# Desirable vintage full suspension XC frames?



## zanq (Feb 10, 2004)

Just like the title states, what are some of the vintage FS XC frames (corrected for ~63 mm forks) that were decent designs even by todays standards? Some of the frames I remember (but have no clue on performance) are:

Proflex
Amp Research
Trek Y series
Schwinn with Lawwill designed rear tri (I think that's correct?)
Specialized M2 (not sure if this was an XC frame)

Anything else?


----------



## rayray (Oct 22, 2005)

*Desire = Eye of the Beholder*



zanq said:


> Just like the title states, what are some of the vintage FS XC frames (corrected for ~63 mm forks) that were decent designs even by todays standards? Some of the frames I remember (but have no clue on performance) are:
> 
> Proflex
> Amp Research
> ...


For me, a large part of what makes a bike desirable is aesthetics. Of the bikes you list, I like the Amp Research (purely because I like the way it looks). Perhaps another bike on the list should be the Boulder Bikes Gazelle. I have it's descendent - the Defiant - and like the way it both looks and rides.


----------



## floibex (Feb 7, 2004)

... ted wojcik soft trac-fs. in my opinion the best "amp-strut-design" bike ever made. stiff, light, fast! even now a real good x-country racer. reynolds 853 main frame and battle rear. fantasic welds.










ciao
flo


----------



## ROG30Y (Sep 10, 2004)

I liked my old GT RTS bike.was a great XC bike and they just look tuff..


----------



## shiggy (Dec 19, 1998)

The Spec. M2 was a hardtail.


----------



## logbiter (Dec 30, 2003)

zanq said:


> Just like the title states, what are some of the vintage FS XC frames (corrected for ~63 mm forks) that were decent designs even by todays standards? Some of the frames I remember (but have no clue on performance) are:
> 
> Proflex
> Amp Research
> ...


M2? you mean the ground control or early fs?
I dunno about the y-series, was it ever a 'decent' design, at least to ride?

I always liked Castellenos & wojcik's work.

well... what about the Santa Cruz Tazmon.. here's mine ('97), old pic, she doesn't see much action these days (HT & singlespeeder).. not quite vintage perhaps.

cya,
Serge


----------



## EndoRando (Sep 21, 2004)

*Still love it*

and still ride it. I've modified my Mantis Pro Floater by adding SnoCat wheels and a rear disc mount from Pete. Rear braking was always weak on this frame, and that's now cured.

I have always had a hardtail snowbike, but sometimes we get periods with no fresh snow, and the trails get really hard packed. These trails then become the preferred travel routes for moose, and the divots they create really roughen up the riding. Enter a short travel full suspension bike to keep from being so beat up, my Mantis Snow Floater. It sees limited single purpose duty now, but excels at it and still brings on the smiles. It's an older suspension design that feels awfully refined still, albeit with some rear end wag.

Rando


----------



## t2p (Jul 22, 2004)

zanq said:


> Just like the title states, what are some of the vintage FS XC frames (corrected for ~63 mm forks) that were decent designs even by todays standards? Some of the frames I remember (but have no clue on performance) are:
> 
> Proflex
> Amp Research
> ...


.
.
Litespeed Obed / FS. Titanium main frame and the AMP rear triangle.


----------



## WTB-rider (Jul 25, 2004)

WTB Bon Tempe.


----------



## zanq (Feb 10, 2004)

I thought there was a full suspension version of the M2. I could be mistaken.

Remembered another: GT LTS


----------



## itsdoable (Jan 6, 2004)

Some people would argue about the decent design criteria, but since it's not really being made anymore - this still gets ridden alot:


----------



## mtber3737 (Dec 23, 2004)

*What rear shock are you running??*

That doesn't look like the Noleen shock that Richard originally spec'd on the bike... what are you running? I have a green (British racing green of course) custom ProFloater that he built for me about 12 years ago...designed with an Action Tech single crown fork (design stolen by Mark Ferris and sold to Cannondale).... it's got a whole 1.5 inches of travel!!!! Still rides great, although now designated as my wife's bike. You're right, the rear was always the weakest area due to the bushing design that Richard used in those days.


----------



## Noserider (Oct 8, 2005)

My 95 yeti as is sweet.
Rides as well as any bike i have riden.


----------



## EndoRando (Sep 21, 2004)

mtber3737 said:


> That doesn't look like the Noleen shock that Richard originally spec'd on the bike... what are you running?


37, it's a Risse air shock. It really helped aid in increasing the rear's lateral rigidity. The shock shaft has a much larger diameter than the stock Noleen coil shock has. The Noleens were notorious for taking the brunt of the rear end's wag and would develop leaky seals quite often. The Risse air has helped tremendously with this symptom.

Risse made three versions that would fit the Mantis: a simple non-damped shock, a rebound adjusting shock (which I have), and a full blown rebound and compression adjustable version. I believe they could still accomodate you if you look them up.

Rando


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

Noserider said:


> My 95 yeti as is sweet.
> Rides as well as any bike i have riden.


I think that's a cool looking bike. Vintage...but not so 'wild'.


----------



## mtber3737 (Dec 23, 2004)

*Alright! I've been trying for years to upgrade the shcok!*

Risse made three versions that would fit the Mantis: a simple non-damped shock, a rebound adjusting shock (which I have), and a full blown rebound and compression adjustable version. I believe they could still accomodate you if you look them up.

Dude! You just made my day! I've been trying for years to upgrade the rear shock. Had NO idea that someone had made a Mantis compatible rear shock... awesome!. I looked Risse up on the web and sure as sh-t they do make the three shocks. Probably spring for the Terminator (ARNOLD) as I've changed out the Action Tech fork (1.75 inches) to a 130 Fox Vanila RCL... a little high on the front, but oh what fun!

My wife keeps complaining that I don't ever give or sell my bikes and they keep filling up the garage! The Mantis is such a classic how can I get rid of her??? (the bike not the wife!) Also presently have a custom Salsa, Kein Pinacle, Santa Cruz Blur and a 5.5 Intense... I keep telling her I don't know how they got there... they just keep multiplying in the garage... like bunnies.... hmmmm....

Again, thanks for the info.


----------



## EndoRando (Sep 21, 2004)

mtber3737 said:


> Dude! You just made my day! I've been trying for years to upgrade the rear shock. Had NO idea that someone had made a Mantis compatible rear shock... awesome!


37, glad I made your day. I think I've had my Astro-5 version since '97. It's a fine shock, and could save you a few bucks over the Terminator model. I just didn't see the need for compression damping in such a short travel bike.

Here's a closer pic, notice how large the shock shaft is compared to the Noleen.

The next biggest improvement modification I made was to pick up a rear disc mount made by Pete. This was a limited run, and there may not be any more available, but you could PM flyingsuperpetis to see if he has any more left. They're a very nice design, well thought out.

These two additions have transformed this bike. I would have never gotten rid of it in its stock form, but now I know I'll hang onto it as well as riding it occassionally.

Rando


----------



## Jeroen (Jan 12, 2004)

AMPed '95 DeKerf:


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

Jeroen said:


> AMPed '95 DeKerf:


That's one yours is it Jer? I know you're a DeKerf owner...but I didn't recall you having a sussy version.


----------



## Debaser (Jan 12, 2004)

Fat Shockabilly. Ver 2 preferably.


----------



## Jeroen (Jan 12, 2004)

Rumpfy said:


> That's one yours is it Jer? I know you're a DeKerf owner...but I didn't recall you having a sussy version.


Yep, although its a frame-only at this time. I took it apart, didn't like the way it 'floats'... but after having ridden other fully's (new models), the Amp-DK wasn't so bad afterall, so Im off in search for those parts I sold 1,5yr back.

I have 4 DK's in total;

'00 Team SL
'96 Generation with Brodie Gatorblade and M900 parts
'93/'94 Team/Mountain, frame-only. The one pictured naked in the catalogs back than
'95 Suspension.


----------



## rayray (Oct 22, 2005)

*Wowee!!*



EndoRando said:


> and still ride it. I've modified my Mantis Pro Floater by adding SnoCat wheels and a rear disc mount from Pete. Rear braking was always weak on this frame, and that's now cured.
> 
> I have always had a hardtail snowbike, but sometimes we get periods with no fresh snow, and the trails get really hard packed. These trails then become the preferred travel routes for moose, and the divots they create really roughen up the riding. Enter a short travel full suspension bike to keep from being so beat up, my Mantis Snow Floater. It sees limited single purpose duty now, but excels at it and still brings on the smiles. It's an older suspension design that feels awfully refined still, albeit with some rear end wag.
> 
> Rando


Now THAT is one sweeeet ride!!


----------



## long_strange_ride (May 2, 2004)

*Amp B5*

They are prettly rare. Problably because Amp just licensed the design to Specialized right after they made a few.


----------



## rasaldul (Jan 7, 2004)

'96 Moots DH-88










very smooth acting suspension with 3.5" of travel


----------



## Jeroen (Jan 12, 2004)

Marc... thats such a poser-bike...



Me likes it  Don't wanna know what happens when the chainstays break free from the rocker though, while riding it...


----------



## rayray (Oct 22, 2005)

*Me Boulder Bikes Defiant...*



rayray said:


> For me, a large part of what makes a bike desirable is aesthetics. Of the bikes you list, I like the Amp Research (purely because I like the way it looks). Perhaps another bike on the list should be the Boulder Bikes Gazelle. I have it's descendent - the Defiant - and like the way it both looks and rides.


Here are a couple of pics of my Defiant. Its currently built up with a Mavic drivetrain and Campy cantis. Fun to play with, but I think I'm going to rebuild it with a more decent fork and an assortment of CNCed/anodized parts, including some decent Vs.


----------



## LQQK (Jan 6, 2004)

*Boulder Starship*

This is my Ti Boulder Starship.
I used to have a Boulder Interpid, very similar to the Defiant showing (same colour) and campy (record OR) cantis.
Love that Moots too!


----------



## Bigwheel (Jan 12, 2004)

This bike, that was custom made in 99', is a pretty much blatant copy of the AMP design which we felt was the most time tested and easiest to pull of in a small custom shop. Fully Ti (including the fork legs) and a minimal 3" of suspension. But it rode like none other I thought at the time and still do. It is the only one ever made.

It is significant in that it was the first FS bike built for 29" wheels. Now a short 6 years later there are 3, 4 and 5" travel 29"ers that follow the more current design(s) criteria. But for several years this bike was a lone wolf.


----------



## misctwo (Oct 24, 2004)

rayray said:


> Here are a couple of pics of my Defiant. Its currently built up with a Mavic drivetrain and Campy cantis. Fun to play with, but I think I'm going to rebuild it with a more decent fork and an assortment of CNCed/anodized parts, including some decent Vs.


that rig is awesome...... don't change it, baby, not for the world!


----------



## AndrewTO (Mar 30, 2005)

zanq said:


> Just like the title states, what are some of the vintage FS XC frames (corrected for ~63 mm forks) that were decent designs even by todays standards? Some of the frames I remember (but have no clue on performance) are:
> 
> Proflex


HEY! 

Oh, wait, _decent design_ - it's a compliment.

Vintage? Okay, that's NOT!

HEY! 

Was the Trek Y series not URT? I believe it was. If i'm correct then i'd strike that from your list. That stuff isn't decent.


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

Yes the Y-bikes were URTs but the original Y-22/33 at least had a seriously light frame (4.5 pounds) in their favour, and they did get raced by the trek squad at several events.


----------



## Thylacine (Feb 29, 2004)

I've been following this thread and am now thoroughly convinced that Retro-freaks don't actually ride.  

What's desirable about ANY of these bikes? The Y bikes are awful, that Moots is awful, the AMPs are utter sheit....

Okay, so I'd take that ProFlo, but that's about it  

Maybe an early-ish Turner or Ventana would be cool to have and actually ride, but there's a very good reason old FS bikes aren't desirable.

Completely OT - which one of you lucky bastidz bought the Turquiose FRO Pro on ebay last week?


----------



## mtber3737 (Dec 23, 2004)

*Gosh... sorry to dissapoint you but*



Thylacine said:


> I've been following this thread and am now thoroughly convinced that Retro-freaks don't actually ride.
> 
> What's desirable about ANY of these bikes? The Y bikes are awful, that Moots is awful, the AMPs are utter sheit....
> 
> ...


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

Thylacine said:


> What's desirable about ANY of these bikes? The Y bikes are awful, that Moots is awful, the AMPs are utter sheit....


AMPs (actual ones, not the myriad of clones) were also the first bike to employ a shock that had a specific low-speed damper circuit built-in to filter out pedal inputs. Of course this also hurts small bump performance and later versions had an adjustable damper to tune this behaviour, but still... what EVERYONE demands in their shocks today, whether it be called propedal, or stable platform, or whatever trademarked name you want for the latest and greatest pedal-platform friendly shock valving... Amp's had them first... THIRTEEN YEARS AGO !!! Long before anyone in bicycles had ever heard of someone named Curnutt ! And it was that circuit that led to the reputation of amp's being such good climbing full suspension bikes. They didn't respond to pedal inputs and did respond to bumps (med to big stuff). This put them ahead of things like hardtails and softtails. The frames were also lightweight and designed specifically for XC riders. If people went and used them as DH/DS machines and broke 'em, that's their own damn fault.


----------



## Bigwheel (Jan 12, 2004)

*Nuff Said?*


----------



## logbiter (Dec 30, 2003)

astro-5 works great on my Tazmon, never felt the need to get the terminator.
Risse will do custom damping for ya, just ask 'em about it.


----------



## zanq (Feb 10, 2004)

Thylacine said:


> I've been following this thread and am now thoroughly convinced that Retro-freaks don't actually ride.
> 
> What's desirable about ANY of these bikes?


Usually, individuals who study and embrase the past are the ones who are truly passionate about the sport. What's desirable about restoring a vintage Mustang or Corvette when a 2005 Honda could beat it down the drag strip? What's desirable about finding and restoring a piece of antique furniture when you can go to Walmart? It has less to with the actual performance, more of owning a piece of the past.

The reason for my thread is to get a better idea of what existed back in the day since I have a 63 mm, 1" steerer Judy XC and a myriad of other parts that would almost build a complete bike. I'm not looking to race it, simply have a cool vintage bike with the proper geometry that I can take for a spin.


----------



## grawbass (Aug 23, 2004)

DeeEight said:


> AMPs (actual ones, not the myriad of clones) were also the first bike to employ a shock that had a specific low-speed damper circuit built-in to filter out pedal inputs. Of course this also hurts small bump performance and later versions had an adjustable damper to tune this behaviour, but still... what EVERYONE demands in their shocks today, whether it be called propedal, or stable platform, or whatever trademarked name you want for the latest and greatest pedal-platform friendly shock valving... Amp's had them first... THIRTEEN YEARS AGO !!! Long before anyone in bicycles had ever heard of someone named Curnutt ! And it was that circuit that led to the reputation of amp's being such good climbing full suspension bikes. They didn't respond to pedal inputs and did respond to bumps (med to big stuff). This put them ahead of things like hardtails and softtails. The frames were also lightweight and designed specifically for XC riders. If people went and used them as DH/DS machines and broke 'em, that's their own damn fault.


Didn't Rock Shox also do this to a degree with the Mag 21....over ten years ago?


----------



## Repack Rider (Oct 22, 2005)

*Lawwill Leader*



zanq said:


> Just like the title states, what are some of the vintage FS XC frames (corrected for ~63 mm forks) that were decent designs even by todays standards?


Here's the Lawwill Leader from my archives. He did a rear suspension, but I didn't have a photo of that.

By modern standards, these suspensions have limitations, since the amount of travel was only a few inches.

But it's a cool pic. I have a friend with the complete FS Lawwill bike. I'll make him dig it out for photos.


----------



## Jeroen (Jan 12, 2004)

Charlie,

thanks for the picture... I have a Lawwill Leader 3 fork here, which I have used a few weeks on one of my xc bikes. The front wheel is almost in a direct plane with the steerer tube, so it corners uh... 'special'  

That bike in the picture... do you happen to have any bigger photo's of that bike? For a moment you had me thinking thats the last Breezer that Joe himself brazed together. And as a matter of fact the only Breezer he has made ever, with a spearpointed-paintjob. 1992 it was, I believe. Im not quite sure if this is that very frame, since I believe it was silver-black and not white/pearl-black-ish.


----------



## logbiter (Dec 30, 2003)

misctwo said:


> that rig is awesome...... don't change it, baby, not for the world!


Yeah, sweet ride!
How do those designs handle? basically a 'soft-tail' no?


----------



## wv_bob (Sep 12, 2005)

I found this picture the other day, Jamis Dakar Team


----------



## JmZ (Jan 10, 2004)

My list of some of the Retro/Vintage bikes that I lusted after:

Boulder (I think they're mentioned below)
Amp B-3 and B-4
Proflex 957
Jamis Dakar Team (96/97)
Rocky Mountain Element/Ventana 
Specialized FSR (The original Horst Linkage)
Specialized Carbon FSR. It was very purty... and ahead of it's time a XC bike with 4 inches of travel.
Cannondale Super V's
Old Turners
Santa Cruz Superlight

The funny thing is... most of these are still around in some form or another. The Amp's, and Proflex designs are some of the few that I think that have disappeared.

The Dakar/Element design is still alive and well, the Specialized FSR is now a C-Dale Scalpel. The old C-Dale designs are just updated, as are the Turners and Superlights.

JmZ



zanq said:


> Just like the title states, what are some of the vintage FS XC frames (corrected for ~63 mm forks) that were decent designs even by todays standards? Some of the frames I remember (but have no clue on performance) are:
> 
> Proflex
> Amp Research
> ...


----------



## cegrover (Oct 17, 2004)

The DBR V10 below (now just a stripped frame in my garage) is a 1998, but the V-Link came out in 1995, which is borderline vintage these days. Of course, I've noticed this design is very similar to somewhat later FSR designs. Does anyone know which came out first?

I've never known whether (pre-Raliegh) Diamondback paid for a license from Specialized for these 90s bikes. My understanding their 2001 to current XSL design, which is very similar, is licensed.

Oh well, the bottom line for me is that the V-Link is still a great ride...


----------



## Jeroen (Jan 12, 2004)

cegrover said:


> The DBR V10 below (now just a stripped frame in my garage) is a 1998, but the V-Link came out in 1995, which is borderline vintage these days. Of course, I've noticed this design is very similar to somewhat later FSR designs. Does anyone know which came out first?
> 
> I've never known whether (pre-Raliegh) Diamondback paid for a license from Specialized for these 90s bikes. My understanding their 2001 to current XSL design, which is very similar, is licensed.


It's not a Horst Link design, as far as I can tell. The dropout is connected to the chainstays. With a Horst Link, the dropout is welded to the seatstays, which cause the rear axle to move along an arc, and not along a circle with the heart at the main pivot behind the BB, as it will in this design.


----------



## t2p (Jul 22, 2004)

Thylacine said:


> I've been following this thread and am now thoroughly convinced that Retro-freaks don't actually ride.
> 
> What's desirable about ANY of these bikes? The Y bikes are awful, that Moots is awful, the AMPs are utter sheit....
> 
> ...


.
AMP - or AMP rear ? Why ? Lightweight and efficient. Great handling and fun to throw around. Under 23 lb - full suspension - without resorting to unobtainium this-and-that .... that sounds desirable to me. Still one of the best XC designs. Not for a big person - but then again, many of the XC designs are not great for a clyde. 
.
btw: I would rather ride an AMP with a blown rear shock than many of the other designs.
. 
.


----------



## cegrover (Oct 17, 2004)

Jeroen said:


> It's not a Horst Link design, as far as I can tell. The dropout is connected to the chainstays. With a Horst Link, the dropout is welded to the seatstays, which cause the rear axle to move along an arc, and not along a circle with the heart at the main pivot behind the BB, as it will in this design.


You're right, the dropout is attached to the chainstay, with the seatstay/chainstay pivot point above it. Maybe that was just enough of a difference to prevent patent infringement...

Here's a closer look:


----------



## t2p (Jul 22, 2004)

JmZ said:


> My list of some of the Retro/Vintage bikes that I lusted after:
> 
> Boulder (I think they're mentioned below)
> Amp B-3 and B-4
> ...


The AMP design is alive and well .......


----------



## Fast Eddy (Dec 30, 2003)

*Specialized Ground Control*

The Specialized Ground Control was the first FS that I ever saw; sometime around '93. Apparently there was a Fisher in '90.

"One of the first successful full suspension bikes was designed by Mert Lawwill, a former motorcycle champion. His bike, the Gary Fisher RS-1, was released in 1990. It adapted the A-arm suspension design from sports car racing, and was arguably the first four bar linkage in mountain biking. This design solved the twin problems of unwanted braking and pedaling input to the rear wheel, but the design wasn't flawless. Lawwill's design was hindered because it couldn't use traditional cantilever brakes and had to use disc brakes. A lightweight, powerful disc brake wasn't developed until the mid 1990s, and the disc brake used on the RS-1 was its downfall. In 1993, another motorcycle racer named Horst Leitner designed a bike that utilized the four bar linkage design and accepted a normal cantilever brake. This bike was the Specialized FSR. This bike became the standard by which all other full suspension designs were judged for the next decade."


----------



## JmZ (Jan 10, 2004)

t2p said:


> The AMP design is alive and well .......


Sorry I should have clarified, I have not seen many AMP Strut designs remaining, though I have seen *lots* of variations on the AMP Linkage (the B-5) design.

Also it's funny...I realized something. I've owned the following:

Diamondback V-Link - '95/96. 
Specialized Ground Control - '97. It was an Amp B-4 Clone.
Jamis Dakar Team - '97
Rocky Mountain Fanatik - '03 (Still same design type though)
Ventana El Feugo - '05

And most of 'em now are starting to be Retro/Vintage (though maybe not classic, yet). It felt like there was a period or three where a good XC cross country ride was difficult to find.

JmZ


----------



## t2p (Jul 22, 2004)

JmZ said:


> Sorry I should have clarified, I have not seen many AMP Strut designs remaining, though I have seen *lots* of variations on the AMP Linkage (the B-5) design.
> 
> Also it's funny...I realized something. I've owned the following:
> 
> ...


.
Titus ? Titus Racer X ..... similar to an AMP strut design.
.
How did you like the V Link ? One of my buds had one and really liked it.
.


----------



## AndrewTO (Mar 30, 2005)

JmZ said:


> The funny thing is... most of these are still around in some form or another. The Amp's, and Proflex designs are some of the few that I think that have disappeared.


Not to be picking on you or anything, but the ProFlex design is one of the oldest in the book, the simplest and most copied. Take a look at many of today's popular SP design's and you'll see instant omage to it. IIRC, Santa Cruz has two frame's that are very similar. Plenty of SP's do this nowadays.  Good stuff.


----------



## JmZ (Jan 10, 2004)

t2p said:


> .
> Titus ? Titus Racer X ..... similar to an AMP strut design.
> .
> How did you like the V Link ? One of my buds had one and really liked it.
> .


The V-Link was a good bike. It was the bike the sold me on rear suspension, and even on the entry level model too. Within the first week I was clearing and climbing things that I couldn't on the hardtail that the V-Link sat beside.

I'm just shaped weird, and I didn't fit the bike very well. The quest a properly fitting bike started. It's been an expensive learning process. 

The Racer X's now have a small linkage... put's em closer to the B-5 in my book than the B-4 or B-3. (Same thought with the Proflex Mac Strut bikes, I forgot about the simple single pivots they did before that.)

JmZ


----------



## AndrewTO (Mar 30, 2005)

grawbass said:


> Didn't Rock Shox also do this to a degree with the Mag 21....over ten years ago?


How so?


----------



## t2p (Jul 22, 2004)

JmZ said:


> The V-Link was a good bike. It was the bike the sold me on rear suspension, and even on the entry level model too. Within the first week I was clearing and climbing things that I couldn't on the hardtail that the V-Link sat beside.
> 
> I'm just shaped weird, and I didn't fit the bike very well. The quest a properly fitting bike started. It's been an expensive learning process.
> 
> ...


.
I thought the Racer X linkage (and a few other similar designs) was there primarly to add strength ....... 'tighten it up' ......... so to speak ....... ???


----------



## Ricky J (Jul 17, 2005)

*Electric Sex*

Ventana Marble Peak.


----------



## fishy (Jan 2, 2004)

Ricky J said:


> Ventana Marble Peak.


oh dear, that is already vintage? i am still riding it, and probably because i have not ridden others, i think it is still awesome. ;-)


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

Nevermind Amp's.... all the Amp clones. Dagger, Supergo's Access version, Battle Tomahawk, FatChance Shock-a-billy, we had the dekerf one mentioned already above, Rocky Mountain Edge, etc.

The stabilizing link on the Racer-X is an idea stolen from Specialized's 97 vintage FSR-XC anyways.

Wheeler had a model in the early 90s, forget the model number (all wheelers were numbered, much like trek does) but it was a walking-beam 4-bar with a concentric BB main pivot, made out of titanium.


----------



## Repack Rider (Oct 22, 2005)

*Joe's bike*



Jeroen said:


> Charlie,
> 
> thanks for the picture... I have a Lawwill Leader 3 fork here, which I have used a few weeks on one of my xc bikes. The front wheel is almost in a direct plane with the steerer tube, so it corners uh... 'special'
> 
> That bike in the picture... do you happen to have any bigger photo's of that bike? For a moment you had me thinking thats the last Breezer that Joe himself brazed together. And as a matter of fact the only Breezer he has made ever, with a spearpointed-paintjob. 1992 it was, I believe. Im not quite sure if this is that very frame, since I believe it was silver-black and not white/pearl-black-ish.


I went for a ride with Joe yesterday. We took the new trail out of Fairfax called the Underpass Trail, which is about an hour and a half to the top of Repack. We bombed Repack together for the first time in years. It's been groomed for the first time in 30 years, and the OGs from all over the county are swarming to Fairfax.

The BIG ride is three days away, the Appetite Seminar, an annual event since 1974 and now the biggest thing that ever hits Fairfax, hundreds of riders showing up for the 20-mile Pine Mountain loop ending with a run down Repack.

Joe was riding a FS Breezer with a Lawwill fork. He said it was one of his original FS models, and the bike is at least ten years old, if not more. Next time I go over to his house I will be sure to get photos of all his bikes, because he has a great collection.


----------



## Thylacine (Feb 29, 2004)

Bigwheel said:


>


Thanks for posting that, Bigwheel, although I don't think 2001 is 'vintage'  As for desirable, well, that's the first Thylacine ever made, and it was never really made for production - more a case of "I wonder if I do a full suspension prototype, how close can I get it to production quality on the first go" type excercise. A quick serach will show that that bike is probably the most sophisticated full suspension bike ever made in Australia. Of course, that's a sad indictment of the bike industry here, and something we're doing our best to actively change.

The goal for all Aussie bike companies is to build an industry to rival the quality of our riders. We may not be up there with the big names yet, but just like our riders, it's just a matter of time.

Now, back OT. I actually used to own a 1994 Mantis Pro Floater, so although I don't 'live' in these forums or have the cash to have my own museum, I do have an affinity with retro bikes. However, what I learned from having the Mantis and building that proto is that suspension has changed so much in the past 10 years, all it's doing is making vintage hardtails more desirable for me.

It's hard to quantify 'desirable' as 'desirable' in a vintage collectable sense is whatever is rare and sought after. If that's the criteria, then anything that fits that criteria is 'desirable'.

However, as I like to ride my bikes and want form AND function, there isn't many FS vintage bikes I'd want to own.

However, the old IRD and MountainGoat designs (amongst others) would be fun to have, if even just to pull them out once and a while and have a chuckle!

We've come a long way, baby!


----------



## Zanetti (Sep 18, 2005)

grawbass said:


> Didn't Rock Shox also do this to a degree with the Mag 21....over ten years ago?


Yes, to an extent.

By rotating the knobs clockwise on top of each leg, you're moving the valve assembly deeper into the valve body, increasing low speed compression damping, and reducing small bump response and pedal bob.


----------



## Gambler (Jul 21, 2005)

*Bon Tempe*

Here's a classic - 1999 WTB Bon Tempe. I searched long and hard for this one. Sweet spot technology. The WTB guys spent a long time playing with the pivot location. The ride turned out great - very plush. The frames were insanely expensive - around $4,000 with the custom 1 1/2" seat post and seat! It doesn't get ridden too much these days as I mostly on my 29er.


----------



## CraigH (Dec 22, 2003)

logbiter said:


> well... what about the Santa Cruz Tazmon.. here's mine ('97), old pic, she doesn't see much action these days (HT & singlespeeder).. not quite vintage perhaps.


Can you post this pic on the Tazmon thread on the SC board? 
People occasionally post looking for pics of them, or ask questions about them.


----------



## Sideknob (Jul 14, 2005)

*Von Tempe*



Gambler said:


> Here's a classic - 1999 WTB Bon Tempe. I searched long and hard for this one. Sweet spot technology. The WTB guys spent a long time playing with the pivot location. The ride turned out great - very plush. The frames were insanely expensive - around $4,000 with the custom 1 1/2" seat post and seat! It doesn't get ridden too much these days as I mostly on my 29er.


Looks a bit like a Klein Mantra. Nice.


----------



## lucifer (Sep 27, 2004)

I have never owned a full susser. The only ones I was ever tempted by were the billy, the amp b3, the pro floater, and the ibis ti ones. If I were to move somewhere a lot rockier I might get one but otherwise I just don't see the need for all that weight and complication.


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

Sideknob said:


> Looks a bit like a Klein Mantra. Nice.


Uh...Reverse that.


----------



## noslogan (Jan 21, 2004)

*I call foul*



Rumpfy said:


> Uh...Reverse that.


Sort of. I don't know when the BT came out.

First, I would dig to have a Bon Tempe. 

B, did the BT come out in '94 or '95? 
I have a '96 Mantra.


----------



## cegrover (Oct 17, 2004)

*I've never seen this before...*

Bianchi Super GL Currently on Ebay

Very interesting suspension design. I looked it up and this baby was $3500 new and claimed about 25 lbs. Anyway here ever ride one?


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

Its about a 1995-96 era as I recall.


----------



## MendonCycleSmith (Feb 10, 2005)

JmZ said:


> My list of some of the Retro/Vintage bikes that I lusted after:
> 
> Proflex 957
> 
> Yeah! I read all the way through, The OP mentioned Proflex, but no one chimed in about it. I would be hard pressed to really call them vintage, my 957 was 1 1/8" HT. The older ones got to be 1" and some were even Cromo, but the elastomer ones ran like poop. Once they got the Noleens in there they were a great riding bike, I loved the way the swingarm got pulled into the ground in the small ring. That thing climbed GREAT. Amazing that I used to think the 90mm it pumped out was BIG TRAVEL= I still have it, but a cracked headtube ended it's useful life, now it's art, hanging on the wall!


----------

