SeeingisBelievingGTMuseum
Old School Grand Master
- Feedback
- View
Own multiples of both. Avalanche, steel is real.
1992 GT Zaskar or 1990 Avalanche
- Thread starter Loki
- Start date
if your trying a comparison between a steel stumpy and a zaskar , you'll find it a stark contrast at first ,tho work with it and you'll get to like it
tho you may like it straight off
imo the 92-94 steel stumpies are the best of generalizeds bikes
but the high end steel GT'S are better[/quote]
I am interested as to why you think or what would make the "high end steel GT" better given the Stumpy has larger oversized Prestige tubng and is lighter and should also be stiffer? Either way , now my curiosity has been massaged so I will go ahead and build the Avalanche with a kit from my MB-1 I just broke down. Thank s everyone for your opinions, this forum rocks![/quote]
the stumpys are a little dead to ride , the avalanche is not
i built a wicked fat at the same time as i built my avalanche , the avalanche was cobbled together as a s/s ,it was a karma frame with
stuck cranks and seat post
the fat was to be my "steel is real" ride
if you ran a blindfold test you'd swear the GT was the hand built masterpiece and the fat was a stumpy
the avalanche is in the shed as built
the fat and my 92 stumpy are in storage in bits
tho you may like it straight off
imo the 92-94 steel stumpies are the best of generalizeds bikes
but the high end steel GT'S are better[/quote]
I am interested as to why you think or what would make the "high end steel GT" better given the Stumpy has larger oversized Prestige tubng and is lighter and should also be stiffer? Either way , now my curiosity has been massaged so I will go ahead and build the Avalanche with a kit from my MB-1 I just broke down. Thank s everyone for your opinions, this forum rocks![/quote]
the stumpys are a little dead to ride , the avalanche is not
i built a wicked fat at the same time as i built my avalanche , the avalanche was cobbled together as a s/s ,it was a karma frame with
stuck cranks and seat post
the fat was to be my "steel is real" ride
if you ran a blindfold test you'd swear the GT was the hand built masterpiece and the fat was a stumpy
the avalanche is in the shed as built
the fat and my 92 stumpy are in storage in bits
The 92 and 94 Stumpjumpers are completly different frames. Having ridden a 92 Rockhopper Comp which shared the same frame as the Stumpjumper I can see your opinion on the Stumpjumper. I assure you their is no similarity's other than the name on the downtube. My Stumpy rides like my MB-1 only with slightly more neutral steering.mikee":3w4yd7v3 said:
I also have a Wicked Fat which rode very nice but was a little boring in the steering IMO. Great for technical-slow but not for fast tight singletrack. . I found a Rigid fork with more rake that might pep up the steering so it might live on .
Thank's for you input on the Avalnche, I am definitely going to build it now. Funny thing is I had the frame listed for two months on Craiglist as low as $40.00 and nobody was even interested......maybe God was saving me from myself.
JeffGothro
Dirt Disciple
I wouldnt choose either, I prefer the True Temper frames of those years.
A little update. I took off the Manitou fork and put a 3D rigid fork on the Zaskar. I am loving this bike. Set on the middle rake setting which I believe to be 45mm this thing is a terror on tight smooth singletrack. Confidence inspiring going exactly where I point it. With 2.24 WTB tires the ride is very good , perhaps not as compliant as my other steel frames but not harsh IMO. The Zaskar is a keeper!
Now I have to build the Avalanche as almost everybody who posted seems to favor that bike to the Zaskar.
Now I have to build the Avalanche as almost everybody who posted seems to favor that bike to the Zaskar.
Similar threads
