Is there a retro full sus bike which can still cut it?
- Thread starter john
- Start date
P20
Retrobike Rider
I think the only ones that stand a chance against modern full suss would be the FSR based designs. Even then, they may benefit from the latest generation of shock design.
There are other factors. Modern forks have transformed hardtails and would do the same for the full suss. Discs or even V brakes allow you to get so much more from the same design.
Upto 1994, i'd say FSR design. From 1996/8 on, theres a whole load more, LTS SuperV, etc
There are other factors. Modern forks have transformed hardtails and would do the same for the full suss. Discs or even V brakes allow you to get so much more from the same design.
Upto 1994, i'd say FSR design. From 1996/8 on, theres a whole load more, LTS SuperV, etc
P20":22219jsq said:I think the only ones that stand a chance against modern full suss would be the FSR based designs. Even then, they may benefit from the latest generation of shock design.
There are other factors. Modern forks have transformed hardtails and would do the same for the full suss. Discs or even V brakes allow you to get so much more from the same design.
Upto 1994, i'd say FSR design. From 1996/8 on, theres a whole load more, LTS SuperV, etc
My super v is a great do all bike.....except when you have to carry it or bung it on the back of the car
OldTimer
Dirt Disciple
Marin B-17
The Marin B-17 (with a few tweaks!) can still hold it's own against most of the current 'Freeride' bikes.
I ride this bike on trails and downhills and it will still ride back up while the big travel boys are busy pushing.
With 6" of plush rear travel, if you were lucky enough to get the very early spec'd Fox Vanilla RX instead of the rubbish Shock Works later rear shock.
The original RST Hi-5's were shocking (or not as the case may be) and ran on elastomers with air damping, you had to be 15+ stone to get them to move. If you replaced with something better it made a huge difference.
The main problem that I could see with the FSR design was the lack of seat post adjustment. If you ran a longer XC style seat post you couldn't put the seat right down for hairy downhills and jumping as the post hit your rear shock!
This was never a problem with the Marins.
The B-17 ran a beefier, longer rear swing arm increasing the wheelbase over the XC versions and improving high speed stability.
This bike was a revelation to me, as here was finally a bike that had some proper suspension travel for taking the big hits, not just 3-4" for the XC boys. It cost £1280 in '97 (or maybe '96, I've got the receipt somewhere).
It will take everything I can throw at it, especially with 170mm travel Jnr T's, but still manage a days XC riding (unlike me!)
But roll on the downhills....
The Marin B-17 (with a few tweaks!) can still hold it's own against most of the current 'Freeride' bikes.
I ride this bike on trails and downhills and it will still ride back up while the big travel boys are busy pushing.
With 6" of plush rear travel, if you were lucky enough to get the very early spec'd Fox Vanilla RX instead of the rubbish Shock Works later rear shock.
The original RST Hi-5's were shocking (or not as the case may be) and ran on elastomers with air damping, you had to be 15+ stone to get them to move. If you replaced with something better it made a huge difference.
The main problem that I could see with the FSR design was the lack of seat post adjustment. If you ran a longer XC style seat post you couldn't put the seat right down for hairy downhills and jumping as the post hit your rear shock!
This was never a problem with the Marins.
The B-17 ran a beefier, longer rear swing arm increasing the wheelbase over the XC versions and improving high speed stability.
This bike was a revelation to me, as here was finally a bike that had some proper suspension travel for taking the big hits, not just 3-4" for the XC boys. It cost £1280 in '97 (or maybe '96, I've got the receipt somewhere).
It will take everything I can throw at it, especially with 170mm travel Jnr T's, but still manage a days XC riding (unlike me!)
But roll on the downhills....
Attachments
Wold Ranger
Old School Grand Master
- Feedback
- View
B17
The only fault I had with this design was the tendancy (with the seat up in normal XC height) for them to "bronco" over multiple bumps and throw you over the bars, the rear would be recovering as the fork compressed, increasing rear shock rebound helped, but then the rear tended to pack down over mulitple bumps. I notice you have the front very high and the seat low!
The only fault I had with this design was the tendancy (with the seat up in normal XC height) for them to "bronco" over multiple bumps and throw you over the bars, the rear would be recovering as the fork compressed, increasing rear shock rebound helped, but then the rear tended to pack down over mulitple bumps. I notice you have the front very high and the seat low!
orange71":1fk2xazc said:
My Proflex 855 was a terrible climber, I really hated the kickback from the back suspension. After 1 year, it had cracks in neraly all of the weld-seams. Happy I did not crash.
However, I hated it back then, but I will be rebuilding a similar bike soon. Damn that midlife-crisis ;-)
Attachments
utahdog2003
Senior Retro Guru
- Feedback
- View
Lets move away from 7 year old Uzis and 99 Marins and get back to the topic ...I'd say, that going back to John's original question of pre 96, that the AMP strut designs, with the non-interupted seat tubes, and similar were hard to beat. If you can find a single down-tubed AMP, or one of the myriad of bikes that used the AMP rear, like the Shock-a-Billy, or a Rocky or Wojcik or Dagger, or maybe one of the licensed AMP bikes like the Battle with the carbon stayed strut rear end, or even some of the makers that used the Battle rear, Like the Nevil Dahli Lama...that one of those would be the ticket.
AMP Mac-strut bikes were the shit, and the principles are sound today. If you don't weigh more than 180 lbs and you're not a big hucker, I'd look for an AMP. Very nice cross country machines, even today. Get a TWP seat stay brace...and if its a proper AMP maybe a complete spare rear end. :shock:
Second place would have to be some of the asian made swing-link mac-strut variants, like the Jamis Diablo. Early Diablo swing linkers were available just prior to 96, and they are very stout and dependable machines...just a little heavy and certainly a little dull. There are many other companies that labeled the asian made swing link frames as their own, so the choices are pretty good.
Third I'd give to the boom tube single pivot simple monsters like the San Andreas and the various Verlicci branded bikes (for you euro dudes). They were what they were advertized to be. The San Andreas holds up pretty well even by todays standards...but lets face it. They are Robo-Cop UGLY! You won't need a spare rear end though!
Cannondale Super Vs have a huge following still, especially among the "Uber" V fans...who relocate the shock mount on the main frame a bit, and run Jekyll rear swing arms...which provided more travel and takes disc brakes to boot. Super Vs are dog ugly too, though...
856s were by far the best Pro-Flexs that barely squeak under the 96 year requirements. 656s with the steel rear ends were pretty nice too...and today they are CHEAP! There are bikes I'd rather have though...
I'd avoid the Cannondale ETS Delta bikes (duh!), the Early Trek 9000 doughnut stackers (even more duh!), and the RTS ( ). I know the RTS has a following on this site (sorry Pickle!) but really, they barely moved, weren't very light for the limited performance, and quite frankly just didn't do quite what they were supposed to do. I think there were articles proclaiming the arival of the LTS that included comments from GT staffers that made fun of the RTS as not being a very good design. On again-off again suspension, when not operated by a Pop-Loc, is never a good thing! :shock: If you want a retro GT, get a pre 96 Zaskar. If your butt hurts from riding the Zaskar and you want something a little more squooshy, get a Psyclone. If you have cash weeping from your pores, get a Xizang.
Lets face it...The AMPs and Shock-a-Billys and the like are the pre 96 full suspension drool atractors on this site...just look at BOTM performances!
I think John knew the answer before he asked...
...I'd say, that going back to John's original question of pre 96, that the AMP strut designs, with the non-interupted seat tubes, and similar were hard to beat. If you can find a single down-tubed AMP, or one of the myriad of bikes that used the AMP rear, like the Shock-a-Billy, or a Rocky or Wojcik or Dagger, or maybe one of the licensed AMP bikes like the Battle with the carbon stayed strut rear end, or even some of the makers that used the Battle rear, Like the Nevil Dahli Lama...that one of those would be the ticket.AMP Mac-strut bikes were the shit, and the principles are sound today. If you don't weigh more than 180 lbs and you're not a big hucker, I'd look for an AMP. Very nice cross country machines, even today. Get a TWP seat stay brace...and if its a proper AMP maybe a complete spare rear end. :shock:
Second place would have to be some of the asian made swing-link mac-strut variants, like the Jamis Diablo. Early Diablo swing linkers were available just prior to 96, and they are very stout and dependable machines...just a little heavy and certainly a little dull.
There are many other companies that labeled the asian made swing link frames as their own, so the choices are pretty good.Third I'd give to the boom tube single pivot simple monsters like the San Andreas and the various Verlicci branded bikes (for you euro dudes). They were what they were advertized to be. The San Andreas holds up pretty well even by todays standards...but lets face it. They are Robo-Cop UGLY! You won't need a spare rear end though!
Cannondale Super Vs have a huge following still, especially among the "Uber" V fans...who relocate the shock mount on the main frame a bit, and run Jekyll rear swing arms...which provided more travel and takes disc brakes to boot. Super Vs are dog ugly too, though...
856s were by far the best Pro-Flexs that barely squeak under the 96 year requirements. 656s with the steel rear ends were pretty nice too...and today they are CHEAP! There are bikes I'd rather have though...
I'd avoid the Cannondale ETS Delta bikes (duh!), the Early Trek 9000 doughnut stackers (even more duh!), and the RTS (
). I know the RTS has a following on this site (sorry Pickle!) but really, they barely moved, weren't very light for the limited performance, and quite frankly just didn't do quite what they were supposed to do. I think there were articles proclaiming the arival of the LTS that included comments from GT staffers that made fun of the RTS as not being a very good design. On again-off again suspension, when not operated by a Pop-Loc, is never a good thing! :shock: If you want a retro GT, get a pre 96 Zaskar. If your butt hurts from riding the Zaskar and you want something a little more squooshy, get a Psyclone. If you have cash weeping from your pores, get a Xizang.Lets face it...The AMPs and Shock-a-Billys and the like are the pre 96 full suspension drool atractors on this site...just look at BOTM performances!
I think John knew the answer before he asked...
mazdaman1980
Senior Retro Guru
Full susser that would cut it now
My dad was into bikes before me and he had a Slingshot which was considered to be the first full suspension bike and looked very odd but the first one ever was actually designed and patented in 1891. As you will see from the pic: http://patentpending.blogs.com/patent_p ... full_.html
It was a simple design but would have worked well.
As for the slingshot, i really think it would cut it now and would still look better and futuristic than many on the market today.
My dad was into bikes before me and he had a Slingshot which was considered to be the first full suspension bike and looked very odd but the first one ever was actually designed and patented in 1891. As you will see from the pic: http://patentpending.blogs.com/patent_p ... full_.html
It was a simple design but would have worked well.
As for the slingshot, i really think it would cut it now and would still look better and futuristic than many on the market today.
Similar threads
