Top 10 All Time Great Bike Designs

[Radoslaw]

If the frame really had such an influence on the bike's speed, I wouldn't be referring to GTs as "mobile chicanes".
Every single time I encountered a GT, it was always in my way until I had the opportunity to overtake it.

A good rider can win championships on any decent bike. GT simply had the money to pay for the best riders, and that's all there is to it.


Theoretically a smaller triangle is stronger indeed, but there's another theory to keep in mind as well. The strongest triangle is one with three 60° corners. The more you deviate from that, the weaker it becomes.
The GT triangle needs a sharper corner near the dropouts than a normal bike does, which just about cancels the strength gained by reducing the triangle's size.

Your theory doesn't reflect in real life. I can hardly count cracked Zaskars over the years, they still going strong. That fact tells something about design strengths and engineering quality.
I can't tell the same thing about alu e-stays or x-shaped frames like S-Bikes for example.
I'm not saying it's the best design, many more bike innovations deserve more to be in top 10, GT wasn’t first with that idea but it was a good choice of frame design.
Of course if you pay for best riders, they will win gold for you.
Again, even if GT wouldn’t invest in marketing that doesn't change the fact those bikes are just good riders.

As for the strength of the rear triangle : The difference is so minimal that it doesn't actually affect the ride or the feel at all.

Genuine question, did you ever ridden a GT?

 

[johntomjoe]

wher can i get one

There've been a number of reproductions manufactured over the last few decades, notably in Cheltenham and Copenhagen. Jesper Solling (the Danish manufacturer) has recently ceased production in the face of competition from Germany:

http://www.pedersenbicycle.dk/

http://www.pedersen.info/Pedersen/pedersen.info.html

thanks

 

[jamabikes]

i would agree that the zaskar was an important design and has influenced the way bikes are today but not exclusively. the trend for small hardcore hardtails suited the design of the zaskar well. but there were others that worked too.

 

[Raging_Bulls]

@ Radoslaw : Of course Zaskars (and other GT models) don't crack. They're just about as strong as a regular frame.

Alu e-stays and Sbikes are a classic example of a triangle being weakened because the corner angle at the rear is too sharp. E-stays with a sharper corner angle will flex more easily and thus suffer from metal fatigue sooner. The Sbike Daytona frames are a perfect example.
True, that makes the Sbike hardtails some of the most fragile mountain bikes you can buy, but the e-stay makes them so short that they really corner like nothing else. For me personally, that outweighs the reduced lifespan of the frame.

On a design like that of the GT, the extra strength of the small triangle and the extra weakness of the sharper corner just about cancel eachother out. So there's nothing really gained or lost here (apart from the styling).
If you were to take a Zaskar, cut the seatstays off and weld them back on like those on a normal frame (at the back of the seat tube, roughly the same height as the main tube), you'd need some serious equipment to actually measure a difference in strength.

As for me riding a GT : I tested a Zaskar (or at least a GT with Zaskar decals) about 15 years ago, and found it to be a lot better than the ill-handling Scott I was riding at that time. Haven't tried one off-road yet, but that's not my natural habitat anyway.
I ended up not buying it because the price was slightly above my budget and the seller wouldn't budge.
However I don't recall any distinctive characteristics. It really felt exactly like the Giant Boulder I bought a few years later. Same response to the pedal strokes, same reaction when riding off a sidewalk or back onto it, same handling during cornering.
Sorry, but IMO it felt just like ... any mountain bike. Maybe that's because I also looked at it like "just a mountain bike".
I used to come across many GTs on my road to (and from) school, so it was a common bike BITD. IMO it really was nothing special, it just looked a bit different.
I do recall that the one I tested had much better brakes than most MTBs of that period, but that has little to do with the frame.

Don't get me wrong, I do want a GT. Preferrably a Pantera, if only for the name. I do like the styling.
However I have no idea what frame size would suit me best. And I can't find any GTs on the road here anymore (I'm actually looking for them), so I can't see what size I'd like mine in.

 

[Woz]

This was my first MTB. It road like pooh. I was constantly going over the bars. I'm throwing this here for the minor few who may believe it's all about an awesome rear triangle design. I would assume GT got the overal geometry better than this POS; like having a longer top-tube and a longer wheelbase. I won't comment more about GTs than that.

Do I think this type of rear triangle is a great design? Absolutely not and I would much prefer a wishbone or plain vanilla set-up. At least that way you can actually use a rear brake without a complicated and retarded cable routing.

 

[racer x]

GT got to be in the top 10, GTs still going strong today

 

[northerndave]

Oh man, this is a good thread.. Where to start? What makes a good design? Is it that it's unique, is it that it's ground breaking, is it that it's a game changer, is it that's it's influential??

So here we go with a few ideas to mull over..

Bontragers..
Gusseting, toothpicks, sloping top tubes. This is a good 'design'. It's not flash but it was really creative in how it approached frame building and it was done in the pursuit of a better product.

AMP rear ends..
It was so good it was patented and then snapped up by Specialized. We owe a lot to Horst. It was a game changer and it's been very influential.

Pace Square tubing...
Hmm I'm going to argue that was a good branding design but a bad engineering design. It was unique granted, it served very well as selling Pace, but it was too stiff, they broke and eventually died as a concept.

GT Triple Triangle.
Brilliant branding design. Worthless engineering design. It's the hallmark of GT. You could blind feel a GT frame and identify it as such, even the carbon Zaskars have it in a form.

 

[CAPIN]

Talking about "triple triangles" let me bring up another contender for top ten.

*It has 3 triangles
*Its arguably second most succesful frame design after a classic "double triangle" frame...Look at all the copies (especially on full suspension frames) over all those years.
*Unlike a GTs (made for marketing) design gimmick, it does have structural as well as functional purposes.

it is a Cannondale KILLER V frame design!

 

[johnnypie13]

My top 10 (having not read all of this thread in its entirity and by all accounts just as well) would be, in no particular order:

- Manitou FS (purely from an aesthetic point of view - one of the best looking full sussers of all time, especially in small/medium)
- Any Dekerf hardtail with that rear end
- AMP B2/Mongoose Amplifier
- GT, specifically GT Zaskar
- Alpinestars Al Mega E-Stay (again, from an aesthetic point of view)
- Klein Attitude/Adroit
- 'Dale Killer V
- Mountain Cycles San Andreas
- Intense M1 (who cares if it's not retro, it was game changing)
- GT RTS, followed by the LTS

OK, that's 11

I like your list but surely the Pace RC100 has to be on it ???

 

[We_are_Stevo]

I beg to differ sir. I remember JMC turning up to the Simonside Grand Prix with a Rockhopper and doing the XC race, DH race, Hillclimb race and Trials comp all on the same bike. In fact all the other 40+ riders used the same bike for all disiplines. I also remember Peaty racing NEMBA XC races and DH Races on the same Kona, again everyone used the same bike in all competitions. You didn't need a Zaskar back then to do different disiplines, you used what you had.

The Zaskar was no more an inovation than the next bike no matter how much you try and dress it up.

Si

..and who remembers Dave Hemming riding a little girls pink bike with white 12" tyres on the downhill at the '92 Malverns using an uncut handlebar as a seatpost and another for a stem??

It also doesn't matter what your favourite bike happens to be, it's still just a variation on a theme; two wheels with pedals and seat in the middle, and handlebars at the front.

The only 'different' design innovation would have to be a recumbent...