LazyLegs

The Beatles and Nirvana both made music but they are classified in different categories and different genera, so what's the problem with using the term 'Classic' to describe bikes made up until the mid to late 80's and 'Modern' to describe those made after when a shift occurred in the approach to bike design that moved it away from one Era into a Clearly different newer Era.

The concept exists for Art, History, Literature, society etc - Modern Literature does not stop being Modern because of the passage of time, nor does it somehow age into Classical literature just by sitting on a Library shelf - Sure it may no longer be contemporary but it remains Modern because of many distinguishing factors that carry more meaningful weight than simply its age.

So what's the problem with accepting that concept in relation to bikes - A bike may be Modern but Old and it may be Old but not Classic and the passage of time won't change that unless some future developments occur such as to make the now contemporary bikes and classic bikes seem more similar than whatever is replacing them, for example. If in 50 years time, the contemporary bike is a flying holographic trans-dimensional bike, then yes a Scott Foil and PX-10 may occupy the same classification category and may all be called classic. But a 25 year old flying holographic trans-dimensional bike that uses voice command instead of a mind reading interface will not be bungled into the Classic column just on account of its age. Moreover if these promised flying holographic trans-dimensional bikes, somehow never make it to market, then contemporary bikes and those made in the last 25 years or so, may be labelled 'Modern' for all eternity.

BTW: Apparently the modern era began approximately in the 16th century, which is news to me as I though it only began with Facebook...