# Jamis Dragon '96



## Dutch Diablo (Jan 28, 2007)

This is my latest project, a Jamis Dragon '96.














































The parts:

Fork: Rond WP3 / ridged
Wheels: Mavic 117 XT / M737 hubs
Tires: IRC Piranha
Crank: XT M737 
Brakes: XT M739 V-brake 
Rear mech: XT 739
Post: Syncros 
Sadle: SDG 
Stem: Syncros (will be coated black)
Handlebars: Jamis
Grips: Onza (red)
Barends: Onza










I'm not sure wich fork to choose, Rond WP for a little bounch or a rigid for less weight:



















Which one do you like more?


----------



## Vlad (Feb 7, 2004)

Rigid looks better, but it was probably designed for a suspension fork.


----------



## Deuce Bigelow (Jun 9, 2010)

not quite VRC, but those Dragons are really nice bikes.


----------



## Dutch Diablo (Jan 28, 2007)

Vlad said:


> Rigid looks better, but it was probably designed for a suspension fork.


Originaly it had a Judy XC, this red fork in the pic is from the same period and a Dutch brand that Magura took over a year later. I'l try the rigid first, if it rides o.k. I'l leave it like that.



Deuce Bigelow said:


> not quite VRC, but those Dragons are really nice bikes..


Why not VRC?


----------



## Vlad (Feb 7, 2004)

It qualifies as retro and classic in my book.

How big are the tires on that bike? They look huge.


----------



## Dutch Diablo (Jan 28, 2007)

They are 2.2" , but are higher then other 2.2's I ever had.
As this is going to be my main rider and will be rigid, I can use some comfort.


----------



## Jak0zilla (May 16, 2010)

I like it too. Jamis has been consistently putting out nice bikes for a long time. Really nice looking steel frame on that one! 

What is the fork you are using? Looks like the fork that came on some of the higher end Giants. I'm not familiar with Rond.


----------



## mechagouki (Nov 30, 2007)

The 1990s Dragons were great bikes - consistently highly rated by MBA as I recall. I think it looks great with the rigid fork, but you should base your decision on the bike's intended use.


----------



## Dutch Diablo (Jan 28, 2007)

Jak0zilla said:


> I like it too. Jamis has been consistently putting out nice bikes for a long time. Really nice looking steel frame on that one!
> 
> What is the fork you are using? Looks like the fork that came on some of the higher end Giants. I'm not familiar with Rond.


Spot on! :thumbsup: 
This is a Giant Cadex fork I had lying around, I really like the looks of this.










And about Jamis, it is a brand that never got populair as Trek or Specialized, but made a lot of bikes that won prices. 
They just build good bikes with a lot of value for the money.
I have a '90 Diablo and this has a very nice fillet braced frame, what you only see with more expensive models.
My other Jamis is a '98 Diablo which has the first vacuum molded carbon monocoque frmae in the market.
I just have a weak spot for this brand and not many people have them as a retrobike.
Especially in Holland they are very rare, which I like a lot.


----------



## Jak0zilla (May 16, 2010)

Always thought of them as the poor man's Ritchey. I've got a 2006 Exile SS that I got for a song. It's a great SS frame. I use it as my errand bike with huge slicks and a Kona P2 fork on it.


----------



## Dutch Diablo (Jan 28, 2007)

After months of collecting parts, it's finaly finished (except for the front mech, that is on it's way).
As this is going to be my main rider, I got some modern tires and pedals.
It ended up quit light, about 10 kg's, so can't wait to give it a testride.

Speclist:

Frame: Dragon (Tange Prestige)
Headset: Ritchey Logic
Fork: Giant Cadex (Chro-Mo)
Rims: Mavic 117 SUP
Hubs: XT M737
Quickreleases:	XT M737
Tires: Conti Race King Supersonic 2.2
Cranks: XT M737
Pedals: Cranckbrothers C
Shifters: XT M739
Brakes: XT M737
Front mech:	XT M737
Rear mech:	XT M737
Post:	Syncros 
Sadle: Flite Ti
Stem:	Syncros 
Handlebars: Jamis
Grips:	Onza


----------



## PepperJester (Jan 2, 2003)

Looks killer! Might still be a bit new for true vintage status but thats a great looking bike no mater what year it was welded!


----------



## Fred Smedley (Feb 28, 2006)

Excellent!


----------



## rockhound (Dec 19, 2005)

Looks nice...but that fork looks a bit out of place (probably steepens the headtube a bit too).

A suspension corrected Kona P2 would look perfect.


----------



## Dutch Diablo (Jan 28, 2007)

Thanks guys, I will replace this fork for a Marzocchi XC700 soon.


----------



## Dutch Diablo (Jan 28, 2007)

Now with Marzocchi XC700, XT M730/732 hubs, Araya RM-17 rims and Schwalbe Rangers


----------



## adlu (May 2, 2019)

Beautiful build! Could anyone point me to info about the differences in steel quality/ tubing between the late 90's Diablos and Dragons? 

I've been looking for a 90's Dragon (among other older steel bikes) to use as a touring bike in Latin America, and I have an opportunity to buy a ~1997 Diablo, so I'm curious how it compares.

Thanks!


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

adlu said:


> Beautiful build! Could anyone point me to info about the differences in steel quality/ tubing between the late 90's Diablos and Dragons?
> 
> I've been looking for a 90's Dragon (among other older steel bikes) to use as a touring bike in Latin America, and I have an opportunity to buy a ~1997 Diablo, so I'm curious how it compares.
> 
> Thanks!


The Diablo was a free ride bike while the Dragon an XC race bike, way different. Not sure either is ideal for touring but if I had to chose one, it would be the Dragon. But honestly, the Dragon isn't going to be very good for touring.


----------



## adlu (May 2, 2019)

chazpat said:


> The Diablo was a free ride bike while the Dragon an XC race bike, way different. Not sure either is ideal for touring but if I had to chose one, it would be the Dragon. But honestly, the Dragon isn't going to be very good for touring.


Would the Dakota be better? When you say that neither the Diablo nor the Dragon are good for touring, are you referring to the geometries of these bikes?

Thanks.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

adlu said:


> Would the Dakota be better? When you say that neither the Diablo nor the Dragon are good for touring, are you referring to the geometries of these bikes?
> 
> Thanks.


Well, people normally tour on road bikes, lighter weight and more hand positions and a touring bike will have better geometry for carrying loads. You can tour on a mountain bike though. But you'll need lots of bosses for connecting racks, water bottles, etc. If you're in South America, maybe you'll be on a lot of unpaved roads and a mountain bike would be better?

I really don't know much about this subject to be honest, I've never toured. But I do own a '02 Dakota XC and a '06 Dragon. I believe the geo is exactly the same with the only difference being that the Dakota is 631 and the Dragon 853. I think the geo on these may not be the best for touring. I would look into the Surlys or a Kona Unit (which I also have) but it sounds like you want to use a vintage bike?

You'd be better off asking in here:

https://forums.mtbr.com/bikepacking-bike-expedition/

Here's a copy and paste on Reynold steel grades:

As a general rule for reynolds tubing, the higher the number the thinner and lighter the tubing and the higher the yeild stress of the steel.

531 is the original, and was on most of the race bikes of the 50's through 60's and into the 70s, as a result it's pretty coveted by vintage collectors.

520 is kind of the modern replacement for 531, now as an entry level tubing set.

631 is a modern chro-moly blend, pretty similar to what surly uses. It's reynolds mid level tubing set.

753 came out in the 70's as a much lighter tubing alternative to 531, it can only be silver brazed due to properties of the steel. Also a very coveted tubing set for vintage bikes.

853 is a modern quality tubing set used by custom and taiwanese builders alike. It's usually welded because it hardens around the welds.

953 is the newest and thinnest tubing, but reynolds has been having trouble getting the wall thickness to spec, so it's not that much better than 853 yet.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

700c wheels give a much more stable ride for touring duties. 26in is fun, quick and takes off ground easily.


----------



## adlu (May 2, 2019)

Thanks for all the info! The bikepacking forum you linked is really useful.

Sorry, was really ambiguous about my "touring" plans in my first post. I'm planning to start bikepacking locally (SF bay area) and work up to a long-term trip through Latin America. I chose an old 26" steel frame to keep costs low and maximize ease of repair in countries with less access to modern parts. And, as you guessed, I want to opt for the smaller unpaved roads with less auto traffic.

I ended up buying this bike a couple days after I posted. The seller had bought the frame and built it up himself, and was familiar with its history. He wanted to thin his herd and let this old bike come back to life, so he let me have it for $60. Over the next few weeks I'm going to clean it, tune it up and evaluate all the components.

The suspension fork needs to be overhauled, which works well because I want a rigid one for my bikepacking plans anyway. Other than the fork, I'm hoping the other components still have some life in them.

The steel is Jamis's version of 4130 chro-moly, which seems to have a good reputation.


----------

