbents & HPV ? They have been allowed their own sub-section.

But the offer is there from bonj.

The comment from bonj was either entirely facetious or a very feeble joke

 

[pubrunner]

Peanut and you have only put effort into criticising others for having different opinions to you.

There has been no constructive input from either of you regarding why there is a need for a Classic bikes section on the forum. As I have said repeatedly there are sections which would cover the subject. Perhaps if you gave attention to building the subject in these sections then there would be 'evidence' of whether there was any requirement to have a sub-section?

May I refer you to previous postings that I have made . . . . . . .

+1

Great post Yello.

It was very interesting to see just how many contributed to the Rory O'Brien thread.

It has occurred to me; perhaps a new small section on this forum could be created which is devoted to those with an interest in older bikes. I've not been able to find a UK forum which provides this sort of facility.

http://www.classiclightweights.co.uk is an interesting website, but doesn't have a forum.

After all, there used to be dozens of small bike/frame manufacturers dotted about the country; seems a shame that some of this history isn't recorded somewhere.

A friend of mine has a bike (1960s) allegedly made by Tommy Soens; can anyone tell me anything about him ? I'm interested, cos I might be buying the bike from him.

Yes, it was an entertaining and interesting read; I felt that I'd actually learned something.

Any other takers for a section devoted to old bikes/the older eras ?

And from others . . . . . . .

I've just spent some time reading this thread...

http://www.cyclechat.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=3345

...and it's been a real delight. A hidden gem in the pile of p usual daily chunterings of CC.

There are some contributors there that will never appear elsewhere, or again, on this forum I suspect. People who somehow stumbled across the thread, registered, posted and disappeared off again. It's nostalgia, a tiny bit of British cycling history. It's part of what makes life wonderful; people chance together in an particular time and place, share experiences, times change and they move on.... and it's there, documented in part on our very own forum.

Anyone got Stephen Poliakoff's email address?

Thank you for these comments. I actually stumbled upon CC purely by chance, looking for something completely different on the www, and then to find others who were around at the same time more than 40 years ago in the same part of England is astounding. The odds against that happening are so remote.

And then to find one of the contributors now lives in France, like myself, and is only 25Kms or so away!

Certainly one of the positive reasons for the internet.

Indeed: a post from the past.

I haven't (as yet) read all the Rory O'Brien thread, but there was no piss-taling, abuse, patronising (all of which I have been guilty of myself here ) and it made a very enjoyable read.

In a similar vein, Roger St Pierre writes in the same nostalgic manner in his coloumn in Cycling Plus.

And Tim Hilton captures the mood and feeling of the 50s and 60s in his marvellous One More Kilometre and We're in the Showers .

http://www.amazon.co.uk/One-More-Kilometre-Were-Showers/dp/0006532284

More nostalgia, please.

And I think pubrunner's idea about a section devoted to old bikes/the older eras would be a good idea!

Maybe Roger Hilldodger could share some of his gems, subject to copyright, with us.

What's even more ironic about that thread - and it is a wonderful read - is that it is in 'Beginners' when the contributors are very much the opposite! And yes, perhaps there should be a section called something like 'Do you remember...?' (for cycling memories only of course...)

Surprisingly, from someone who is against the idea of the proposed sub-section . . . . . . .

I've just seen these threads and have spent the last half an hour or so reading the very interesting history. There is so much to learn and enjoy about cycling in the UK during that era!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Not enjoyable enough, apparently, to want to learn any more.

But consider some of the words used in the above postings . . . . . . .

'enjoyed', 'learned', 'interesting', 'wonderful read', 'positive', 'delight'.

 

[Noodley]

May I refer you to previous postings that I have made . . . . . . .

And from others . . . . . . .

Surprisingly, from someone who is against the idea of the proposed sub-section . . . . . . .

Not enjoyable enough, apparently, to want to learn any more.

But consider some of the words used in the above postings . . . . . . .

'enjoyed', 'learned', 'interesting', 'wonderful read', 'positive', 'delight'.

Indeed.

Yello's reply was IMO the most well constructed and pertinent reply to this thread.

But neither you nor peanut have made any constructive contribution as to why there is a need for a sub-forum, and your assertion that there have been threads in various parts of the forum of great interest to many reinforces that it is not required.

At no point have I said I am against discussing 'classic bikes' or 'bygone days'. Quite the opposite as I find it interesting. What I object to is the drive towards creating yet more sub sections when the forum is a broad church - there have been a few 'gems' already mentioned which seem to have attracted positive feedback, and which I have enjoyed reading. So why try to take this away? I'm not against 'more nostalgia', what I am against is trying to limit that to a specific sub section which would limit the audience. There is much to be said for stumbling across 'gems' rather than steering them to one location. "Gems' in Beginners might just lead to an increase in interest in 'ye olde days'.

 

[Noodley]

I would not seek to condone rudeness, but in my opinion, Peanut has been subjected to a great deal of 'flak' over something in which he has a keen interest.

This presupposes that I do not have an interest. I was never rude at any point. You and peanut have, under peanut's linked definition, 'flamed' in this thread. I have been told to keep quiet and that my opinion's were not sought nor welcome. You alleged I was rude to Hover Fly, whereas I was attempting to inject humour into a thread which was getting up it's own arse; if Hover Fly had a problem I'm sure he'd have let me know.

And as to why there are certain sub-sections I do not have the answer, but I'd imagine it's because there is/was the volume to warrant it. And let's not forget that the OP was fairly specific in mentioning 60's and 70's bikes. We're hardly falling over threads about that are we?