Originally Posted by
bamboobike4
Self-identify it as C&V and presto: Done.
It’s about what you want it to be.
Tradition, guidelines, generally accepted standards, all moot.
They just generate debate, and that’s not allowed.
Wait, might this thread be debate?
Uh, oh.
Since the dawn of time, someone has wanted the upper hand.
If it’s a bike, it’s C&V. There.
Ooooooooo... You going to try to see how thin the ice is again?
I honestly don't give 2 ***** about what's C&V. I see it more as watershed years. Large changes in the industry. I suppose they could be used as a definition, but again, I think debating it is silly. Of course the following is an approximation, plus or minus a couplethree years.
1887 - Pneumatic tires and safety bike.
1930 - Lug carving, use of aluminum, modern geometry, derailleurs
1951 - Parallel-o-gram derailleur, groupsets, paved roads
1983 - Indexing, clipless pedals, crabon fiber, aero
On the other hand, I know what isn't C&V. Blue bikes. They suck.