What have I bought? Diamondback Apex w. snakestays?

[jari]

First post on retrobike from me. apologies if in wrong place but am after some help figuring out what I have actually bought and what to do with it...

Picked up this bike this afternoon that was local to me:
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Mens-Diamond- ... &rt=nc. Plan was to use this as a donor bike for bits for another bike build - I picked up a Genesis Io frame today to build up as a ingle speed.

thought i would take a chance on it based on the forks, steel tube, DMR pedals, and some obvious alterations.

whole bike

since getting it back I can see it has:
Middleburn mark chain rings
Vuelta cranks
Shimano tourney rear mech
Shimano XT front mech
itm stem
not sure on bars

front wheel must have been replaced. Its Mavic 219 on hope hub with disc

so... how do I know when this bike dates to? some quite google searching puts the SID XC C3 at early 00#s? something like 99-01? Bike must be older than that.

How do I identify from frame numbers?

Bottom bracket has this stamped in it.
U BI 4702
U50404489

Going to start cleaning and measuring now.

lastly, you lot have a lot to answer for given the growing collection of bits appearing in my garage and shed...

 

[jari]

Re:

Done some research.

Diamondback apparently only became Diamondback in 97. previous to that they were Diamond Back.

so this is a pre-97 frame

bikepedia has the Apex with snake stays with true temper lite tubing in 94 and 95.

component dating:
http://www.vintage-trek.com/component_dates.htm

the front mech has TI stamped in it . This would put it as September 1995.

so I think I might know when it is from now...

still have stuck seat post and dubious yellow headset to remove.

what would you do with it?

 

[T'boo Ted]

from the decals, looks like a 94 or 95 frame (pretty much the same frame as my 94 axis tr). Also looks liek the fork is about a million miles too long for it. (my axis came with 2in manotios, was fine with 2.5 long travel and also 3in fork, but the 4 inch I put on it, made it look like that and handle badly

 

[FluffyChicken]

Re:

I would say it is a 1995 frame given it is blue and if using a common used frame serial numbe r dating the x5x dates it around the x504x. Could be a January made or April. It's not a 96 as they where red and called the SE version.

Nothing is original, well maybe the seatpost, forks are way to long for the frame.



So blue version of this race red one viewtopic.php?f=2&t=268228

 

[scottproonly]

Re:

Not only are the forks too long,the front wheel/tire looks way bigger than the back!

 

[Mike Muz]

Re: Re:

Not only are the forks too long,the front wheel/tire looks way bigger than the back!

I think the photo may possibly be misleading. Bearing in mind the front wheel is on a step!

Nice little project to have though.

And welcome to the forum

Mike

 

[T'boo Ted]

Re: Re:

I think the photo may possibly be misleading. Bearing in mind the front wheel is on a step!


Mike

LOL never noticed, stupid small phone screens (i'll blame that)

 

[Mike Muz]

Re:

I thought maybe you were on your LOLerskates!

 

[Pyro Tim]

it's a 94. Nothing on it is standard, as it came complete with LX pretty much, and rigid triple butted forks. The forks on it are far to long for geometry and will make it handle like a dog. With the correct forks it is a very nice bike

 

[ovlov440]

^^^What he said^^^

Very underrated bike. Had my '92 Apex for 20 years and totally regret selling it now. You have some nice bits on yours but there is also a fair bit of tat and yes the forks are totally wrong for the frame.

Find a set of Project 2's for it and a decent LX/XT drivetrain and you will have a nice bike.