# Are there any oldschool full suspension....



## grawbass (Aug 23, 2004)

Are there any oldschool full suspension designs which fell by the wayside due to excessive pedal induced bob which might have new life breathed into them with a stable platform shock?

I'm not sure if a newer shock would be a direct swap but i'm sure it could be rigged up somehow.

I'm talking XC bikes by the way.


----------



## sixtoo (May 14, 2005)

*like this?*

the defintion of BOB?


----------



## grawbass (Aug 23, 2004)

sixtoo said:


> the defintion of BOB?


Yes exactly!


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

grawbass said:


> Yes exactly!


Most of the early bikes had very high pivots so they had lots of pedal feedback, especially while climbing. I dont think a platform shock could fix that.


----------



## shiggy (Dec 19, 1998)

One of the biggest issue with the Trek was how they would buck you over the bars on steep down hills.

That and the seat tube/BB shell bond failing.


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

I don't think a shock would fix one of these either:


----------



## grawbass (Aug 23, 2004)

Rumpfy said:


> I don't think a shock would fix one of these either:


Actually that one looks like pedaling would lock out the suspension.

By the way, whats the deal with rear suspension and no front? I'm as old school as the next guy here but that thing is horrid.  Anyone ever ridden one?


----------



## goalaso08 (Jul 13, 2005)

grawbass said:


> Actually that one looks like pedaling would lock out the suspension.
> 
> By the way, whats the deal with rear suspension and no front? I'm as old school as the next guy here but that thing is horrid.  Anyone ever ridden one?


lol i have one of those in my garage, it used to be my dad's but his is all silver.
its terrible. the shock barely works and the rigid front is painful


----------



## neveride (Feb 7, 2004)

*The one pictured has front suspension*



grawbass said:


> Actually that one looks like pedaling would lock out the suspension.
> 
> By the way, whats the deal with rear suspension and no front? I'm as old school as the next guy here but that thing is horrid.  Anyone ever ridden one?


Maybe the best front suspension ever made...the Girvin Flex-stem!  (this is me being sarcastic)


----------



## miles (Jan 6, 2004)

*It was one of those cannondales*

that convinced me that maybe, just maybe, there was something to this whole suspension thing. A guy that used to ride with our group got one when they first came out (Shiggy, do you remember his name? I'm terrible with these things). I rode it on the bottom section of Lawler near Eugene, and it amazed me. Climbing up and over roots was incredible, even though the owner was quite a bit heavier than me and it was way oversprung for me. Anyhow, it came out before there were any front suspension forks available, hence the use of the Girvin stem. As I recall, a number of designers at that point were of the opinion that rear suspension mattered far more than front, anyway...

miles


----------



## shiggy (Dec 19, 1998)

miles said:


> that convinced me that maybe, just maybe, there was something to this whole suspension thing. A guy that used to ride with our group got one when they first came out (Shiggy, do you remember his name? I'm terrible with these things). I rode it on the bottom section of Lawler near Eugene, and it amazed me. Climbing up and over roots was incredible, even though the owner was quite a bit heavier than me and it was way oversprung for me. Anyhow, it came out before there were any front suspension forks available, hence the use of the Girvin stem. As I recall, a number of designers at that point were of the opinion that rear suspension mattered far more than front, anyway...
> 
> miles


I do not remember who owned one but Yuri had one as a test bike. I rode it in the Coburgs a couple of times. It was pretty "plush" at the time. My biggest issue with the bike was the way the front end would just "go away" without warning. I could not keep the front wheel from sliding even with tires I usually rode on trails I knew like the back of my hand.

The bike that showed me the potential of Suspension was the first Offroad (later Girvin, then Pro Flex, then K2) Pro Flex bike. All steel, maybe 1.5-2.0" of rear travel and a Flex Stem. I would have bought one. It as a great ride on Goodman.

I think one reason there where rear sussy frames before forks was they were easier to build plus no one at the time thought you could even ride a bike if the fork moved up and down! 

BTW Miles, Lawler is better than ever!


----------



## cegrover (Oct 17, 2004)

shiggy said:


> I think one reason there where rear sussy frames before forks was they were easier to build plus no one at the time thought you could even ride a bike if the fork moved up and down!


I also wonder if keeping the drive wheel in contact with the ground was considered the primary objective with early suspension?? Obviously, this would overlook the steering and main braking wheel, but we're talking only about short travel, so the idea of softening 'big hits' wasn't there so much as increasing efficiency, which would be well served by maintaining power transfer to the ground in more conditions.

Good stuff in this thread! I'm just holding out until my V-Link (my primary ride) is considered vintage, but it'll be a while. Oh well, at least the original version went on sale almost ten years ago...


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

High pivot bikes did lock out on the down stroke...and then sagged when pedal pressure reduced. Hence the bob. GT's RTS exhibited this trait also, even if GT claims they were always locked out by pedal torque, it wasn't really the case. On minimal travel bikes though (as was common back then), there wasn't that much bobbing compared to oh, what a 6" travel bike might experience today. 

That particular orange trek though, which I owned one of, could be atrocious if you did what I did to the shock. That is, cut out the white plastic bottom out stop, and thus allow it full shock stroke of about 1.35 inches. Doesn't sound like much except the actual leverage ratio of the swingarm wasn't the 3:1 Trek claimed, but actually 4.2:1. So bottom the shock without the plastic bit and you get 4.7" of wheel travel...in 1992 !!!!


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

cegrover said:


> I also wonder if keeping the drive wheel in contact with the ground was considered the primary objective with early suspension?? Obviously, this would overlook the steering and main braking wheel, but we're talking only about short travel, so the idea of softening 'big hits' wasn't there so much as increasing efficiency, which would be well served by maintaining power transfer to the ground in more conditions.
> 
> Good stuff in this thread! I'm just holding out until my V-Link (my primary ride) is considered vintage, but it'll be a while. Oh well, at least the original version went on sale almost ten years ago...


That Cannondale is from 1991. The Rockshox RS-1 and Manitou were then on there second year (almost 2 and half years actually), so there were definitely suspension forks at the time. My friend had one of those with a Scott Unishock fork. Back in the day it was most definitely an improvement going down hill but probably wouldnt feel too good going either up or down compared to todays bikes.

That said, the real early suspension mtbs (probably 3-4 years prior to the Cannondale) though did have rear suspension combined with a rigid fork; bikes like the Descender and the SE Shocker. I think thats what they were called anyway...

And yes, the high pivot in those early days was meant to cancel out bob. It kind of did but caused lots of feedback. When you would climb in the small chainring you would "top out" the shock on the down stroke and then your weight would compress the shock when the pedals were at the 12 and 6 o' clock positions. The manufacturers claimed this would force the rear tire into the ground giving you better traction; purely marketing hype and actually feels really weird in my opinion. The VPP design is sorta similar in what its trying to accomplish and also has some feedback, although not as bad.


----------



## scant (Jan 5, 2004)

I remeber seeing klein mantra rear suspension with rigid forks as well 

I've been really impressed by how little bob 6in travel trail bikes exhibit


----------



## grawbass (Aug 23, 2004)

neveride said:


> Maybe the best front suspension ever made...the Girvin Flex-stem!  (this is me being sarcastic)


Good call, I didn't notice that. Speaking of Flex-Stems......


----------



## hondamatic (Apr 17, 2005)

Perhaps a little OT, but...

I saw the most interesting dual-suspension Litespeed on a ride on Saturday. The upper linkage - by the seatstay/seatpost junction - looked an awful lot like the first-generation Specialized dual suspension bikes, and I can't remember whether it had a horst pivot or not (I'd bet it didn't). The owner claimed it was 14 years old, and that it was very light. It was wearing a Mag 21, XT seatpost, vintage XT and other old-school parts..

For whatever reason - maybe 'cause I started reading Mountain Bike at 12 in '95? - I still really like old-school Specialized dual-suspension bikes (the 1st gen FSRs with the falling-rate linkages that blew shocks). Would a 'platform' shock save one of these bikes?


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

hondamatic said:


> Perhaps a little OT, but...
> 
> I saw the most interesting dual-suspension Litespeed on a ride on Saturday. The upper linkage - by the seatstay/seatpost junction - looked an awful lot like the first-generation Specialized dual suspension bikes, and I can't remember whether it had a horst pivot or not (I'd bet it didn't). The owner claimed it was 14 years old, and that it was very light. It was wearing a Mag 21, XT seatpost, vintage XT and other old-school parts..
> 
> For whatever reason - maybe 'cause I started reading Mountain Bike at 12 in '95? - I still really like old-school Specialized dual-suspension bikes (the 1st gen FSRs with the falling-rate linkages that blew shocks). Would a 'platform' shock save one of these bikes?


That first generation FSR doesnt need any saving in my opinion. It is essentially the same as the modern day versions just with slightly less travel. I think its the best FS design to this day. The falling rate probably compensates for the early air shocks lower air volume.


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

Fillet-brazed said:


> That Cannondale is from 1991. The Rockshox RS-1 and Manitou were then on there second year (almost 2 and half years actually), so there were definitely suspension forks at the time. My friend had one of those with a Scott Unishock fork. Back in the day it was most definitely an improvement going down hill but probably wouldnt feel too good going either up or down compared to todays bikes.


I'm sorry but your history is off. The first production model year of Manitou 1s was 1992. Doug Bradbury could barely meet demand for his hand made Manitous for his own customers, let alone supplying forks to cannondale. Rockshox also was in no position to be supplying forks yet, as the RS-1 was in demand among racers for the most part, and at about $400US per fork, were hardly something most bike brands would consider adding to their already expensive models. About the only production bikes to get rockshox forks in 1991 were Gary Fisher's RS-1's bikes (their RS stood of course, for rear suspension, with the mert lawhill 4-bar rear end). And the design and product spec'ing of 1991 models began in 1990 for that matter.

In 1992, there were only 45 production hardtail mountain bike models listed in the bicycling buyers guide with front suspension as standard, and only 39 with full suspension. Of the front suspension bikes, all had suspension forks. Of the full suspension, 5 were offroad proflex models with flexstems and rigid forks, one was an alex moulton with moulton's short travel fork and 17" wheels, and 20 of them were Boulder models which basically could be ordered in 3 different materials (Ti, CrMo and Al) and 4 component groups (XC Pro MD, XT, XTR, and a "select american group"), on 3 basic frame designs (Chronos, Defiant and Intrepid).



> That said, the real early suspension mtbs (probably 3-4 years prior to the Cannondale) though did have rear suspension combined with a rigid fork; bikes like the Descender and the SE Shocker. I think thats what they were called anyway...


And those two were low-pivot bikes as it happens.


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

DeeEight said:


> I'm sorry but your history is off. The first production model year of Manitou 1s was 1992. Doug Bradbury could barely meet demand for his hand made Manitous for his own customers, let alone supplying forks to cannondale. Rockshox also was in no position to be supplying forks yet, as the RS-1 was in demand among racers for the most part, and at about $400US per fork, were hardly something most bike brands would consider adding to their already expensive models. About the only production bikes to get rockshox forks in 1991 were Gary Fisher's RS-1's bikes (their RS stood of course, for rear suspension, with the mert lawhill 4-bar rear end). And the design and product spec'ing of 1991 models began in 1990 for that matter.
> 
> In 1992, there were only 45 production hardtail mountain bike models listed in the bicycling buyers guide with front suspension as standard, and only 39 with full suspension. Of the front suspension bikes, all had suspension forks. Of the full suspension, 5 were offroad proflex models with flexstems and rigid forks, one was an alex moulton with moulton's short travel fork and 17" wheels, and 20 of them were Boulder models which basically could be ordered in 3 different materials (Ti, CrMo and Al) and 4 component groups (XC Pro MD, XT, XTR, and a "select american group"), on 3 basic frame designs (Chronos, Defiant and Intrepid).
> 
> And those two were low-pivot bikes as it happens.


Well, I do recall the RS-1 being for sale in the shop I worked at in 1990. $360. We had a good number of them. The Manitou was a bit later as you say, but the racers did have them in 90 (very few) and 91, thats what I was going off of mainly I guess.

Im sure if Cannondale wanted to spec RS-1s in 1991, Paul would have made it happen as they were most definitely ready for the market and available. Cannondale was probably trying to meet a price point with that bike is my guess.


----------



## dansjustchillin (Apr 8, 2004)

i still remember when these were tops.


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

dansjustchillin said:


> i still remember when these were tops.


And when was that?? I must have missed that year.


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

Entry level Cannondale SE 1000 cost $1,200US in 1991. All three SE's (there was a SE 2000 at $1,600 and an Omega at $2,400) had the flexstem that year. One shop having a few forks from a company that was still setting up production (early production was licensed to DiaCompe in asia remember !) isn't the same as having sufficient forks to supply a bike manufacturer the size of Cannondale. Fisher had planned to make some 2,500 RS-1s in 1991, but as I recall, less than a hundred were actually built, largerly because of a lack of forks. The Ottawa GaryFisher dealer got a SINGLE RS-1 out of what it ordered, and it sat in the showroom for like three years unsold.


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

DeeEight said:


> Entry level Cannondale SE 1000 cost $1,200US in 1991. All three SE's (there was a SE 2000 at $1,600 and an Omega at $2,400) had the flexstem that year. One shop having a few forks from a company that was still setting up production (early production was licensed to DiaCompe in asia remember !) isn't the same as having sufficient forks to supply a bike manufacturer the size of Cannondale. Fisher had planned to make some 2,500 RS-1s in 1991, but as I recall, less than a hundred were actually built, largerly because of a lack of forks. The Ottawa GaryFisher dealer got a SINGLE RS-1 out of what it ordered, and it sat in the showroom for like three years unsold.


I have a 91 Fisher RS-1 and its got the Lawwill fork. I think the 92 was spec'ed with the Mag fork... Who knows. Im sure Cannondale didnt make too many of those bikes and regardless of how many models you have you still have a price point to meet...No use arguing on whether a fork was available or not. We'd have to ask Cannondale why they went with a 3/4 rubber sprung stem over a $360 fork to get the real answer I guess...

The Scott fork was also available then as I recall. I dont have a 91 buyers guide in front of me as it appears you do with your numbers youve got.


----------



## EndoRando (Sep 21, 2004)

DeeEight said:


> Fisher had planned to make some 2,500 RS-1s in 1991, but as I recall, less than a hundred were actually built, largerly because of a lack of forks.


Yeah, some of those forks went on their own hardtails. I bought a '91 Mt. Tam Japanese built steel hardtail with an RS-1 on it and it was $1900 new, with full XT 7 speed. Maybe they figured they'd get a few more sales with the cheaper hardtails vs. the pricy Lawill style frames.

The Mt. Tam was a nice bike, but the fork was a bit disappointing. I later installed a Manitou 3, and then sold the bike but I still have the RS-1 tucked in the garage. It's got the Evolution size steerer tube that was threaded. If those bikes had longer top tubes back then I'd still own it, but it required a 140 stem to fit me!

Rando


----------



## hondamatic (Apr 17, 2005)

Fillet-brazed said:


> And when was that?? I must have missed that year.


Hahaha, even tho that ride may not be efficient, or reliable, or even a good mountain bike, drool....


----------



## dansjustchillin (Apr 8, 2004)

i still have the recipt from 95. i thought people were through drooling over it 7 years ago.


----------



## loonyOne (Dec 25, 2003)

I remember ProFlex's first bike being rear-sprung only. My thought on this, and the Cannondale, must have had something to do with softening the ride, rather than actually having 'suspension'. More of a longer travel soft-tail, rather than anything of any actual practical use. I've owned a GT RTS and a ProFlex 856. The GT was a truly aweful abomination of suspension at any level...today or fifty years ago. I think the Model T had better suspension. The ProFlex, however, that was a really good bike. Ya, it had bob issues, but it would swallow up big hits like a well-trained cheerleader. My only issue was with the shock I had...a converted elastomer shock. It had ZERO rebound control and the SpeedSpring always hated me riding along. I always wanted to upgrade to a Risse, but never got the chance as I sold it to some kid for funds to buy Bonny. I am leaning towards buying new(er) when insurance gets done riding me, but don't really know which way to go...I've ALWAYS loved the ride of the FSR, amybe that'll be the avenue of choice. Never know.


----------



## dansjustchillin (Apr 8, 2004)

loonyOne said:


> I remember ProFlex's first bike being rear-sprung only. My thought on this, and the Cannondale, must have had something to do with softening the ride, rather than actually having 'suspension'. More of a longer travel soft-tail, rather than anything of any actual practical use. I've owned a GT RTS and a ProFlex 856. The GT was a truly aweful abomination of suspension at any level...today or fifty years ago. I think the Model T had better suspension. The ProFlex, however, that was a really good bike. Ya, it had bob issues, but it would swallow up big hits like a well-trained cheerleader. My only issue was with the shock I had...a converted elastomer shock. It had ZERO rebound control and the SpeedSpring always hated me riding along. I always wanted to upgrade to a Risse, but never got the chance as I sold it to some kid for funds to buy Bonny. I am leaning towards buying new(er) when insurance gets done riding me, but don't really know which way to go...I've ALWAYS loved the ride of the FSR, amybe that'll be the avenue of choice. Never know.


i've always wanted a frame with fsr linkage but i've never been into full suspension enough to pop for one, it would take away from my rigid stuff to much.


----------



## EJ (Aug 29, 2005)

Fillet-brazed said:


> We'd have to ask Cannondale why they went with a 3/4 rubber sprung stem over a $360 fork to get the real answer I guess...


Let's also remember that C'dale was using 1 1/4" headsets in those days, which limited fork choices too in the early days. 
Btw, the "Omega" models that DeeEight mentioned were Campy equipped, iirc


----------



## mattbikeboy (Jun 8, 2004)

loonyOne said:


> I've owned a GT RTS and a ProFlex 856. The GT was a truly aweful abomination of suspension at any level...today or fifty years ago. I think the Model T had better suspension.


But dang, they sure were cool at the time! I used to visit the shop in town and drool on the ball burnished rts-1 on a weekly basis. Once I could afford a cool full susser, I bought a Pro-Floater. And I still have it.

mbb


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

GT_guy said:


> Let's also remember that C'dale was using 1 1/4" headsets in those days, which limited fork choices too in the early days.
> Btw, the "Omega" models that DeeEight mentioned were Campy equipped, iirc


Actually it was 1". I dont think Cannondale ever used 1 1/4".

Not sure about Campy on the Omega but Im pretty sure I remember Grafton brakes on that model...


----------



## DtEW (Jun 14, 2004)

dansjustchillin said:


> i still remember when these were tops.


I remember really really really really really really really really wanting to buy one of those things. And I would have were it not for the fact that my legs are on the short side and standover was not terribly good on that bike (Proflex 856), I woulda bought it. Instead I held off and eventually bought a first-generation Santa Cruz Heckler as my first full-suspension bike.


----------



## lucifer (Sep 27, 2004)

Fillet-brazed said:


> Actually it was 1". I dont think Cannondale ever used 1 1/4".
> 
> Not sure about Campy on the Omega but Im pretty sure I remember Grafton brakes on that model...


Cannondale went to 1 1/4 around 1992 or 1993 IIRC...


----------



## uphiller (Jan 13, 2004)

Fillet-brazed said:


> Perhaps you guys are thinking of the headshock system? This was large yes, but it wasnt the standard 1 1/4" that the others used.
> 
> http://www.firstflightbikes.com/DV1000.htm


I worked in a shop that had plenty of Cannondales in repair, and distinctly remember a few coming in that had 1.25" headsets. I think they flirted with that particular size for awhile, then abandoned it. Of course, that I distinctly remember something haveing happened doesn't mean it was so.


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

lucifer said:


> Cannondale went to 1 1/4 around 1992 or 1993 IIRC...


Perhaps you guys are thinking of the headshock system? This was large yes, but it wasnt the standard 1 1/4" that the others used.

http://www.firstflightbikes.com/DV1000.htm


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

uphiller said:


> I worked in a shop that had plenty of Cannondales in repair, and distinctly remember a few coming in that had 1.25" headsets. I think they flirted with that particular size for awhile, then abandoned it. Of course, that I distinctly remember something haveing happened doesn't mean it was so.


Ya, come to think of it I think the later rigid bikes might have had that size.

The 91s though for sure were 1".


----------



## Shayne (Jan 14, 2004)

*C-Dale Was Deffinately 1 1/4 for 3 or 4 yrs*

I would venture to say they were #2 in the production of 1 1/4" frames behind Fisher.

The Headshok is 1 1/2...or is it 1 3/8"


----------



## lucifer (Sep 27, 2004)

Fillet-brazed said:


> Perhaps you guys are thinking of the headshock system? This was large yes, but it wasnt the standard 1 1/4" that the others used.
> 
> http://www.firstflightbikes.com/DV1000.htm


No I am thinking of the one hanging in my garage.
I had a 91 that was 1" , my wife ordered a 92 or 93 that came in at 1.25" it's green to black fade...


----------



## EJ (Aug 29, 2005)

I still have the 92 C'dale catalog. I had a 92 M2000 that had a 1.25" headset. They had the headshock that year as well. I had a tough time finding a fork (eventually got a Manitou 3) and a quill stem in that size. It was pretty much C'dale and Fisher with 1.25" then around 94 or so the 1.125 became the "standard" size. 
That bike also had the Cdale "Force 40" break system which was plain awful and overly complicated. The beginning of their over-engineering decline.


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

Cannondale REALLY did use 1 1/4" steerer tubes on lots of their models with rigid forks, and the headshock is actually about 1 5/8" diameter. That's why when Manitou came out with the 1.5 size, it was simple for Cannondale to adopt it. They ALREADY made frames that could take that size steerer, just by machining the headtubes out a bit less. Remember the steerer timeline...1" was followed by 1 1/4" (which was adopted by about 20 to 30 brands) and that was followed by 1 1/8".

Cannondale headshocks don't fit any frames except cannondales, and certain merlins (which also were available with headshocks, supplied from Cannondale). 

I currently own three brands of frames with 1 1/4" size requirements...a Manitou, an Alpinestars and a Titan. I've previously owned other 1 1/4" spec'ed frames including Yeti, Cannondale, GaryFisher, Boulder, Tech, and Proflex as just the ones that instantly spring to mind.


----------



## uphiller (Jan 13, 2004)

GT_guy said:


> I still have the 92 C'dale catalog. I had a 92 M2000 that had a 1.25" headset. They had the headshock that year as well. I had a tough time finding a fork (eventually got a Manitou 3) and a quill stem in that size. It was pretty much C'dale and Fisher with 1.25" then around 94 or so the 1.125 became the "standard" size.
> That bike also had the Cdale "Force 40" break system which was plain awful and overly complicated. The beginning of their over-engineering decline.


Everybody rags on the Force 40 brake setup as being overly complicated, but I for one would like to voice my support of it. It's not all that complicated in my opinion, just a simple rocker with a spring inside, and if set up right, it does increase braking power quite a bit.
Tim


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

uphiller said:


> Everybody rags on the Force 40 brake setup as being overly complicated, but I for one would like to voice my support of it. It's not all that complicated in my opinion, just a simple rocker with a spring inside, and if set up right, it does increase braking power quite a bit.
> Tim


Yep, I agree. It didnt have enough pad clearance really, due to the high leverage, but it did substantially increase brake power. The set up really need some stiffening up to take advantage of the large amount of leverage.


----------



## EJ (Aug 29, 2005)

uphiller said:


> Everybody rags on the Force 40 brake setup as being overly complicated, but I for one would like to voice my support of it. It's not all that complicated in my opinion, just a simple rocker with a spring inside, and if set up right, it does increase braking power quite a bit.
> Tim


You're referring to the 2nd generation which had a plastic cam. The first version (that came on my 92) just used a round brass pulley. There was also no cable stop on the seatstays so there was lots of slop in the system, especially with the OE Ritchey (Dia-Compe) levers. I remember getting an Avid Tri-dangle (is that what they were called?) and Shimano shifter/levers and going with a standard canti setup. It was much better.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

sixtoo said:


> the defintion of BOB?


Nooooooooooooooooooooooo! Not the Trek 9000! I had the subsequent year's model, with the purple/apple green colors. That one in your picture has a non-OEM shock. Is it a Noleen? They came stock with a bulbuous rubber spring that looked like a stack of chocolate Donette Gems. What a mess!


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

probably is a noleen, they were about the only shock maker that supported those treks the first year.

In Oct 1992 Mountain Biking had a feature called Project Trek Sub-24, where they took a 1992 Trek 9500 and dropped weight off it, while improving its performance. One improvement was a noleen coil shock. They managed to cut the full bike weight down to 23.25 pounds from a starting 28.5 pounds.


----------

