# Vintage geometry question - 90s Bianchi Grizzly



## lndshrk (Dec 8, 2004)

I'm in the throws of trying to decide on the geometry for a custom frame - and ran across this image of an older lugged Bianchi Super Grizzly while trolling ebay for some parts. What caught my eye, is that it looks like (could be the photo angle?) the seat tube is far more slack than the head tube. I thought Ritchey did this back then as well...

Would this put more weight over the back wheel and make it climb well despite the longer chainstays? How well would a bike like this handle tight singletrack? 

Cheers


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

it could be a photo distortion only. i remeber those grizzlys having steeo seat angles. like later ritcheys. but i may be confusing it w/ later bianchis and ritcheys..


----------



## bulC (Mar 12, 2004)

*naw*

wrong decade. you're thinking of bikes from the early-mid 80s that often had slack seat tube angles, though slacker than the head tube angle, probably not. 71 parallel wasn't too uncommon in the late 80s.
I test rode a Grizzly from circa '90 or '91, lugged, celeste, it had contemporary angles, 71/73 probably.


----------



## lndshrk (Dec 8, 2004)

*How did it ride?*



bulC said:


> wrong decade. you're thinking of bikes from the early-mid 80s that often had slack seat tube angles, though slacker than the head tube angle, probably not. 71 parallel wasn't too uncommon in the late 80s.
> I test rode a Grizzly from circa '90 or '91, lugged, celeste, it had contemporary angles, 71/73 probably.


Do you remember what it rode like? My guess is that it felt lively, but wasn't very nimble in corners. Thanks.


----------



## bulC (Mar 12, 2004)

*lovely*



lndshrk said:


> Do you remember what it rode like? My guess is that it felt lively, but wasn't very nimble in corners. Thanks.


It rode like you'd expect a quality thinwall steel frame to ride, in all the good ways. I'm thinking it was built with Columbus Nivachrome tubing. I don't recall any negative cornering issues. Why would you expect there to be?


----------



## lndshrk (Dec 8, 2004)

bulC said:


> It rode like you'd expect a quality thinwall steel frame to ride, in all the good ways. I'm thinking it was built with Columbus Nivachrome tubing. I don't recall any negative cornering issues. Why would you expect there to be?


I'm probably tainted - as I had a couple of older frames with that would steer very slowly (almost cruiser like), they were fine for bombing down fire roads and such, but weren't that great in technical stuff. Problems were made worse with the addition of suspension forks on bikes that weren't designed for them.

I've recently moved to Connecticut (from New Mexico), where it seems all I ride now is tight woodsy singletrack (which I love) but my older bikes seem to lumber through switchbacks that I think I should be sailing around.

I love the older thin-walled lugged steel bikes, but (1) the Geometry gets strange when I add a newer fork and (2) most were designed for the full frame to act as the suspension, so they have a bit more of a relaxed handling. Hence my thoughts on getting a custom frame - but the waitlist at Vanilla is at a year long, so I have way to much time to dwell on geometry and all that good stuff


----------



## Trajan (Feb 9, 2004)

My wife rides a 1995 Super Grizzly RC that she won't give up. The bike rides really nicely with excellent "flickability". For women or light weight men, those old steel bikes were fantastic.


----------



## Stick (Jan 12, 2004)

anand said:


> My wife rides a 1995 Super Grizzly RC that she won't give up. The bike rides really nicely with excellent "flickability". For women or light weight men, those old steel bikes were fantastic.


I have a Denali RC ('95 or '96, I can't even remember now). Lugged Columbus EL/OS nivachrom tubing with bridgeless chainstays and a cool single-sided canti cable hanger. I believe the Grizzly RC and Denali RC shared the same frame.

It's a fantastic ride. I don't know the angles off the top of my head, but it's super-supple & flickable, seemingly textbook 'NORBA' xc geometry. Basically, a blast on twisty singletrack. The trade-off is that it's a bit sketchy on steep, gnarly descents. I beat it up pretty badly (riding daily and racing weekly for ~ 2 yrs) but couldn't bring myself to part with it. I recently rebuilt it as a singlespeed.

That said, when this was my primary ride I only weighed around 135 - 140 lbs. Larger riders may find the rear triangle too flexy (bridgeless stays & small diameter, thin-walled tubing, remember?), but for me (at that time) it was close to perfect.

I've since given up racing and moved to a Cove Handjob w/ discs, 4" fork and much more slack angles. This setup suits my current riding style and the local terrain quite a bit better, but if it's a short-travel XC racer you're after, those older Bianchis are awesome.


----------



## kb11 (Mar 29, 2004)

Heres is another one on Ebay, looks to be a early '90's also, not mine but I wish it was

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=7297&item=7118681021&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW


----------



## Bike_13 (Feb 1, 2005)

Stick said:


> I have a Denali RC ('95 or '96, I can't even remember now). Lugged Columbus EL/OS nivachrom tubing with bridgeless chainstays and a cool single-sided canti cable hanger. I believe the Grizzly RC and Denali RC shared the same frame.
> 
> It's a fantastic ride. I don't know the angles off the top of my head, but it's super-supple & flickable, seemingly textbook 'NORBA' xc geometry. Basically, a blast on twisty singletrack. The trade-off is that it's a bit sketchy on steep, gnarly descents. I beat it up pretty badly (riding daily and racing weekly for ~ 2 yrs) but couldn't bring myself to part with it. I recently rebuilt it as a singlespeed.
> 
> ...


I have a '94 Grizzly that I too am loathe to part with. It's built with EL/OS too, and I remember that pretty much the same frame became the Denali a year later. I think it all changed to AL in '96.

When I bought it (new - that doesn't happen often), it was specced with a Marzocchi air/oil fork, that had about 60mm of travel. It was a fast handler, with a pretty steep headtube.

Not positive, but I think it was 71/73. Pretty much standard NORBA XC (most XC is more relaxed now). It was awesome on singletrack, but could be pretty flexy out of the saddle (I am 6'1" and about 200lbs).

Very light too - the tubing is actually road tubing.

But it was forgiving. I remember days of 5 to 6 hours in the saddle riding very technical trails - I got beat up, but not as beat as my Cannondale CAAD5 hardtail does now after 3 hours.

I rode it for a couple of years, and then boxed it up whilst I moved OS. I came back and checked a set of Judys on it, with some 83mm Arlo Englund total air cartidges on it. The additional length of the fork worked really well. It slowed the steering down appreciably, and turned the bike more into a trail rider than and XC racer.

I would certainly not put a longer fork in it though.

The only issue I have with the frame now is that it has a relatively short top tube. Mines a 19 1/2", which has about a 22 3/4" top tube. Most of the bikes I ride now have a 23 3/4" top tube, meaning a shorter stem, and more direct steering without being twitchy.

I run a 100mm stem now. Back then I ran a 150mm or 135mm!

I am likely to sell my frame if anyone is interested. It's all been restored, with a complete original Bianchi decal set. Will post details.


----------

