BoTM Jan 2011 Pre' 90 Special - The Poll

[hollister]

from the home page of retrobike.co.uk

Retrobike is the World's #1 site dedicated to vintage, retro and classic mountain bikes

what does that mean? particularly the world's part

 

[GoldenEraMTB]

As for it being "anonymous", again, a rather foolish opinion. The only "anonymous" bike in this poll was your own.

The "casual voter" is who exactly? Can you name one? This site is geared to old mtb enthusiasts, so I fail to see where someone who would bother to make an account and participate would be "casual" about these bikes. They don't have to be fanatical, but casual, nah.

I can see LGF's point on this.

I think I know quite a lot about old bikes - perhaps more than the average Retrobike member. I don't know much about older Fats, and from that position of ignorance there's nothing that marks yours out as special. Special it may be, but to my untrained eye it could pass at first glance for a cheap late eighties Rockhopper with a drab third-party paint job...

The pictures linked from your sig make a much better case for its worthiness, but as someone who wasn't on the US east coast at the time, I don't have a gut feeling for what makes it special, and I'm sure I'm not alone in that.

Of course it's always good to learn: that's why I'm here.

Hmmm, you strike me as someone having better observation skills than that. The quality of the welds, take a look at the tig welds on rock hopper and then the welds on a Fat City bike from the 80's- a world of difference. The chainstay end caps are nicely pointed, and again, superior welds. Look at the details around the seat cluster and seat stays. Also, the type of steel used.
Rockhoppers did not come with Salsa Pro-moto stems, and they are not that easy to find in a 130mm size, and in excellent condition. The same with the IRD seatpost in a 26.4, with complete decals. The seat is the original spesh sat offered with the Fat Chance builds of the era, see ads from 88.
The craftsmanship at Fat City Cycles (mass) during the 80's was excellent, did I already mention that? I believe you can discern the difference between a handmade bike made in relatively small numbers compared to mass produced rockhopper. I've owned both, and can tell the difference, and I'm no expert rider.
I'm a bit disappointed by your post, since I've always valued your opinion on here, but that's cool, no one is perfect, right? Fat City has a rich history, and is worth a read. I don't claim mine was the most special in this vote, but it's better than a rockhopper

 

[GoldenEraMTB]

from the home page of retrobike.co.uk

what does that mean? particularly the world's part

Perhaps it's referring to the old British Empire:
http://www.britishempire.co.uk/

 

[Ductape]

<iframe title="YouTube video player" class="youtube-player" type="text/html" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/rNu8XDBSn10" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe>

 

[one-eyed_jim]

Hmmm, you strike me as someone having better observation skills than that. The quality of the welds, take a look at the tig welds on rock hopper and then the welds on a Fat City bike from the 80's- a world of difference. The chainstay end caps are nicely pointed, and again, superior welds. Look at the details around the seat cluster and seat stays. Also, the type of steel used.

But crucially, you can't see any of those things in the competition picture, and the plain, dark paint doesn't help. You can see a slightly awkwardly proportioned, somewhat anonymous-looking TIGged steel frame with skinny stays, a skinny, nondescript unicrown fork with an ungraceful bend, a skinny seatpost that accentuates the lumpy seat collar, a skinny TIGged steel stem showing perhaps just a touch too much quill...

A Rockhopper!

Okay, I'm playing devil's advocate here a little, and I know there are a hundred differences between the two. But going into some of the details you mentioned, I'm not convinced that the little gusset between the seatstays is anything more than an affectation. Does it have a structural function? Bullet-end stays are neat, but you only need them if you insist on using parallel-sided tubing. Tapered stays tend to use material more efficiently, and are more elegant to my eye. The skinny seatpost means thick tube walls or an internal butt - again, not the most efficient use of material.

And since you mentioned quality:

http://www.compint.com/stinkingweasels/ ... ality1.htm

I'm a bit disappointed by your post, since I've always valued your opinion on here, but that's cool, no one is perfect, right?

Right.

As I said, I'm writing from a position of some ignorance where your bike is concerned, but I know I'm not alone. And we are, after all, only judging a picture.

For my money though, Fat City really got into their stride in the nineties, and if they were interesting at the time your bike was made, it was less for what they were than for what they were going to become.

 

[GoldenEraMTB]

Hmmm, you strike me as someone having better observation skills than that. The quality of the welds, take a look at the tig welds on rock hopper and then the welds on a Fat City bike from the 80's- a world of difference. The chainstay end caps are nicely pointed, and again, superior welds. Look at the details around the seat cluster and seat stays. Also, the type of steel used.

But crucially, you can't see any of those things in the competition picture, and the plain, dark paint doesn't help. You can see a slightly awkwardly proportioned, somewhat anonymous-looking TIGged steel frame with skinny stays, a skinny, nondescript unicrown fork with an ungraceful bend, a skinny seatpost that accentuates the lumpy seat collar, a skinny TIGged steel stem showing perhaps just a touch too much quill...

A Rockhopper!

Okay, I'm playing devil's advocate here a little, and I know there are a hundred differences between the two. But going into some of the details you mentioned, I'm not convinced that the little gusset between the seatstays is anything more than an affectation. Does it have a structural function? Bullet-end stays are neat, but you only need them if you insist on using parallel-sided tubing. Tapered stays tend to use material more efficiently, and are more elegant to my eye. The skinny seatpost means thick tube walls or an internal butt - again, not the most efficient use of material.

And since you mentioned quality:

http://www.compint.com/stinkingweasels/ ... ality1.htm

I'm a bit disappointed by your post, since I've always valued your opinion on here, but that's cool, no one is perfect, right?

Right.

As I said, I'm writing from a position of some ignorance where your bike is concerned, but I know I'm not alone. And we are, after all, only judging a picture.

For my money though, Fat City really got into their stride in the nineties, and if they were interesting at the time your bike was made, it was less for what they were than for what they were going to become.

loaded with opinion and little fact. Good link, though. regarding the quill stem, many would disagree with you, make that regarding most of what you wrote.

Actually, the 90's brought on the demise of Fat City Cycles, with a relocation, for monetary reasons, and eventual closing. Some might say the Serrotta built Fats were of better quality than the Mass Fats, but that would only apply to the last year or two in Mass, when quality was suffering just a bit.

I was having a bit of fun here with the back and fourth, but now it's just become tiresome. Maybe I need a break from posting here on RB. An average of seven posts a day is a bit much.

 

[one-eyed_jim]

loaded with opinion and little fact.

Of course, but that's the nature of a beauty contest. I wasn't corroborating LGF's facts: I was agreeing with his opinion.

Actually, the 90's brought on the demise of Fat City Cycles, with a relocation, for monetary reasons, and eventual closing.

That's understood, but the features that appeal to me are the features of the nineties bikes. I didn't grow up on the east coast of the US though, and I was mainly riding road bikes in the eighties.

I was having a bit of fun here with the back and fourth, but now it's just become tiresome.

Sorry to hear that. It's good to take a break from time to time.

 

[FMJ]

Black bikes are like black cars. Very hard to shoot (I know, I have a black show car). You need to get the light reflecting in the paint just right to get contrast or they look bland and washed out.

 

[hairstream]

hollister was robbed.

 

[GoldenEraMTB]

loaded with opinion and little fact.

Of course, but that's the nature of a beauty contest. I wasn't corroborating LGF's facts: I was agreeing with his opinion.

Actually, the 90's brought on the demise of Fat City Cycles, with a relocation, for monetary reasons, and eventual closing.

That's understood, but the features that appeal to me are the features of the nineties bikes. I didn't grow up on the east coast of the US though, and I was mainly riding road bikes in the eighties.

I was having a bit of fun here with the back and fourth, but now it's just become tiresome.

Sorry to hear that. It's good to take a break from time to time.

really. you think so? Thanks for the advice.