# Manitou SX-r



## TraumaARNP (Oct 13, 2005)

Circa 2001, these guys garnered a pretty decent reputation for price, value, and performance.






​


----------



## pinguwin (Aug 20, 2004)

Not particularily vintage, but what are you doing with them? Trade, sell, display them? Your post isn't clear.


----------



## TraumaARNP (Oct 13, 2005)

Going on future builds.


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

TraumaARNP has been quite the new asset here in the VRC.


----------



## Deuce Bigelow (Jun 9, 2010)

Rumpfy said:


> TraumaARNP has been quite the new asset here in the VRC.


Bringing the VRC into the 21st century.


----------



## hollister (Sep 16, 2005)

Deuce Bigelow said:
 

> Bringing the VRC into the 21st century.


sad, but true


----------



## TraumaARNP (Oct 13, 2005)

Deuce Bigelow said:


> Bringing the VRC into the 21st century.


One question, do you and hollister like the taste of e-coli?

Gee, where do all these rump minions come from?


----------



## giantbikeboy (Dec 3, 2004)

White SX was my first squishy part. 00-01 ish. It was cool.


----------



## Deuce Bigelow (Jun 9, 2010)

TraumaARNP said:


> Gee, where do all these rump minions come from?


from the days when VRC actually stood for Vintage, Retro, Classic. But carry on.:ciappa:


----------



## TraumaARNP (Oct 13, 2005)

Deuce Bigelow said:


> from the days when VRC actually stood for Vintage, Retro, Classic. But carry on.:ciappa:


OK, I'll bite, from your extensive posting experience here, how about defining each of those categories...how about an *objective *definition of vintage, retro, and classic.

Since I don't have the ass smiley, I'll just say it....how about it culero?


----------



## SHADES (Feb 23, 2005)

I like 'em.


----------



## girlonbike (Apr 24, 2008)

Something mid 1990s and before is a good start.


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

TraumaARNP said:


> OK, I'll bite, from your extensive posting experience here, how about defining each of those categories...how about an *objective *definition of vintage, retro, and classic.
> 
> Since I don't have the ass smiley, I'll just say it....how about it culero?


Best definitions and discussions on the three categories are in the big ole' sticky I made since the topic comes up a lot.
Its pretty open for debate...but I can say that suspension forks from the 2000's with disc brake tabs...falls into none of those categories. 
You can base that on my extensive posting experience. Originating this forum, moderating, riding and collecting longer than a lot of people here. Hope thats enough for you.

An no one here has ever been a minion. Just peers who'd hoped this forum would have been more. But thats another whole ball of wax.


----------



## Deuce Bigelow (Jun 9, 2010)

TraumaARNP said:


> OK, I'll bite, from your extensive posting experience here, how about defining each of those categories...how about an *objective *definition of vintage, retro, and classic.
> 
> Since I don't have the ass smiley, I'll just say it....how about it culero?


Athough this has already been beat to death...

Vintage: '93 and older has been the generally agreed upon year, but a couple years leeway would be okay. Definately not 2000 though. As good as the SXR may have been it ain't vintage.

Retro: Something newer made in the style of the past. Some good examples would be the Merlin Newsboy or the current Mountain Goat klunker style bike.

Classic: some possible definitions.
1. of the first or highest quality, class, or rank: a classic piece of work. 
2. serving as a standard, model, or guide. 
3. of enduring interest, quality, or style: a classic design.

Again your 2000 sxr forks don't qualify.

With that said, defining the words is kinda irrelevant as this forum has not actually been focused on "VRC" bikes for quite a while.

By the way, you do have the butt smiley if you're smart enough to figure out how to use the program.


----------



## Guest (Jul 10, 2010)

sfgirlonbike said:


> Something mid 1990s and before is a good start.


AMEN !!


----------



## chefmiguel (Dec 22, 2007)

sfgirlonbike said:


> Something mid 1990s and before is a good start.


Hallelujah!


----------



## da'HOOV (Jan 3, 2009)

Rumpfy said:


> Best definitions and discussions on the three categories are in the big ole' sticky I made since the topic comes up a lot.
> You can base that on my extensive posting experience. Originating this forum, moderating, riding and collecting longer than a lot of people here. Hope thats enough for you.
> 
> An no one here has ever been a minion. Just peers who'd hoped this forum would have been more. But thats another whole ball of wax.


Glad you cleared that up one more time..wasn't sure who was responsible.

...and there are definately minions here...might go by another name but minions none the less. And thats OK, as long as it isn't blind loyalty..


----------



## Vlad (Feb 7, 2004)

This forum is a microcosm of cycling in general: cool bikes and uptight people.

I can't stay away.


----------



## TraumaARNP (Oct 13, 2005)

The problem some of you anal retentive types is that each word in the VRC has never been officialy defined objectively. So far, we have a few driveby posts from a few tush munchers providing subjective responses to my original question regarding the definition of the V, the R, and the C.

How about a objective definition to RETRO, which is typically used today as something that is functional, perhaps old fashioned, or dated, or no longer available today, but still relevent. Retro can also mean newly manufactured products that mimic or copy an original popular style, such as today's VW Beetle or Mini Cooper.

The needy twit from the city that wants to ban soft drinks and pets, yet wants a marijuana clinic on every street corner defines it as mid 90's and before...well, then half the posts and threads here would have to be deleted. The Schwinn Black Panther, which came out in 2000, is a classic example of a retro bike, and a classic design, but some of you would get your knickers in a twist, and have, when I posted a pic of one.

The bottom line is that some of you aren't happy if you can't get your panties in a wad, or if your colostomy bags aren't overflowing. I would go so far as saying that some of you are just miserable little people. 

Like the man from Glad said, cool bikes and the mentally disturbed people who own them.

Carry on.


----------



## tductape (Mar 31, 2008)

Vlad already articulated it so well.

I can't stay away.



TraumaARNP said:


> The problem some of you anal retentive types is that each word in the VRC has never been officialy defined objectively. So far, we have a few driveby posts from a few tush munchers providing subjective responses to my original question regarding the definition of the V, the R, and the C.
> 
> How about a objective definition to RETRO, which is typically used today as something that is functional, perhaps old fashioned, or dated, or no longer available today, but still relevent. Retro can also mean newly manufactured products that mimic or copy an original popular style, such as today's VW Beetle or Mini Cooper.
> 
> ...


----------



## chefmiguel (Dec 22, 2007)

I don't think its about being anal retentive or a minion or anything like that. The forks are not VRC by any scope thats all, people pointed it out. This to help your realize what would be considered VRC. I have a Fox fork from 03 is that VRC? No and and its also not posted here. See? Not that terribly difficult. Wait 15 to 20 years and the fork would be elligible, but for now its just outdated. Not trying to be mean but if these things aren't pointed out then how would the forum grow? 
I agree good forks, nice value but not in the spirit of this forum at this time. Stick around don't be thin skinned. Learn a bit, share a bit.


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

da'HOOV said:


> Glad you cleared that up one more time..wasn't sure who was responsible.
> 
> ...and there are definately minions here...might go by another name but minions none the less. And thats OK, as long as it isn't blind loyalty..


I know the regulars are tired of hearing that, but it was for the new guy. Its all I've got.

Not blind loyalty. Brain washing. Zoolander style.


----------



## MendonCycleSmith (Feb 10, 2005)

chefmiguel said:


> I agree good forks, nice value but not in the spirit of this forum at this time. Stick around don't be thin skinned. Learn a bit, share a bit.


Yep, well said.

As for thin skinned, I'd say his most recent post indicates he's responding well to the hazing ritual, and will soone be eating out of Rumpfys trembling fingers

Just be sorta nice to one another, okay?


----------



## Deuce Bigelow (Jun 9, 2010)

TraumaARNP said:


> The problem some of you anal retentive types is that each word in the VRC has never been officialy defined objectively.


Actually they have both in this thread and in the stickies; do the research.



TraumaARNP said:


> How about a objective definition to RETRO, which is typically used today as something that is functional, perhaps old fashioned, or dated, or no longer available today, but still relevent. Retro can also mean newly manufactured products that mimic or copy an original popular style, such as today's VW Beetle or Mini Cooper.
> 
> The Schwinn Black Panther, which came out in 2000, is a classic example of a retro bike, and a classic design, but some of you would get your knickers in a twist, and have, when I posted a pic of one..


All these fit into the definition of RETRO above: Newer products made to resemble, reflect or harken back to older products. Just because your POS is obsolete doesnt make it retro or classic for that matter.



TraumaARNP said:


> The bottom line is that some of you aren't happy if you can't get your panties in a wad, or if your colostomy bags aren't overflowing. I would go so far as saying that some of you are just miserable little people. Carry on.


For the record: I don't wear panties, I go commando. I change my colostmy bag regularly. And I'm not little.


----------



## girlonbike (Apr 24, 2008)

haha!


----------



## eastcoaststeve (Sep 19, 2007)

Trauma,



It seems you have a perception problem.


You perceive the problem to be "us", but in all reality, you are the instrument of what is currently wrong with this forum. 

Your posts come across as self-impoprtant, childish attacks and provocations towards the forum memebers who have seen your kind come, (and thankfully go), after a breif firestorm of "you people are wrong/stupid/closed-minded" posts.


Do us all a favor....buy a mirror, take a look in it, realiize you're not as cool or intelligent as you think you are, and stop being a di*k in my living room.




Steve


----------



## mechagouki (Nov 30, 2007)

TraumaARNP said:


> I would go so far as saying that some of you are just miserable little people.


I would go so far as to say, if you don't like the people here, and you want to talk about mundane 21st century parts you should stop wasting your time and ours and GTFO.

(Don't) Carry on.


----------



## Deuce Bigelow (Jun 9, 2010)

eastcoaststeve said:


> Trauma,
> 
> You perceive the problem to be "us", but in all reality, you are the instrument of what is currently wrong with this forum.
> 
> ...


well said


----------



## Guest (Jul 10, 2010)

We should depart from this Thread and ressurect the "which Schwinn Varsity should I keep" thread from a few weeks back.


----------



## SHADES (Feb 23, 2005)

An interesting thread, none the less.


----------



## girlonbike (Apr 24, 2008)

entertaining, anyways!


----------



## TraumaARNP (Oct 13, 2005)

It's all good, the responses were expected and entertaining, especially from the really thin skinned folk here. For the suggestion to read the stickies, I have, and have yet to find an absolute objective definition of VRC; except by someone who said something to the tune of *"ten years running", *or words to that affect....you know who you are.

For the naysayers here, you really need to try harder if you intend to slam me, 'cause it ain't working.

Thanks for the laughs, and.....

Carry on. 

Oh, and for the dilitante who suggested I GTFO, not so fast fella', I know it pisses you off that I stay, so I will....stay, that is.


----------



## hollister (Sep 16, 2005)

> It's all good, the responses were expected and entertaining, especially from the really thin skinned folk here. For the suggestion to read the stickies, I have, and have yet to find an absolute objective definition of VRC; except by someone who said something to the tune of *"ten years running", *or words to that affect....you know who you are.
> 
> For the naysayers here, you really need to try harder if you intend to slam me, 'cause it ain't working.
> 
> ...


lady and gentlemen, may I present the newest "VRC" troll


----------



## TraumaARNP (Oct 13, 2005)

hollister said:


> lady and gentlemen, may I present the newest "VRC" troll


Has anybody ever told you that it is so undignified to be a stalker and a suck azz to the self annointed??? It's really low rent.

BTW, calling someone a troll is clear demonstration that all your lies, all your ammo, all your stupidity has been exhausted, so you resort to calling someone a troll, which in this particular case, is nothing more then projecting....get a life son, it really isn't worth it.


----------



## tductape (Mar 31, 2008)

I am suprised SFgirl is the only female that posts regularly on VRC. Seems there should be more balance. That is the one indication I have that I may be hanging out with a bunch of geeks. Oh well at least I might have a chance to fit in....... Heck I bet even a Dungeons and Dragons forum has a better balance than here.

Off work now...yeehaa time to hit the hills and ride.......
Enjoy the weekend,
T



hollister said:


> lady and gentlemen, may I present the newest "VRC" troll


----------



## chefmiguel (Dec 22, 2007)

Rumpfy said:


> Not blind loyalty. Brain washing. Zoolander style.


Funny he thinks we're his minions but when we hang out he calls me "Master"


----------



## eastcoaststeve (Sep 19, 2007)

While it's not as much fun as watcing this idiot make a train wreck of our forum....


if everyone would just click on his profile, and select the "ignore" option, maybe he'll get tired of trying to compensate for his "shortcomings" and just wander off to someplace where he can get the attention he craves.


I hate to leave a good flaming as much as the next guy, but this guy is just a di*k, and I'm done letting him waste my time. 


Heading for the mountains....




Steve


----------



## mechagouki (Nov 30, 2007)

eastcoaststeve said:


> While it's not as much fun as watcing this idiot make a train wreck of our forum....
> 
> if everyone would just click on his profile, and select the "ignore" option, maybe he'll get tired of trying to compensate for his "shortcomings" and just wander off to someplace where he can get the attention he craves.


Done!


----------



## bushpig (Nov 26, 2005)

I agree with whatever Rumpfy said.


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

bushpig said:


> I agree with whatever Rumpfy said.


And thats why you're my #1 minion right ahead of Hollister.


----------



## nuck_chorris (Jun 6, 2008)

ooo, a friend of mine had red one to the right setup on his gary fisher, it hurt to watch him leave it open to the elements and grind his rims down with his brakes that were down the the metal. it was eventually stolen:madman:


----------



## Guest (Jul 11, 2010)

*1995*



sfgirlonbike said:


> Something mid 1990s and before is a good start.


Here's an example where a mid 90's suspension bike should still be considerd VRC.
.


----------



## Steeljaws (May 2, 2010)

Oh my, a handfull of pimple faced pre-pubescent spoiled brats and an old grumpy guy trying to muscle in on Trauma...oh, nice Ritchey's shawnw.....damn nice bikes!


----------



## jtmartino (Jul 31, 2008)

Steeljaws said:


> Oh my, a handfull of pimple faced pre-pubescent spoiled brats and an old grumpy guy trying to muscle in on Trauma...oh, nice Ritchey's shawnw.....damn nice bikes!


Hey old-timer, calm down with the insults. We're all here for the bikes.



TraumaARNP said:


> The problem some of you anal retentive types is that each word in the VRC has never been officialy defined objectively. So far, we have a few driveby posts from a few tush munchers providing subjective responses to my original question regarding the definition of the V, the R, and the C.


For the purposes of this forum, most people agree that

Vintage = 1995 or older 
and 
Retro = new products with old-school styling, or "throwback" products

Classic is the only "subjective" area of contention that you speak of, and since the definition is "historically memorable" or "serving as a standard of excellence," usually classic items are first-of-their-kind or unique and special in the history of mountain biking.

Most VRC-ers would agree that none of your 2001 forks would fall into any of these categories.

Your insults and name-calling were unnecessary. Anyone can be a a$$hole online, but it takes integrity to roll with the punches and establish your spot within the community. If you don't like people on here, then leave. Your inane rants and insulting comments are definitely not appreciated.


----------



## Steeljaws (May 2, 2010)

TraumaARNP said:


> The problem some of you anal retentive types is that *each word in the VRC has never been officialy defined objectively*. So far, we have a few driveby posts from a few tush munchers providing subjective responses to my original question regarding the definition of the V, the R, and the C.


I have to agree, so far, we have subjective definitions, rough guesstimates of what century and decade applies, and a whole lot of angst over nothing more then a posting of some _*old school*_ shocks; and well photographed, I might add....another forum that has apparently more bikers with a lot more sense, and less self annointed internet experts and world biking champions says it best, "if it's old school, it's in..."


----------



## mechagouki (Nov 30, 2007)

Steeljaws said:


> I have to agree, so far, we have subjective definitions, rough guesstimates of what century and decade applies, and a whole lot of angst over nothing more then a posting of some _*old school*_ shocks; and well photographed, I might add....another forum that has apparently more bikers with a lot more sense, and less self annointed internet experts and world biking champions says it best, "if it's old school, it's in..."


Guess you won't be wasting any more of your time here then - bye!



jtmartino said:


> For the purposes of this forum, most people agree that
> 
> Vintage = 1995 or older
> and
> ...


:thumbsup:

Well said.


----------



## Fred Smedley (Feb 28, 2006)

jtmartino said:


> Hey old-timer, calm down with the insults. We're all here for the bikes.
> 
> For the purposes of this forum, most people agree that
> 
> Vintage = 1995 or older


Interesting definition, would not that date change with each new year, and what about exceptions, a 1995 stumpy is considered vintage and a 1996 is not even though they are identical bikes? I suppose a 1996 is RETRO and therefore OK to discuss.


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

In theory the vintage cutoff date SHOULD advance each year, just as it does in car collector circles... but many of this forum's snobs don't seem capable of that most basic logic.


----------



## jeff (Jan 13, 2004)

Then look at it this way. It's about celebrating an era in the history of mountain biking. It's pretty simple in my eyes.


----------



## Steeljaws (May 2, 2010)

The thread started simple enough, a nicely photographed trio of Manitou SXR's (which from my research, started coming out in various iterations in the fall of 1996), with absolutely no reference by the OP as being Vintage, Retro, or Classical. If anything, just a thread of the history and evolution of MTB shock forks. THEN comes the cutesy comment by Boss Hogg, followed by a few snide remarks by his (and only for a lack of a better word) minions, and the deraillment of an otherwise harmless thread which would appear to be nothing more then a "celebration of an era in the history of mountain biking" begins.

My definitions (since the Stickies said it best when the definition of VRC is really up to the individual) for VRC are quite simple:

*Vintage* - Only the original clunkers, put together Frankenstein style with a mixed bag of recycled and/or homemade parts.

*Retro* - Anything new or newer which takes its cues from these old clunkers.

*Classical* - Like in music, it only means a particular period, when such music was _de rigueur_. These Manitou's are a perfect example of shocks of that period, therefore they are classical.

Y'all have a nice day now, ya' hear?


----------



## bushpig (Nov 26, 2005)

DeeEight said:


> In theory the vintage cutoff date SHOULD advance each year, just as it does in car collector circles... but many of this forum's snobs don't seem capable of that most basic logic.


What principle of logic is that, pray tell?


----------



## Guest (Jul 12, 2010)

DeeEight said:


> In theory the vintage cutoff date SHOULD advance each year, just as it does in car collector circles... but many of this forum's snobs don't seem capable of that most basic logic.


In Ca. the advancing of 1 yr. has to do with Smogging your car. We car guy's alway's look forward to that date, when you no longer need smog checks. Yes, I'm a gross polluter.

This Thread is getting just down right silly!


----------



## bushpig (Nov 26, 2005)

A key point is that VxRxCx doesn't capture the entire world of older bikes. There are bikes that are simply O, for "O"ld and "J" for "J"unk and "N" for "N"ostalgic, which typically modifies "O" and "J" bikes to make them more valuable for the individuals feeling the N.


----------



## Shayne (Jan 14, 2004)

I'm feeling nostalgic to own one of OJ's bikes

But I wouldn't put a SX-R on it


----------



## hollister (Sep 16, 2005)

Shayne said:


> I'm feeling nostalgic to own one of OJ's bikes
> 
> But I wouldn't put a SX-R on it


snob!


----------



## chefmiguel (Dec 22, 2007)

Steeljaws, you state that the OP posted forks "with no reference by the OP as being vrc". 


Right! Thats the point, you made it and you shot clear across it.
I'm not trying to bait you but isn't what this forum is about? VRC? Like previously stated its just not in the spirit of the forum. People point it out ( sometimes using humor, sarcasm etc) this shows the forum has personalities. I'm sure AARP is a big boy and can handle it without getting upset.


Where's Othervoices when you need him? Or Kyle for that matter.


----------



## mechagouki (Nov 30, 2007)

They were sucky forks which (IMHBGRO) marked the beginning of Manitou's decline. They're also fairly ugly. 

Advancing the year at which bikes become classic is a dumb idea - big companies like TREK and Specialized don't make bikes with character any longer - I couldn't even tell you what a Stumpjumper is now, the name has been used for so many varying styles of bikes. This forum should be a celebration of the pioneer days of mountain biking.

Here's my new definitions.

Vintage - all the arguments about how the board should be less snobby and elitist are getting really old. 

Retro - new stuff that looks old - duh.

Classic - roughly translated this means that Trauma and Steeljaws can go **** themselves.


----------



## MendonCycleSmith (Feb 10, 2005)

mechagouki said:


> This forum should be a celebration of the pioneer days of mountain biking.


Yep, that pretty much nails it.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

Those manitous are crap. Just looking at them makes me want to puke..
get a marzocchi or a rock shox.


----------



## Vlad (Feb 7, 2004)

VRC is serious business!


----------



## muddybuddy (Jan 31, 2007)

Vlad said:


> VRC is serious business!


Only to those who take it seriously.


----------



## bushpig (Nov 26, 2005)

For the record, here is what a V/C Manitou fork looks like:


----------



## tductape (Mar 31, 2008)

That whole suspension thing is sooooo busy and way overated. 
Can we re draw the VRC line at full rigid?

Very
Rigid
Collection/Classic/Climber (aw heck nothing sounds right) 

How about a poll?


----------



## Guest (Jul 13, 2010)

Aemmer said:


> That whole suspension thing is sooooo busy and way overated.
> Can we re draw the VRC line at full rigid?
> 
> Very
> ...


Do I have to turn my Ritchey Comp Shocker into a "comfort bike'" now since it won't be considered VRC? Trauma liked it...ok I'm on his side now.


----------



## da'HOOV (Jan 3, 2009)

Aemmer said:


> How about a poll?


are you nuts???....I almost got another "time out" from the forum last time I brought that up 

besides....it's already been decided?...read rumphys sticky...:thumbsup:

"poll? we don't need no stinkin poll!"


----------



## KDXdog (Mar 15, 2007)

-----------slow summer----------------How 'bout that Lance guy?


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

da'HOOV said:


> are you nuts???....I almost got another "time out" from the forum last time I brought that up
> 
> besides....it's already been decided?...read rumphys sticky...:thumbsup:
> 
> "poll? we don't need no stinkin poll!"


Rumpfy is right... and i hate him. 
The standards of what VRC means are set. It needs no votes from the ignorant masses. Ignorance has no value.


----------



## bushpig (Nov 26, 2005)

:thumbsup: Let's have a poll to see if Da'Hoov needs another time out! :thumbsup:


----------



## Steeljaws (May 2, 2010)

Damn those SXR's, been takin' a lickin', and still generating a whole lot of angst.


----------



## IF52 (Jan 10, 2004)

STFU already, I just want to look at neat old bikes.


----------



## mechagouki (Nov 30, 2007)

IF52 said:


> STFU already, I just want to look at neat old bikes.


Me too, and that's kind of the root of the problem. This board isn't elitist, anyone is welcome to come here and look at the truly VRC content posted by knowledgeable members like First Flight. There is a wealth of knowledge available from members for whom mountain biking has been the central interest of their lives for 15, 20, even 30 years. I've not been a member for a huge length of time, but what I've noticed is that the only people who tend to suffer what has been termed "hazing" are those who don't 'get' the spirit of the board and seem to garner some pleasure from riling up the people who do. Anyone who has a passion will react strongly when faced with agressive ignorance. Showing up here and telling the members who started this board that they are doing it wrong is pretty rude.

You don't have to post pictures of your run-of-the-mill bikes or parts to be a valuable, involved member here. I don't own any particularly special (to anyone other than me) bikes, but I spend a lot of time here, looking at photos, absorbing information, and occasionally, if I can, trying to help someone with a question. If your posts are causing argument and anger, that is probably a reflection on you, not on the VRC board.


----------



## KDXdog (Mar 15, 2007)

I guess it's time to save this thread, with one of my Manitou forks...:thumbsup: 

everybody relax, it's hot outside!


----------



## TraumaARNP (Oct 13, 2005)

KDXdog said:


> I guess it's time to save this thread, with one of my Manitou forks...:thumbsup:
> 
> everybody relax, it's hot outside!


Not vintage, not retro, but _classical_ly refreshing....just right.


----------



## jeff (Jan 13, 2004)

"Showing up here and telling the members who started this board that they are doing it wrong is pretty rude."

For some it's hard to swallow but it's still very true.


----------



## uphiller (Jan 13, 2004)

A point everyone seems to have missed: there really is only a limited amount of high-quality VRC stuff out there. In the first few months, we had posts about Fats and Bontragers, then more production stuff, then the intro of picture Friday -which now seems defunct-, then some things like 'favorite vintage brakes', then came the blue collar phenomenon... the most interesting stuff has already been discussed, and apart from a few cool bikes that pop up on ebay, we don't have something really interesting to report on a daily basis. 
I say we take a cue from OTHERVOICEZ and post some pictures of ourselves, either now or back in the day, riding!


----------



## cegrover (Oct 17, 2004)

mechagouki said:


> I've not been a member for a huge length of time, but what I've noticed is that the only people who tend to suffer what has been termed "hazing" are those who don't 'get' the spirit of the board and seem to garner some pleasure from riling up the people who do.


Some of us who have been here quite a while still find this entertaining as hell, even if we're not the 'rilers' ourselves.


----------



## girlonbike (Apr 24, 2008)

That's true. This way I can avoid my afternoon soaps.


----------



## mainlyfats (Oct 1, 2005)

That ignore thing rocks. This tiresome thread was worth it just for that.

Can I see more pictures of that Cooks with Cunningham bits now?

Hey - did anyone here get the Ritchey in Idaho with the treasure trove?


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

Steeljaws said:


> THEN comes the cutesy comment by Boss Hogg, followed by a few snide remarks by his (and only for a lack of a better word) minions, and the deraillment of an otherwise harmless thread which would appear to be nothing more then a "celebration of an era in the history of mountain biking" begins.


Go me!


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

colker1 said:


> Rumpfy is right... and i hate him.
> The standards of what VRC means are set. It needs no votes from the ignorant masses. Ignorance has no value.


Haha! When enemies agree....its fact.


----------



## flex50five (Apr 18, 2012)

Hi,

I realize this post is a bit old but I've got a set of these on one of my bikes and I'm having trouble finding parts. I've looked but had no luck thus far.
Any idea of where I might be able to find a damper adjuster knob? I think that assembly on my bike is shot.

(Manitou 99 SX)


----------



## Xizang11 (Feb 3, 2008)

Anybody ever think of making another forum? It would be a bit unkind to call it the "Old, Junk, Nostalgic Forum", but there are certainly a lot of threads about crummy bikes or even not so crummy bikes that fall in the 95-2005 range. 
Personally, my VRC range extends all the way to 97 for some bikes --not everybody gave up on making nice bikes suddenly after the 93 model year-- but when GT, Schwinn, Mongoose, Diamondback, Iron Horse, Salsa, and dozens of others went bust around the turn of the century, it was all over.
At any rate, I say the VRC forum would do well to specify that it's for '93 and earlier, and another forum should be set up for old bikes that don't fit here. With a little luck, it would make the regulars here seem less....unfriendly to passers by or would-be-posters.


----------



## vladas (Feb 3, 2012)

yeahhh


----------

