What's "Vintage" mean?

[Carlo]

There was some discussion in the thread started by Budman announcing the plans for a vintage forum, regarding a definition that would determine what's appropriate for inclusion in a vintage forum.
Typically, in the vintage m/c club world, that's been done by setting a specific age, usually 20 or 25 years, but sometimes going back 30 or 35 years.
Most people who offered opinions in Bud's thread suggested a year rather than an age, because of the major technological changes that have occurred since the mid-80's compared to development from the early 1900's up to the mid-80's.

I could just go with that consensus, but I'd like to offer a couple of choices related to the numbers we discussed and let people vote on them.
The year 1985 made sense, so I'll use that and 30 years as the starting point.
If you strongly disagree, let me know.

The poll will run for two weeks to give as many people as possible a chance to weigh in.

 

[budman]

1985 sounds good to me.
But exceptions welcomed really.

Go Carlo!!

 

[augustiron]

I think it needs to be a rolling date. All bikes were new once and will at some time be considered old, regardless if it was made in 1911 or 2011.

 

[byke]

I voted "No newer than 1985.", but I also hope that some flexibility is given. For example, would we allow an '85 RZ350, but not an '86? That would seem silly to me. In any case I really look forward to seeing some resto projects in here.

 

[VintageGuy]

voted 1985 - add "or like design to fix that" - but for me vintage is 1974 or so, cause I am old guy

 

[Carlo]

voted 1985 - add "or like design to fix that" - but for me vintage is 1974 or so, cause I am old guy

My plan is to be flexible with these definitions.
That will be shown in the final forum guidelines document that I post up when this process is completed.

 

[Stormdragon]

As I said in the other thread: sliding scale. I like 25 years, but since that wasn't an option, I went with 30. 20's just too damned young!

 

[Ready to Ride]

I also would have preferred 25 years but voted for 30.

I have a hard time thinking of my TW200 as vintage when an almost identical bike can be bought new today.

 

[Ozymandias]

I also would have preferred 25 years but voted for 30.

I have a hard time thinking of my TW200 as vintage when an almost identical bike can be bought new today.

Same here.

 

[gaius49]

Bikes designed before the rise of Japanese motorcycles in the mid to late 1960s.

 

[Carlo]

Bikes designed before the rise of Japanese motorcycles in the mid to late 1960s.

Why stop there? Let's just make it bikes which have been in continuous production since the 1890's.

That would rule out everything except Royal Enfields!

 

[Papi]

IMO, the reason <1985 is a fit covers many facets. But mainly, the era change in bikes during that time represents a new age going forward from 1985. This next year marks 30 years past 1985. 30 year old plus (or plus plus) bikes are getting harder to find, maintain and keep close to OEM fitness.

The other side of the coin is that while not all bikes regardless of age could ever be considered "vintage" (because they were just crap), I think it applies more directly to bikes that represented the best of breed for that time.

An example in the Japanese line would be the 1969 Mach III or Sandcast K0. Both iconic game changing bikes. Another example would be the 78-82 CBX. Or the Kawasaki Z1, Suzuki Water Buffalo or Yamaha RD, or even the HD Pan Head on the American side or Montgomery Wards and Sears trail bikes for that matter, lol.

Again, IMO, game changing era bikes really represent the best of breed vintage bikes 30+ years old. And again as well, not all thirty year plus bikes are collectable or should be considered vintage if they did not represent the era well in their class. Just my op, but it's a subject worth debate and some officiating.

Happy motoring.

 

[ThumperX]

Wut Papi says

 

[joespeedfast]

1980 pretty much the cuttoff for me... some late 70s bikes even not really vintage IMO.

 

[clutchslip]

I think it needs to be a rolling date. All bikes were new once and will at some time be considered old, regardless if it was made in 1911 or 2011.

I second this opinion and voted 30 years.

 

[weak_link]

1985 sounds good to me.
But exceptions welcomed really.

Go Carlo!!

I'm with Bud. Anything pre-Tom Cruis Ninja/gPz 900-ish

 

[jimboFosho]

Picked 1985. I think bikes whose generations didn't extend into the 90s qualifies more or less

 

[CurveSurfer]

I voted 30+ years.

A rolling scale makes the most sense: 50+ for antiques, 25+ or 30+ for vintage.

Otherwise you should just change this to "Motorcycles 1960-1985" if that's the period of interest, and eventually add a forum for "1986 to 2000" or some such, which might actually better serve the audience here.

"Vintage" or "antique" doesn't mean "collectible": one man's trash is another's treasure.

 

[firstbuell]

I'm seeing concensus gathering - thx, Carlo

 

[rodr]

Another vote for age (30+ years), not date. The word "vintage" as used here just means old-fashioned, and motorcycles like other things evolve over time.