Top 10 All Time Great Bike Designs

[tintin40]

So the rider had nothing to do with it then ? The fact he was paid to ride that bike and damn good at it?
You have fallen right in to Hair Shampoo marketing 101.

It's all about the rider & money. The best will normally want more money to ride?

So small makers wont be able to afford the high pay check. Such as in other sports.

 

[Can of Coke]

Fairly simple to answer as to why other designs didn't use it

You're looking at it back to front. The triple triangle enabled the frame to built with inherent strength and stiffness that allowed the frame to be used for downhill and trials, as well as xc.

Hence the reason why you did not see other makes of frame being used cross discipline. The frame got results cross discipline in world class competition, the same can't be said for the Ritchey's, Yo eddy, pace, Klein frames of this world. And I'm sure that a patent would also have applied at the time. That fact alone puts it up there as a design that actually achieved tangible success on the podium. Whilst most of this thread is subjective, world cup podiums speak for themselves.

Whilst I'm sure it did the marketing no harm, a smaller rear triangle is both stiffer and stronger than a larger one, fairly simple logic takes care of that, as well as the rear triangle being welded in an additional location to enhance the strength.

So the rider had nothing to do with it then ? The fact he was paid to ride that bike and damn good at it?
You have fallen right in to Hair Shampoo marketing 101.

So by your own twisted logic the rider could ride anything down the course and still win?

The bike had to be strong enough to compete at world class events, not some UK knob jockey event in the Malverns.

Like I've said, the results speak louder than your own subjective opinion. The design is a classic which sets it apart from other makes, it also happened to build in to a strong and light frame that actually won world championships. Money, rider, drugs are again subjective, deal with the facts. THE FRAME WON WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS ACROSS XC AND DH DISCIPLINES.

 

[Can of Coke]

Your opinion is subjective and also happens to be wrong. How you can argue against the only design to have won both xc and dh world championships is beyond belief.

What other bike can say the same?

History and the facts speak for themselves, your opinion is just that, an opinion.

The frame design is proven in battle and has gold medals to prove it, your opinion is based in your mind.

And once again, somebody falls in the trap of conflating causation with correlation.

If you can cite something actually causative about the frame design, which is anything more than inference or supposition, that proves that it's design is what made it win both these championships, all by itself... then by all means.

Otherwise, it is nothing more than a mildly interesting footnote.

Again, that's your subjective opinion.

Look at the facts. Please re-read what was written and digest the salient point being made. The frame would have to have the qualities that allow it to compete at world class level events and win, the qualities being strength, stiffness, geometry, light weight. The frame design allowed for these qualities to be inherent, triple triangle one of them. Whether that's an added bonus from a marketing idea is immaterial, it produces a strong stiffer rear end that enabled it to win world championships without falling to bits.

I can't make the point any simpler for you to digest without going over and over the same one, just re-read what was written. Also don't forget the trials Hans Rey was competing in on the same frame design.

 

[FluffyChicken]

Fairly simple to answer as to why other designs didn't use it

You're looking at it back to front. The triple triangle enabled the frame to built with inherent strength and stiffness that allowed the frame to be used for downhill and trials, as well as xc.

Hence the reason why you did not see other makes of frame being used cross discipline. The frame got results cross discipline in world class competition, the same can't be said for the Ritchey's, Yo eddy, pace, Klein frames of this world. And I'm sure that a patent would also have applied at the time. That fact alone puts it up there as a design that actually achieved tangible success on the podium. Whilst most of this thread is subjective, world cup podiums speak for themselves.

Whilst I'm sure it did the marketing no harm, a smaller rear triangle is both stiffer and stronger than a larger one, fairly simple logic takes care of that, as well as the rear triangle being welded in an additional location to enhance the strength.

So the rider had nothing to do with it then ? The fact he was paid to ride that bike and damn good at it?
You have fallen right in to Hair Shampoo marketing 101.

So by your own twisted logic the rider could ride anything down the course and still win?

The bike had to be strong enough to compete at world class events, not some UK knob jockey event in the Malverns.

Like I've said, the results speak louder than your own subjective opinion. The design is a classic which sets it apart from other makes, it also happened to build in to a strong and light frame that actually won world championships. Money, rider, drugs are again subjective, deal with the facts. THE FRAME WON WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS ACROSS XC AND DH DISCIPLINES.

I didn't say it was a bad frame but there is nothing really special about its design, the rider may well have taken other frames to the same victories. We'll never no, he wasn't paid to.
So the company had the money to pay the best people to ride it's frames to make them look good.

 

[johntomjoe]

These have always fascinated me. A guy who comes into my work rides one and swears by it. I'd love a shot but he's about 6'4" and I'm 5'7" so that won't happen.

The dursley pederson of 1902

 

[Neil]

Your opinion is subjective and also happens to be wrong. How you can argue against the only design to have won both xc and dh world championships is beyond belief.

What other bike can say the same?

History and the facts speak for themselves, your opinion is just that, an opinion.

The frame design is proven in battle and has gold medals to prove it, your opinion is based in your mind.

And once again, somebody falls in the trap of conflating causation with correlation.

If you can cite something actually causative about the frame design, which is anything more than inference or supposition, that proves that it's design is what made it win both these championships, all by itself... then by all means.

Otherwise, it is nothing more than a mildly interesting footnote.

Again, that's your subjective opinion.

As is yours - full of speculation, inductive reasoning, and - it has to be said, pure fallacy.

Look at the facts.

Yes, let's.

The designer, himself, has said that facet of design was nothing more than a marketing ploy.

Please re-read what was written and digest the salient point being made.

There is no salient point being made - just some wild assertion that the bike made all the difference.

I don't want to go all Lance Armstrong on you, but it really isn't all about the bike - this isn't formula one - magic pixies, nor V8 engines power these bikes around.

If you're sufficiently naive to believe there were some magical properties about the frame alone, and inherently, that made the results, then you're deluded.

The frame would have to have the qualities that allow it to compete at world class level events and win, the qualities being strength, stiffness, geometry, light weight. The frame design allowed for these qualities to be inherent, triple triangle one of them. Whether that's an added bonus from a marketing idea is immaterial, it produces a strong stiffer rear end that enabled it to win world championships without falling to bits.

So how many other bikes of that time fell to bits whilst cyclists, capable of winning were let down by supposedly inferior equipment?

I can't make the point any simpler for you to digest without going over and over the same one, just re-read what was written. Also don't forget the trials Hans Rey was competing in on the same frame design.

Thing is, you're not making any cogent point - you're simply speculating - and as I said, conflating causation with correlation, with nothing more to support your "logic" other than your specious inferences.

I put it to you that any number of bikes / frames were capable of the same or similar kinds of achievements (in terms of championships), that the GT did, was not about the frame, design inherently, but a combination of other factors.

Given the evidence purported, my argument is just as compelling, if not more so, than yours. HTH. HAND.

 

[Dr S]

Good response Neil but you are wasting your time. We have a saying up in Yorkshire......

'Tha can't educate Pork'

Stop feeding the troll and all that.

Si

 

[johntomjoe]

These have always fascinated me. A guy who comes into my work rides one and swears by it. I'd love a shot but he's about 6'4" and I'm 5'7" so that won't happen.

wher can i get one

 

[Can of Coke]

Fairly simple to answer as to why other designs didn't use it

You're looking at it back to front. The triple triangle enabled the frame to built with inherent strength and stiffness that allowed the frame to be used for downhill and trials, as well as xc.

Hence the reason why you did not see other makes of frame being used cross discipline. The frame got results cross discipline in world class competition, the same can't be said for the Ritchey's, Yo eddy, pace, Klein frames of this world. And I'm sure that a patent would also have applied at the time. That fact alone puts it up there as a design that actually achieved tangible success on the podium. Whilst most of this thread is subjective, world cup podiums speak for themselves.

Whilst I'm sure it did the marketing no harm, a smaller rear triangle is both stiffer and stronger than a larger one, fairly simple logic takes care of that, as well as the rear triangle being welded in an additional location to enhance the strength.

So the rider had nothing to do with it then ? The fact he was paid to ride that bike and damn good at it?
You have fallen right in to Hair Shampoo marketing 101.

So by your own twisted logic the rider could ride anything down the course and still win?

The bike had to be strong enough to compete at world class events, not some UK knob jockey event in the Malverns.

Like I've said, the results speak louder than your own subjective opinion. The design is a classic which sets it apart from other makes, it also happened to build in to a strong and light frame that actually won world championships. Money, rider, drugs are again subjective, deal with the facts. THE FRAME WON WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS ACROSS XC AND DH DISCIPLINES.

I didn't say it was a bad frame but there is nothing really special about its design, the rider may well have taken other frames to the same victories. We'll never no, he wasn't paid to.
So the company had the money to pay the best people to ride it's frames to make them look good.

Again, you're dealing with a fantasy in your mind, what if this, what if that....

Look at the gold medals, they far outweigh whatever is going on in your head.

 

[Can of Coke]

Good response Neil but you are wasting your time. We have a saying up in Yorkshire......

'Tha can't educate Pork'

Stop feeding the troll and all that.

Si

Like sarcasm, the troll line has to be the internet's lowest form of whit.

If anything, the troll is the chap above that can't see the wood for the trees.

Your post is nothing more than a personal attack that adds nothing to the debate.