# Are there any decent vintage full-suspension bikes?



## Austin Dave (Jul 7, 2010)

Preface: I know exactly nothing about full suspension bikes.

Are there any older (even vintage) full-suspension bikes that are worth riding? Was there old technology that was reliable and durable but just lost out to other technology? 

Or are old full-suspension bikes like old computers, somewhat interesting but not nearly as functional and reliable as new stuff? 

If there are older bikes with rear suspensions worth keeping a look out for, I'd be interested to know which ones they are. I don't want one that is just a curiosity, but fully functional and fun. I'm not going to race it, but I would only have one if I could ride it and have fun with it without worrying about it. 

Thanks,
Dave


----------



## mechagouki (Nov 30, 2007)

There are some well thought of early full-sus designs, but they fail as regular riders on two counts (that spring to mind), They are frequently heavy - it's taken 15 years for the industry to produce reliable 4-bar designs that are xc light - and replacement bushings/small parts are either very difficult to find or heinously overpriced and some of them wear out very fast (GT LTS is known for this). Also recent improvements in stable platform shock technology have made modern FS bikes a pleasure to ride - older designs frequently suffer from pedal feedback, brake jack etc. There are several older FS bikes that I love the look of - The original steel framed Specialized FSR (?) is one that I would immediately think of and like to own, but I ride a 2K8 TREK Fuel EX if the trail warrants it, otherwise it's my Ti hardtail.


----------



## cegrover (Oct 17, 2004)

You'll find a variety of opinions and, of course, mixed definitions of "older" and "vintage". Some designs still work well and are still ridden and some are generally considered horrible. Early Trek and early Cannondale are generally considered bad examples of mass produced FS bikes, but there are also wacky ones from smaller builders.

Here are a few relevant threads:

http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=79866&highlight=dual+suspension

http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=537470&highlight=worst

http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=488171&highlight=worst+suspension

Edit:

I have fairly recent experience with this frame, and it can be built to be quite light:

http://home.comcast.net/~cason.grover/MBA_Jul98_2pg1.jpg

It seems there were quite a few pretty good designs by the late 90s. Schwinn Rocket 88 strikes me as another mass-produced one with a good reputation. The early ones have bushing replacement issues, though, and just about all of the earlier FS bikes can benefit from platform shocks, although lockouts were available at the top end.


----------



## Austin Dave (Jul 7, 2010)

Thanks! I tried to search this board for threads like the first one you listed:
_What Dualies are Vintage or Classic?_
but I didn't get much at all. That one is a big help. Thanks a bunch. 
The Diamondback V8 looks great, thanks for that, too. 
Dave


cegrover said:


> You'll find a variety of opinions and, of course, mixed definitions of "older" and "vintage". Some designs still work well and are still ridden and some are generally considered horrible. Early Trek and early Cannondale are generally considered bad examples of mass produced FS bikes, but there are also wacky ones from smaller builders.
> 
> Here are a few relevant threads:
> 
> ...


----------



## DoubleCentury (Nov 12, 2005)

Some considered good at the time,

Mantis Pro-floater: http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=448919

AMP B-2: http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=471703

Answer Manitou: http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=498411


----------



## laffeaux (Jan 4, 2004)

I own a Mantis Pro Floater which in the early to mid 1990s was considered to be one of the better FS designs. I also own a "modern" FS which uses a Titus Racer X rear end. Both bikes are single pivot designs. I also rode a Santa Cruz Blur for several years.

For all out performance, the modern stuff works better. However for a ride after work with friends, my Pro Floater works completely fine. It's incredibly "plush" and the rear end is a lot more active than on my modern bike. I probably loose a little power on climbs on the Pro Floater, and it blows through it's travel quicker - and there's less travel to blow through. The rear end is pretty flexy by today's standards - it's noticeable in turns when the suspension is moving, and this likely wears on bushings, but doesn't affect my ride much.

One of the issues with older designs is lack of parts. If your modern bike needs a bushing or seal, you can generally find it. With older bikes, finding what you need may be tough.

If you're looking for a fun bike and you have a spare bike, an older FS will work fine. If you're looking for the most performance available, newer designs are probably a better option.


----------



## A-Ray (Oct 18, 2009)

I loved my old ProFlex Beast. Very light and fast for the time(96)


----------



## Austin Dave (Jul 7, 2010)

Holy smokes! Those are beautiful. I've never seen any of those before. Those pics are serious bike porn. Really athletic looking bikes. The AMP B-2 is stunning.

Thanks!
Dave


DoubleCentury said:


> Some considered good at the time,
> 
> Mantis Pro-floater: http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=448919
> 
> ...


----------



## Austin Dave (Jul 7, 2010)

laffeaux said:


> If you're looking for a fun bike and you have a spare bike, an older FS will work fine. If you're looking for the most performance available, newer designs are probably a better option.


Thanks, Laffeaux. Yeah, I'm not looking to be competitive in anyway, just something suspended and fun. I have hardtail bikes, but was just wondering if any old suspended bikes were worth trying. There is a mint looking Diamondback VLink on the LA Craigslist. If I lived there, I'd check it out.

Thanks.


----------



## KDXdog (Mar 15, 2007)

Austin Dave said:


> Preface: I know exactly nothing about full suspension bikes.
> 
> Are there any older (even vintage) full-suspension bikes that are worth riding? Was there old technology that was reliable and durable but just lost out to other technology?


I guess that would depend on the individual, but I'd say yes, why not?

It's funny, I've been going through a big pile of old magazines, and it seems every year there was the "it" suspension bike. Remember the early Yeti with about 2 inches of suspension, all the Amp rear end bikes, VPP, the many GT designs, Maverick, Spyder, the Holy Grail, Mountain Cycle, STP, etc etc?

Attached is my old Jamis Team. I like to ride it. I've raced it. It's light. The original shock pictured recently blew apart, and has been replaced with a Cloud 9. Would I race a downhill or drop off a building with it? No. Can I keep up with guys with newer full sus bikes on an xc ride? Yup, no problem.

Just stay clear of those Manitou bikes, pretty as they are, most seem to break over time.


----------



## wv_bob (Sep 12, 2005)

I was going to mention the Jamis Dakar but you beat me to it. I had one of those Team frames and it was the t1ts, especially compared to the Y-bikes of the day.

I think Jamis still sold the same basic frame up until recently, maybe they still do.


----------



## iheartbicycles (Mar 14, 2008)

Austin Dave said:


> Preface: I know exactly nothing about full suspension bikes.
> 
> Are there any older (even vintage) full-suspension bikes that are worth riding? Was there old technology that was reliable and durable but just lost out to other technology?
> 
> ...


The Foes LTS came out in 1993 with 6" travel. That was revolutionary at the time.


----------



## MendonCycleSmith (Feb 10, 2005)

Since no one has mentioned it, and it falls neatly into a category without the pitfalls of bushings, linkages etc. 

Cannondale Super V. Loved by many, hated by most here. The earlier versions had issues with carbon swing arms, and a design that used a now defunct shock, the Fox Alps. 

Go to about 1996 though, and you can put a modern shock in them. This matters if you want to be able to service it,and use it regularly. It also offers you the option of putting a platform shock on,which makes it ride really, really well. 

@laffeaux, Racer X a single pivot? Why were they paying Specialized for the rights to FSR if that's the case, or am I missing something?

Super V's, rightly, wrongly, or perhaps sadly, are easily the most copied design on the planet for cheap bikes. Go to any Walmart and you'll see what I mean....


----------



## iheartbicycles (Mar 14, 2008)

MendonCycleSmith said:


> Since no one has mentioned it, and it falls neatly into a category without the pitfalls of bushings, linkages etc.
> 
> Cannondale Super V. Loved by many, hated by most here. The earlier versions had issues with carbon swing arms, and a design that used a now defunct shock, the Fox Alps.
> 
> ...


I loved my super v. I had the faded purple with carbon swing arm - shown in the pic below. I eventually removed the paint and polished it. It got a lot of looks!


----------



## ssulljm (Sep 3, 2006)

*Softride*

Still riding mine, this bike is from 1995-ish, and the pic is from my ride last week.
IMHO, the best all around FS bike I've ever ridden for my riding style.(and I've ridden lots of other FS bikes to compare)
Rigid frame for climbing, no need for lockouts, no hydraulic -pivot concerns. This particular bike weighs in at 24.5 lbs
No, not a big hit FS design, I walk on the really steep DH stuff where other moto FS bike's will ride.....and I'm aok w that, as I've not broken any bones yet and my lower back is not prone to spasm'ing , ever.

Happy Holidays 
Jim


----------



## iheartbicycles (Mar 14, 2008)

ssulljm said:


> Still riding mine, this bike is from 1995-ish, and the pic is from my ride last week.
> IMHO, the best all around FS bike I've ever ridden for my riding style.(and I've ridden lots of other FS bikes to compare)
> Rigid frame for climbing, no need for lockouts, no hydraulic -pivot concerns. This particular bike weighs in at 24.5 lbs
> No, not a big hit FS design, I walk on the really steep DH stuff where other moto FS bike's will ride.....and I'm aok w that, as I've not broken any bones yet and my lower back is not prone to spasm'ing , ever.
> ...


that's quite a suspension seatpost you got there.


----------



## Matt H. (Sep 14, 2004)

Count me as another vote for the Jamis Dakar for mid-late 90's XC performance. The Marin Mount Vision as well.


----------



## laffeaux (Jan 4, 2004)

MendonCycleSmith said:


> @laffeaux, Racer X a single pivot? Why were they paying Specialized for the rights to FSR if that's the case, or am I missing something?


Okay, maybe a bit more than a "single pivot." (4 pivot points really) But a lot less going on than the the VPP and DW-Link bikes.


----------



## MendonCycleSmith (Feb 10, 2005)

laffeaux said:


> But a lot less going on than the the VPP and DW-Link bikes.


Can I be grouchy and go rft: to that crap? :thumbsup:


----------



## proto2000 (Jan 27, 2007)

Jamis Dakar from the late 90's it just plain worked. Drop the back of the bike and no bounce back, great damping or design, still being used today, unlike my 08 Spider with Fox RP23 which bounces higher than where you drop it from.


----------



## MABman (Oct 5, 2008)

Dirt Camp left off a few bikes at Willits shop back around 95' or so between tours and a few of them were FS. I took out the Ventana and the Cannondale and the one that felt the best was the Ventana by far I thought. Although it was a bit on the heavy side at least it climbed without acting like a pogo stick which the Cdale did and was really smooth on the DH's. But neither did anything to make me want to get on to the FS bandwagon at the time. 

I took a quick look at the national CL just now and there are some of the earlier Ventana's out there for what look to be good prices.


----------



## byknuts (Aug 9, 2008)

laffeaux said:


> Okay, maybe a bit more than a "single pivot." (4 pivot points really) But a lot less going on than the the VPP and DW-Link bikes.


nope MCS, matter of fact I'll see your rft: and raise you a :madman: 
shorten the chainstay tot urn it into the "behind the bb link" and make the seatstay a triangle and vpp/dw is still a floating 4 bar, same as fsr, lawwill, those cromoly framed azonic dh bikes and whatever those bianchis with the mini e-stay triangle mounted on twin cnc'd links were.

vintage suspension? I vote for lts's if you like sprinting and bmx handling, lawwill schwinns if you dig riding a couch of comfiness, and pro-flex... oooh early proflex's are SO period.


----------



## msamusick (Nov 15, 2010)

It's not a mtb but it is vintage full suspension circa 1968 :lol:









But seriously though, here's my vote. Crosstrac Sonoma circa 1993ish :thumbsup:


----------



## DJ Giggity (Sep 9, 2008)

I would say your best bet would be a Santa Cruz Heckler, Intense UZZI SL or Turner RFX. Bikes using the same basic designs are still being produced today.


----------



## milehi (Nov 2, 1997)

The Rocky Mountain Element has remained pretty much unchanged since 1995.


----------



## onlycrimson (Nov 11, 2008)

I like the old URT bikes myself. They ride ok, not nearly as good as modern suspension in any way. For the time they helped eliminate some of the problems that other designs were having.


----------



## Jupke (Mar 14, 2007)

+1 for Rocky Mountain Element.


----------



## Team Fubar Rider (Sep 3, 2003)

msamusick said:


> But seriously though, here's my vote. Crosstrac Sonoma circa 1993ish :thumbsup:
> 
> View attachment 587173


It's cool to see a Crosstrac that is still functioning! I rode with a guy back in the mid '90's that had one. Kept breaking the seat pod/tower/mass thing. Last time we rode he said it was the 4th time.

I can't tell 100% from the pic, but does it still have that original rear shock? If so, that thing is WAY awesome!


----------



## sgltrak (Feb 19, 2005)

The soft tail has not yet been mentioned. Been around since the 1800's, but in modern use on mountain bikes since the late 1980's. Not much travel, but very low maintenance and parts are readily available since it is still being made. This one is almost 14 years old and remains my primary rider.


----------



## MendonCycleSmith (Feb 10, 2005)

I'll see you yours, and raise you my best VRC FSer....

No one has mentioned the Nishiki Alien FS, a buddy has two, and loves 'em. :thumbsup:


----------



## KDXdog (Mar 15, 2007)

ProFlex!

After replacing the rubber bumper shock with a Noleen (and spending lots of time tuning the rebound & compression settings), I found the bike to work great. I always had non-proflex forks on it, as I just didn't like those things.

I know some here don't like these bikes, but I still do.:thumbsup:


----------



## MendonCycleSmith (Feb 10, 2005)

KDXdog said:


> I know some here don't like these bikes, but I still do.:thumbsup:


I loved my 957, great bike!

Nice cranks too, BTW


----------



## chefmiguel (Dec 22, 2007)

My Santa Cruz Tazmon was a nice ride, have one of the early FSRs and it only has 3 inches of travel allegedly but nice enough to take the edge off.


----------



## 72tunaboat (Oct 5, 2009)

Another vote for AMP. I bought this new in 95. I'm not an aggressive rider, but this has been a great bike. It is currently collecting dust.



















If I ever find a good deal on a early Pro-Flex(with the Girvin Fork), I will probably own one.


----------



## Austin Dave (Jul 7, 2010)

My goodness, that is a very pretty bike. 
thanks,
Dave



72tunaboat said:


> Another vote for AMP. I bought this new in 95. I'm not an aggressive rider, but this has been a great bike. It is currently collecting dust.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Austin Dave (Jul 7, 2010)

Wow I really like the look of the element. . The reviews of it are amazing too. The Jamis Dakar, the Diamondback V-link, the RM element, and the Proflex all have terrific reviews on this site and were fairly long lived designs, as far as I can tell. A quick look through the national Craigslist listings shows examples of the Dakar and the Element at reasonable prices too. That is a big help. Thanks.

Dave



Jupke said:


> +1 for Rocky Mountain Element.


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

The Element was an accidental design... honestly they were just trying to tame the rear end flex of the Edge model (which was an Amp B-2 variant) with the main swingarm pivot located in the same place, but without the flexing seat stays directly supporting the lateral load on the shock (as with mac-struts). 

I still have my 1997 Amp B-3, and Amp Research still supports them as far as bushing and shock rebuild kits go... try and say that about any other brand who had suspension bikes back then and is still under original ownership. Almost every owner complains about the wheezing noise from the shocks but that's larhely their own damn faults. The things were designed to be easily and REGULARLY serviced. Most owners are lucky to remember to re-oil their chain regularly... taking the shock off to change the oil... BAH too complicated.


----------



## ShiverDC (Mar 6, 2008)

I like the chainless FS MendonCS .. how about the chain version from the turn of the century


----------



## N10S (Sep 27, 2004)

I like Amps and have had B2, B3, and B4's with the B3 being my favorite.
B3








B4








91 ProFlex Off-road 








Psycle Werks Wild Hare


----------



## msamusick (Nov 15, 2010)

Team Fubar Rider said:


> It's cool to see a Crosstrac that is still functioning! I rode with a guy back in the mid '90's that had one. Kept breaking the seat pod/tower/mass thing. Last time we rode he said it was the 4th time.
> 
> I can't tell 100% from the pic, but does it still have that original rear shock? If so, that thing is WAY awesome!


Thanks Team Fubar Rider  My bike still has the original seat post it shipped with, never had any issues with it. Is your buddy a big guy? The rear shock is a stratos helix with an eibach spring but I do have the original one put away. It will most likely never go back on but it's nice to have just in case.


----------



## Team Fubar Rider (Sep 3, 2003)

No, he wasn't a big guy. It kept snapping at the welds at that eyelet on the "fork" that went around the shock and attached to the main frame.

Is the _original_ shock that rubber "bellows" looking unit?


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

I overhauled a profloater for a client a couple years ago. They and others of the period are still around locally. A buddy has an original Mongoose Amplifier (got the frame/fork NOS from the late Dalerider1 about 13 years ago). I just sold a somewhat recent (being a 2002 frame) Mountain Cycles San Andreas to a client a month ago, but that thing's design didn't change at all really for a decade (other than the disc mount going from the MC pattern to IS pattern, and the shock mount/wheel travel changing a few times over the years).


----------



## Dougal (Jan 23, 2004)

DJ Giggity said:


> I would say your best bet would be a Santa Cruz Heckler, Intense UZZI SL or Turner RFX. Bikes using the same basic designs are still being produced today.


Oh crap.
My wife rides an SLX, I ride an RFX Light (5 spot prototype). Didn't know they were vintage already.

My idea of a nice retro ride is a 98/99 FSR MAXX frame. Still looking for one.


----------



## DJ Giggity (Sep 9, 2008)

Dougal said:


> Oh crap.
> My wife rides an SLX, I ride an RFX Light (5 spot prototype). Didn't know they were vintage already.
> 
> My idea of a nice retro ride is a 98/99 FSR MAXX frame. Still looking for one.


Let's just say I focused more on the decent and less on the vintage part of the question.:thumbsup:


----------



## msamusick (Nov 15, 2010)

Team Fubar Rider said:


> Is the _original_ shock that rubber "bellows" looking unit?


You are correct.


----------



## MendonCycleSmith (Feb 10, 2005)

ShiverDC said:


> I like the chainless FS MendonCS .. how about the chain version from the turn of the century


BAM!


----------



## SeaBass_ (Apr 7, 2006)

msamusick said:


> It's not a mtb but it is vintage full suspension circa 1968 :lol:
> 
> View attachment 587172


There was a time I would've killed for one of those...


----------



## TheSingleGuy (Mar 11, 2004)

N10S said:


> Psycle Werks Wild Hare


Man, I had one of those too! My first FS - rode the snot out of it for years - great bike!

Brings back memories. Thanks for posting.


----------



## indian fire trail (Nov 22, 2007)

Santa Cruz Heckler...


----------



## modifier (May 11, 2007)

I just put this 95 FSR back into service a few weeks ago by turning it into a single speed. It works really well. Not super light at around 28lbs but not hindering. Before this incarnation it was just hanging there. Now it gets to play.


----------



## beepbeep (Sep 3, 2006)

Another Amp-based frame – The Dagger FS


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

Daggers used an Amp sourced 6061 rear strut and chainstay setup with their own Easton 7005 front end and a Risse shock. They were in practically somewhat stiffer laterally due to the large airshaft diameter but they had less wheel travel and bobbed more also compared to what Amp owners got to enjoy with the stock thrushaft rear shock.


----------



## ShiverDC (Mar 6, 2008)

MendonCycleSmith said:


> BAM!


well played sir, well played. what wheels do you have on there?


----------



## MendonCycleSmith (Feb 10, 2005)

ShiverDC said:


> well played sir, well played. what wheels do you have on there?


Metal clad wood. New Departure hubs. I assume both wheels are original, but can't honestly say. The shaft drive version is in much nicer shape, but I do hope to do something more with this one some day.....


----------



## iheartbicycles (Mar 14, 2008)

DeeEight said:


> Daggers used an Amp sourced 6061 rear strut and chainstay setup with their own Easton 7005 front end and a Risse shock. They were in practically somewhat stiffer laterally due to the large airshaft diameter but they had less wheel travel and bobbed more also compared to what Amp owners got to enjoy with the stock thrushaft rear shock.


Daggers came with the Amp shock on them. I know mine did.


----------



## LIFECYCLE (Mar 8, 2006)

I like the early steel proflexes ,its a shame that they didnt have a decent shock on them though.


----------



## outside! (Mar 15, 2006)

Jupke said:


> +1 for Rocky Mountain Element.


That is a 97. I have it's sister. It rides well, but not near as nice as my Epiphany. The Element requires a smooth cadence and seated climbing. It does not respond well to poor gear choices and out of the saddle climbing. It does have better cable routing than the Epiphany and the paint is awesome.


----------



## beepbeep (Sep 3, 2006)

iheartbicycles said:


> Daggers came with the Amp shock on them. I know mine did.


You're right, this one also has an Amp shock. I guess since Dagger were a pretty small custom builder you could probably spec which shock you wanted.


----------



## iheartbicycles (Mar 14, 2008)

beepbeep said:


> You're right, this one also has an Amp shock. I guess since Dagger were a pretty small custom builder you could probably spec which shock you wanted.


That's a great bike. Wish I still had mine.


----------



## mauistardog (Dec 29, 2010)

I still ride and race my old Trek Y-50, which was made in 1997. I am only now replacing the original stratos rear shock. Even with slime tubes, my bike is under 24 lbs. The carbon Y bikes are solid xc bikes.
joe


----------



## stefan9113 (Aug 4, 2008)

will open it for a few hours

http://picasaweb.google.com/stefan9113/AktuelleBikes#

happy new year to all


----------



## KDXdog (Mar 15, 2007)

stefan9113 said:


> will open it for a few hours
> 
> http://picasaweb.google.com/stefan9113/AktuelleBikes#
> 
> happy new year to all


WOW....just.....wow!

Thanks for sharing!


----------



## hegstad1 (Sep 16, 2010)

Pretty crazy Stefan. I like the Defiants.


----------



## Matt H. (Sep 14, 2004)

stefan9113 said:


> will open it for a few hours
> 
> http://picasaweb.google.com/stefan9113/AktuelleBikes#
> 
> happy new year to all


Incredible collection! Do you still have (and ride) them all? :thumbsup:

(...and thanks for limiting the exposure to a few hours. Otherwise I might pass out from this overwhelming sense of inadequacy.)


----------



## iheartbicycles (Mar 14, 2008)

stefan9113 said:


> will open it for a few hours
> 
> http://picasaweb.google.com/stefan9113/AktuelleBikes#
> 
> happy new year to all


My God.

It's the "every bike I ever wanted" list, in real life.

WOW.


----------



## Austin Dave (Jul 7, 2010)

That is amazing! Thanks for posting that collection, Stefan. Even if you just owned all those components, it would be amazing. But the complete bikes are astonishing as a collection.

Do you collect only full-suspension? Why do I have a feeling this is just one folder of images.....I'm better off not seeing the rest, I'm sure.



stefan9113 said:


> will open it for a few hours
> 
> http://picasaweb.google.com/stefan9113/AktuelleBikes#
> 
> happy new year to all


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

I banged my head into my Manitou FS-DH frame a half dozen times last week when installing my new blu-ray theatre system (it hangs above my flatscreen tv). If it wasn't for the inch and a half long cracks growing in the headtube I wouldn't have retired it to "art work" status. From experience with a great many mid-90s frames, I'd say that Easton 7005 tubesets in particular are way more prone to cracking than any other brand and series of aluminium alloy.


----------



## N10S (Sep 27, 2004)

stefan9113 said:


> will open it for a few hours
> 
> http://picasaweb.google.com/stefan9113/AktuelleBikes#
> 
> happy new year to all


Man, what a great collection of early FS bikes!! Thanks for letting us check them out, it is really appreciated. Happy New Year to you too!!


----------



## gm1230126 (Nov 4, 2005)

95 GT Team LTS. Working on a matching Team RTS from the same year and then a 93 RTS-1 and something special after that.


----------



## wheelbender6 (Sep 25, 2007)

I think the condition is as important as the make. If the suspension bushings are worn out, the tail will wag under acceleration and you will not enjoy the ride. 
As previously posted, it's hard to go wrong with a nice titanium softail (pivotless) like a Merlin, Litespeed, Airborne, Dean, etc. Carbon softails are also appealing like the Trek STP or C'dale Scalpel.


----------



## Sideknob (Jul 14, 2005)

I always wanted a Klein Mantra....


----------



## iheartbicycles (Mar 14, 2008)

Sideknob said:


> I always wanted a Klein Mantra....


that's just wrong.


----------



## DJ Giggity (Sep 9, 2008)

Sideknob said:


> I always wanted a Klein Mantra....


Be glad you didn't get one. They were one of the worst riding bikes ever made.


----------



## msamusick (Nov 15, 2010)

stefan9113 said:


> will open it for a few hours
> 
> http://picasaweb.google.com/stefan9113/AktuelleBikes#
> 
> happy new year to all


Good lord that's some bike pron! :shocked: VERY nice collection you got there stefan.


----------



## Sideknob (Jul 14, 2005)

DJ Giggity said:


> Be glad you didn't get one. They were one of the worst riding bikes ever made.


Really?

I thought that honor might go to the Fisher Joshua - used to see those things inchworming their way along the road from time to time....


----------



## stefan9113 (Aug 4, 2008)

Hi all,

first yes, that all my bikes and yes they where all ridden  . And yes, they are all complete ready to ride.

This is only a album for all bikes, two pics from each, there are also separate Albums for each bikes with a lot of pics. They alI doing her job in the Bavarian Alps  . It's alwas nice to see the faces from the guys when I came with my old stuff up hills and they are all with brand new bikes.

Greetings Stefan


----------



## Eastcoaster (Feb 13, 2004)

KDXdog said:


> ProFlex!
> 
> After replacing the rubber bumper shock with a Noleen (and spending lots of time tuning the rebound & compression settings), I found the bike to work great. I always had non-proflex forks on it, as I just didn't like those things.
> 
> I know some here don't like these bikes, but I still do.:thumbsup:


I had that same old school Dirt Rag sticker on my Pro-Flex 857 that I sold.....

Love those cranks, BTW.... Have a set sitting in the garage that just won't tighten properly w/out the alu. can shim....
MRC Steely Danz correct?

But, so as to not poach the thread..... 
The Rocky Mtn. Element and Jamis Dakar design? Well, pretty much the jamis design, actually....
About to be resurected and it getting a LOT of buzz on a lot of forums lately.... 
You will see it in the same form as a Transition Bandit. Tapered HT and a few geo. tweaks, etc. but..... not ripping on Transition... I like them (and their bikes).
http://transitionbikes.com/Bikes_Bandit.cfm


----------



## MendonCycleSmith (Feb 10, 2005)

stefan9113 said:


> will open it for a few hours
> 
> http://picasaweb.google.com/stefan9113/AktuelleBikes#
> 
> happy new year to all


Man, what the heck? I saw this, didn't have time to peruse, now I go to look and it's gone?

No disrespect, thanks for giving us a peek, but can I ask why one would limit access to pictures of bikes on a hosting site?

I mean that in all sincerity, I've no idea why it would matter. Not like a gallery that charges admission, and has employees that want to go home at days end, or that by looking at them more than once they are somehow worth less.

Educate me please, I'm not super up to date on the ins and out of this sort of thing, honestly.


----------



## Tassie Devil (Feb 7, 2005)

My suggestion would be a 94-95 Turner FTF (Full Time Function) which MBA dubbed the Turner Burner. At the time many were painted in other manufacturers colours (including Ritchey) for racing purposes. Hard to find now, but an excellent ride.


----------



## nordstadt (Nov 26, 2005)

MendonCycleSmith said:


> Man, what the heck? I saw this, didn't have time to peruse, now I go to look and it's gone?
> 
> No disrespect, thanks for giving us a peek, but can I ask why one would limit access to pictures of bikes on a hosting site?
> 
> ...


Get used to it - that's normal for some people. Some of the bikes can be seen in this thread here.

Chris


----------



## Mr Cabletwitch (Apr 16, 2009)

here is a picture of one that really worked horribly, although it was early, from 91... originally it had a rigid fork and a suspension stem to give it full suspension


----------



## MendonCycleSmith (Feb 10, 2005)

nordstadt said:


> Get used to it - that's normal for some people.


Thanks, can you explain the thought process or mindset? It's like putting up a fence in your front yard, so folks couldn't see your bushes.....


----------



## nordstadt (Nov 26, 2005)

MendonCycleSmith said:


> Thanks, can you explain the thought process or mindset? It's like putting up a fence in your front yard, so folks couldn't see your bushes.....


I can't explain some peoples mind - ask Mr. Freud!


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

Trying to understand folks like that is like trying to understand why people elect leaders like Hitler and Bush Jr. Oh sure at the time it probably seemed like a good idea but later on everyone knows it was a mistake.


----------



## Team Fubar Rider (Sep 3, 2003)

MendonCycleSmith said:


> Man, what the heck? I saw this, didn't have time to peruse, now I go to look and it's gone?
> 
> No disrespect, thanks for giving us a peek, but can I ask why one would limit access to pictures of bikes on a hosting site?
> 
> ...


I'm guessing the person that posted the Picasaweb gallery has it set up as a private gallery and just opened it up for a little while for everyone to see, then returned his/her settings so that it was private again.


----------



## hollister (Sep 16, 2005)

Team Fubar Rider said:


> I'm guessing the person that posted the Picasaweb gallery has it set up as a private gallery and just opened it up for a little while for everyone to see, then returned his/her settings so that it was private again.


the question was why


----------



## wheelbender6 (Sep 25, 2007)

There are some interesting vintage Treks. The Y-bike was a nice URT. The VRX was unique. Trek made a very early dual suspension bike with an elastomer stack instead of a shock. All of these appear regularly on EBay.


----------



## gm1230126 (Nov 4, 2005)

hollister said:


> the question was why


Perhaps for security reasons, someone in the Netherlands just had seven bikes removed from a basement.


----------



## yo-Nate-y (Mar 5, 2009)

Or maybe just propriety's sake as European deeply into US bikes.
I mean, OUR CULTURAL HERITAGE IS BEING LOOTED! [/sarcasm]

Or something like that.


----------



## MendonCycleSmith (Feb 10, 2005)

Okay, so it sounds like I'm not the only one who thinks it unusual. 

I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing some E Photo posting faux pas, I can be a bit slow with stuff like this


----------



## KDXdog (Mar 15, 2007)

MendonCycleSmith said:


> Okay, so it sounds like I'm not the only one who thinks it unusual.
> 
> I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing some E Photo posting faux pas, I can be a bit slow with stuff like this


I don't quite get it either, but was able to look when it was open.

My guess: some collectors of (anything) like to keep their stuff "private" for several reasons.


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

Actually of the early Trek Beam bikes (the VRX's which came after the Y-bikes ran a linkage between the swingarm and the shock which could be used to vary the wheel travel / leverage rate) the first two years it wasn't a stack of elastomers, it was a single one-piece long elastomer that externally looked like a stack of donuts. The third year they switched to a Risse air/oil shock. Of the two years with the elastomer spring (which according to the early development info on the bike, was taken from dump truck suspension), the T3Cs in 1992 had just the elastomer itself and nothing inside the shock body other than a hard teflon bottom-out spacer on the shaft, but the T4Cs in 1993 got an Oil-damping shock unit. 

Also they originally claimed that the 1992 version, the one called T3C that the name stood for Travel equals 3 times the compression. Which meant, it had a 3:1 leverage ratio. And maybe during early development that's what the design department told the marketing department but by the time the design was finalized for production, the leverage ratio had increased significantly, to 4.2 to 1. Which is why they ended up with that big elastomer spring, which as I recall was rated at 1500 pounds (to achieve an inch of travel) to support the load. The only aftermarket shock available for the first year was a gas-charged Noleen unit, with a spring that was basically taken from their MX stock bins. The T4Cs reduced the leverage ratio slightly with a minor increase in the length of the front part of the beam. The 1994 models got an even longer addition to the front of the swingarm along with a switch to the aforementioned Risse shock and was probably the closest to the originally claimed 3:1 ratio. 

Now as badly leveraged as the first year's frame was, and that high pivot location meant EVERY gear locked out the suspension on the power stroke (so yes the bike bobbed a lot) there were steps you could take to deal with it.The noleen shock you could order was one solution, but a simpler DIY method I came up with involved bolting a window/door-lift gas-charged strut (as you typically see on the rear upward opening doors of minivans) between the seatpost clamp collar and the dropout end of the swingarm. It provided the damping needed to tame the bobbing. I used one from a VW Vanagon Westfalia and it fit the distance needed almost perfectly. I still have it somewhere in my parts collection but I don't recall if I have any photos of it mounted to the bike.


----------



## TigWorld (Feb 8, 2010)

What about a Ventana or one of the Ventana like copies like the Giant ATX 990's? With a propedal / platform air shock properly setup and tuned they perform well for XC with minimal flex and weight.


----------



## JmZ (Jan 10, 2004)

TigWorld said:


> What about a Ventana or one of the Ventana like copies like the Giant ATX 990's? With a propedal / platform air shock properly setup and tuned they perform well for XC with minimal flex and weight.


Yep. Even the old Ventana's had their quirks. Rear facing dropouts, (looks at frame in closet...) 1" headtube. But it was a pretty widely used design. I'm still tempted to send it in for a refurb and build it back up.

Similar designs to it were the Rocky's, Jamis, Psycle Werks Wild Hare (which was made by Ventana), and several others. All variations on a theme. And after having a few, some were def better than others.

I'd still take a good execution of that design over some of the other offerings today.

JmZ


----------



## Mr.Magura (Aug 11, 2010)

Depending what you want to use the bike for, the '97-'98 Intense M1 is a rather nice bike.
The suspension system is still used today by many brands, and the bearings are cheap and easy to keep going. 
For a AM-FR ride all it needs is a modern shock, and it will be up there with the best. 
It is reasonably rigid, relatively light, and sports what is considered AM geometry today.


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

Intense M1s are too "new" for this discussion. Intense Spyder's on the other hand... their original version with the ActionTec Proshock fork and the Mac-strut rear end.... now that's something i'd like to own.


----------



## H_Tuttle (Feb 27, 2007)

> They were one of the worst riding bikes ever made.


ORLY? 99 Mantra rides quite well









https://www.googlepixel.com/99Mantra/


----------



## 92gli (Sep 28, 2006)

nordstadt said:


> Get used to it - that's normal for some people. Some of the bikes can be seen in this thread here.
> 
> Chris


I keep missing it every time he opens it. But I did just see a bunch of them by starting at the end of the thread above and working backward. Sick stuff ! My fav of what i've seen so far is the amp/mongoose with all the green parts.


----------



## Dougal (Jan 23, 2004)

H_Tuttle said:


> ORLY? 99 Mantra rides quite well
> http://www.googlepixel.com/99Mantra/


Compared to what? A slingshot!


----------



## H_Tuttle (Feb 27, 2007)

yeah, Gary Klein really learned nothing about FS bikes in all the years he designed them.


----------



## iheartbicycles (Mar 14, 2008)

H_Tuttle said:


> yeah, Gary Klein really learned nothing about FS bikes in all the years he designed them.


Mr Tuttle.

There are many, many problems with the Mantra.

It's a URT. And probably the worst one ever built. URT's become less compliant when standing. With the pivot on the top tube, the Mantra becomes stiffer than any other URT, when standing.

Also - with this pivot location, the bottom bracket moves backwards quite a bit, during compression. This is very noticalbe on this bike and it just feels odd.

The headset and rear shock mentioned in your article do not ring a bell. Got any pics of a Mantra with Internal headset and elastomer rear shock?

Edit - I found a pic of the Mantra with that rear shock. It's a prototype and never went into production


----------



## DJ Giggity (Sep 9, 2008)

H_Tuttle said:


> yeah, Gary Klein really learned nothing about FS bikes in all the years he designed them.


Sorry dude but those were truly craptacular. Start with an overly steep head angle and add the stink bugging from the rear end and they were a nightmare to descend on. I am glad you like your bike but you probably won't get too many people to agree with you.


----------



## jkmacman (Mar 5, 2009)

i like the color scheme. good to ride during hunting season:thumbsup:


----------



## KrateKraig (May 7, 2007)

I love my 1995 Cannondale Super V... Now converted to a singlespeed. 
I still ride it a lot, and in the Winter, mount some Nokian Studs and use it as my ice bike.


----------



## sprunghunt (May 14, 2006)

DJ Giggity said:


> Sorry dude but those were truly craptacular. Start with an overly steep head angle and add the stink bugging from the rear end and they were a nightmare to descend on. I am glad you like your bike but you probably won't get too many people to agree with you.


I agree with him. I have a 99 mantra comp. They're not a DH bike but I enjoy the light weight and agile geometry and find them great for riding twisty singletrack with lots of ups and downs. I've had mine for 9 years and it's been in four 24hr races and been ridden on two different continents.


bay view trail china camp by sprunghunt, on Flickr


----------



## Dougal (Jan 23, 2004)

KrateKraig said:


> I love my 1995 Cannondale Super V... Now converted to a singlespeed.
> I still ride it a lot, and in the Winter, mount some Nokian Studs and use it as my ice bike.


Your chain tensioner is nowhere near long enough for that bike.


----------



## Vlad (Feb 7, 2004)

I used to ride with a Mantra owner who ripped on technical descents. He eventually cracked it, though.


----------



## TigWorld (Feb 8, 2010)

The OP is looking for vintage FS that is ...



Austin Dave said:


> fully functional and fun...


That really narrows things down because in the vintage era 99.999% of FS bikes were craptacular. Even the ones that had good working rear suspension were fragile or easily worn out.

IMO some sort of "soft-tail" is not FS and can't fit into the OP's requirement for "fully functional and fun".

The OP doesn't really say what he wants to do with the bike. If he had a focus on DH then some of the single pivot designs like the San Andreas Mountain Cycle or Cracknfail Super V's are good, but if you're riding XC then you really need a 4-bar or horst link type bike and update to a platform air shock. There are any number of 4-bar and horst link bikes still being manufactured to this day. How many of those other hair-brained suspension designs are still being made?

Do not go near anything with a URT. Friends don't let friends ride a URT bike.


----------



## Austin Dave (Jul 7, 2010)

Thanks for the post. I'd be riding the bike on trails, so XC is probably the best description.
Thanks. 
D


----------



## Jkuo (Feb 7, 2007)

The LTS was a fun bike, very plush but not great for extended climbing because it bobbed so much and the brake jack was annoying. I got mine as a replacement for a '95 RTS that I cracked the downtube on. The RTS wasn't such a great suspension design. A whopping 2" of travel and a pivot so high that the suspension was locked during pedalling. Plus it had that rocker and a bunch of pivots so it was always wearing out bushings. Having said that, I loved that bike and was sad when it broke.



gm1230126 said:


> 95 GT Team LTS. Working on a matching Team RTS from the same year and then a 93 RTS-1 and something special after that.


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

RTS's were 3" travel, and they were MEANT to lock out under power... that was part of the rocker tuned suspension design concept. Most full suspension bikes back then were developed for and specifically marketed because of DH racing's growing popularity over XC (same with suspension forks, which is why rockshox had to redesign their RS-1s to produce the Mag-20s to move into sales to cross-country riders - the 1s were considered to be too heavy, and too tall/long travel so they affected the geometry of existing bikes more).

And yes, as to URTs, the sweetspot/catamount/One-Off Titanium designs with the pivot area somewhere in the center of the frame worked the best and the ones with the pivot further away from center (Mantras and Trek/Fisher where its just ahead of the BB shell) worked the worst. The Rocky Mountain Pipeline was an adjustable 4-5-6" travel sweetspot design that did well as a freeride bike in their lineup for 3 years.

As to updating an older horst-linked bike with an air platform shock... that's not needed for those using frames with actual Amp coil-over thrushaft shocks because the dampers on those, had a low-speed compression damping circuit specifically part of their design. That's all a "platform" is, extra low-speed compression damping. On Amp's up till about 1995 the circuit was fixed but from 1996 forwards it was adjustable to vary the amount of damping.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

Mountain Cycle San Andreas, I bought this bike 15 years ago this week. I just keep upgrading it with newer parts, In fact it's torn down right now waiting for a rebuild. A lot of bikes have come and gone, but this one always stays. This picture was taken about 5 years ago.


----------



## loston2wheels (Jan 2, 2011)

I have a Giant warp and I think this bike is a very nice looking design


----------



## mosslager (Aug 30, 2011)

2001 Schwinn Rocket 88... bushing problems fixed... great bike that could be had with both V-brakes or disk and with and without a rear lockout Fox shock. Still riding mine (took this pic today).


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

a quick scan of this thread only brought up one FSR. I think they were one of the best early FS bikes.

I also liked the GT LTS a lot although that came out a bit later. Superb rear suspension. Same basic design as the FSR but an aluminum front triangle (an improvement I thought) and higher leverage ratio on the shock (more travel).

Wouldn't mind an early Mountain Cycle.


----------



## aa240sx (Jun 28, 2008)

I'm currently in the process of building up a Ventana Marble Peak frame only (no shock) I just picked up for well... vente. It's got a busted lower chain stay derailleur and the front paint is quite oxidized, but still very rideable. It's my third ventana, but I've always like the classic suspension geometry. 

Will post pics of the frame.


----------



## modifier (May 11, 2007)

Fillet-brazed said:


> a quick scan of this thread only brought up one FSR. I think they were one of the best early FS bikes.


Guess that was mine. Well it has morphed a bit since that shot. I installed a new Terralogic fork and a 650B front wheel, built a dedicated SS 26" rear wheel too around an American Classic SS hub. Also installed a front derailleur and a barcon shifter to occasionally use the 24 small ring to keep from walking. I have a 40 tooth front and a 19 tooth rear cog from Homegrown on order so when they come in I'll install a front gripshifter and run the 24 34 40 rings for a 3 speed. Kind of got tired of the SS thing.

But I did refurbish another FSR that I had hanging around and made it into a SS too that isn't changing. Rebuilt my Amp fork for it as well. Pretty primitive but still kind of fun and a good guest bike.

I think if I was going to build another SS I would want it to be around 20 lbs and 29er.


----------



## DFA (Jan 26, 2004)

It get's ridden.


----------



## sime (Jan 16, 2004)

it's funny. all i see are a whole lot of bad designs. and a few good ones. the amp, was a good design; RUINED by horst's obsession with low weight. the bike was made from paper clips and ballpoint pen parts. i'm a LIGHT weight, i'm 6' and was about 115lbs when i had mine. i rocked the green (light) spring, and barely got full travel. but what i remember most? the CREEEEEEKING!!!! it twisted and just plain sucked. and yet; i'm still on a FSR........

the element...and the ventana marble peak, were ok designs. it's still just a single pivot/swingarm design, and they all have their faults. but the best part of them? they still look like bikes.


----------



## WickedPhatChance (May 28, 2011)

modifier said:


> installed a new Terralogic fork


Sorry for a tangential question, but it's been on my mind: do Terralogic forks lock out? Anybody have any complaints about them?

Thanks in advance...


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

sime said:


> it's funny. all i see are a whole lot of bad designs. and a few good ones. the amp, was a good design; RUINED by horst's obsession with low weight. the bike was made from paper clips and ballpoint pen parts. i'm a LIGHT weight, i'm 6' and was about 115lbs when i had mine. i rocked the green (light) spring, and barely got full travel. but what i remember most? the CREEEEEEKING!!!! it twisted and just plain sucked. and yet; i'm still on a FSR........
> 
> the element...and the ventana marble peak, were ok designs. it's still just a single pivot/swingarm design, and they all have their faults. but the best part of them? they still look like bikes.


6' and 115lbs?


----------



## modifier (May 11, 2007)

WickedPhatChance said:


> Sorry for a tangential question, but it's been on my mind: do Terralogic forks lock out? Anybody have any complaints about them?
> 
> Thanks in advance...


I have mine set on 3 clicks which is supposedly the last logic setting. 1 being the most platform. But I haven't really experimented with other settings. Maybe I should try 1,2 and 4 just to see how it feels.

After riding it for a while my impression is that it works pretty well in that when you stand and pedal it doesn't move much (1 and 2 should move less) but still blows off when you hit stuff. It's a stiffer ride than I'm used to on my other longer travel bikes but I think it does what it's suppose to.

I think ultimately what I would really want it 1 remote lever with 3 positions hooked to the shock and the fork with full open, stable and full lock. But that isn't quite here yet.


----------



## nailtrail (Jul 13, 2011)

late 90s fsr


----------



## richieb (Oct 21, 2004)

Personally, I'd like to get my hands on an old Green Hornet.


----------



## Dougal (Jan 23, 2004)

nailtrail said:


> late 90s fsr


There's a big thread on the MAX framed FSR's.
http://forums.mtbr.com/vintage-retro-classic/specialized-fsr-max-backbone-254023.html

I've almost got my Elite up and running. Reaming out the bushings to tolerance has made the back end feel great on the stand. I've still got a fork rebuild to do before I try riding it properly.


----------



## uphiller (Jan 13, 2004)

What about Turners? Santa Cruz Tazmon? Super V's are rideable with platform shocks. Of course, these are totally armchair comments- I've only ridden an FS coming off a skilift, and only going down.


----------



## DH.FR.0ne (Jul 17, 2010)

Balfa. They made some awesome bikes. I'm still rocking a bb7 with Marzo Shivers 
Anyone into the 'oldschool' style would like the Balfa bb7 & 2-step, and maybe the belair.
They don't just look cool, they're all superb to ride.


----------



## sime (Jan 16, 2004)

did i studder? i'm 135 now...................with work boots on


----------



## 83stumpjumper (Feb 14, 2011)

True vintage MTBs are from the early and mid 1980's long before full suspension was even thought of for bikes. Bikes from the 1990's aren't vintage, they're just old. As someone who rides an '85 and a '97 Stumpjumper, I know the difference.


----------



## Dougal (Jan 23, 2004)

83stumpjumper said:


> True vintage MTBs are from the early and mid 1980's long before full suspension was even thought of for bikes. Bikes from the 1990's aren't vintage, they're just old. As someone who rides an '85 and a '97 Stumpjumper, I know the difference.


So what's the split?
20+ years old vintage and 10+ years old retro?

I found the mid 90's to be the point where hardtails and FS bikes were functional enough to still work today. Good brakes, enough suspension, push button shifters etc.
To ride something from the 80's on trails you have to be a real enthusiast. I applaud those enthusiasts but I have no desire to do it myself.


----------



## 83stumpjumper (Feb 14, 2011)

The vintage stuff, in my opinion, is early to mid 80's. I guess the late 80's bikes are retro, but I just consider the 90's bikes to be old. I have an old bike and it works just fine for me, so I'm not bad mouthing bikes from the 90's. My 97 Stumpjumper does everything I need it to, that's why I never bought something newer. No need to. Vintage bikes don't have any suspension. The frame geometry has you sitting more upright than a modern MTB. For those reasons, I don't think it would be very comfortable riding a vintage bike on a trail. I respect those that do though, that's a rough ride I'm sure.


----------



## Austin Dave (Jul 7, 2010)

83stumpjumper said:


> Bikes from the 1990's aren't vintage, they're just old.


You must be really frustrated reading this board, then. Lots of people here think their early 90s mtbs are vintage.


----------



## Fred Smedley (Feb 28, 2006)

Austin Dave said:


> You must be really frustrated reading this board, then. Lots of people here think their early 90s mtbs are "vintage."


Tell me what is the difference from a 88 MB1 and a 93 MB1?


----------



## Austin Dave (Jul 7, 2010)

Fred Smedley said:


> Tell me what is the difference from a 88 MB1 and a 93 MB1?


OOOH!!-OOOH!! Call on me! Call on me!

Using 83stumpjumper's taxonomy, the '88 is "retro" and the '93 is "just old."

How did I do?


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

Austin Dave said:


> OOOH!!-OOOH!! Call on me! Call on me!
> 
> Using 83stumpjumper's taxonomy, the '88 is "retro" and the '93 is "just old."
> 
> How did I do?


Retro is not a certain window of age. It's something new with a nod to the past. like a 2011 VW Beetle for example. Retro is not a 1992 Rabbit.


----------



## jeff (Jan 13, 2004)

This is retro.......


----------



## 83stumpjumper (Feb 14, 2011)

Austin Dave, No the board doesn't frustrate me. If someone wants to think of their 1994 Trek as a classic MTB that's their opinion. I was simply stating what mine was. The classics are from a certain time frame of when the sport was new, and that will never change. No matter how long I keep my 97 Stumpjumper, I'm always going to refer to it as an old bike. Old doesn't mean bad if it still works. 

I stand corrected on my use of the term "retro". F-B is right, "retro" describes a look, not a time frame. 
At least find common ground with me that bikes from this century are neither, vintage or classic.


----------



## Austin Dave (Jul 7, 2010)

83stumpjumper said:


> Austin Dave, No the board doesn't frustrate me. If someone wants to think of their 1994 Trek as a classic MTB that's their opinion. I was simply stating what mine was. The classics are from a certain time frame of when the sport was new, and that will never change. No matter how long I keep my 97 Stumpjumper, I'm always going to refer to it as an old bike. Old doesn't mean bad if it still works.
> 
> I stand corrected on my use of the term "retro". F-B is right, "retro" describes a look, not a time frame.
> At least find common ground with me that bikes from this century are neither, vintage or classic.


Oh, I know, 83'. I was just giving you the business. Enjoy your bikes, whatever they are.


----------



## 83stumpjumper (Feb 14, 2011)

The same to you A D! Ride safe!


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

83stumpjumper said:


> True vintage MTBs are from the early and mid 1980's long before full suspension was even thought of for bikes. Bikes from the 1990's aren't vintage, they're just old. As someone who rides an '85 and a '97 Stumpjumper, I know the difference.


This thread is about vintage FS bikes. FS is the key here. Late 80 and early FS bikes are vintage.


----------



## richieb (Oct 21, 2004)

Oh good - another "vintage vs. Old" debate!

Vintage means it's not just old, but was at one point valuable in some way, and that in its current state represents a significant builder, movement or evolution in the sport/technology of Mountain Biking - and it represents quality and timelessness.

Old means it was a mass produced bike, along side thousands of other just like it, and was merely a product made to sell at a specific price - not ground-breaking in any way.

"Vintage" Rear Suspension - Hannebrink, Early turners, early Prestige S-Works FSR's, SE Shocker - game changers.

Old rear suspension - Y-Bikes (devolved to Wal-Mart bikes, yay!), Most Cannondale designs, Proflex - there were just so many made that it's impossible to call them collectable.

In the Y-Bike's defense, though, it certainly filled a need from riders at the time. Relatively light, maintenance-fee - it just rode badly - but at the time, people loved them. There's just so many of them, that to collect one and restore it seems silly, considering that there are thousands hanging in fat middle aged guys' garages all over America who thought it was cool at the time and geeked out for 2 months, then moved onto something else.


----------



## sime (Jan 16, 2004)

Fred Smedley said:


> Tell me what is the difference from a 88 MB1 and a 93 MB1?


5 years?


----------



## ptpalpha (Oct 3, 2008)

Another vote for the '97 Dakar Team. Mine still sees the trail at least once a week.


----------



## Waltah (Aug 5, 2011)

MendonCycleSmith said:


> Since no one has mentioned it, and it falls neatly into a category without the pitfalls of bushings, linkages etc.
> 
> Cannondale Super V. Loved by many, hated by most here. The earlier versions had issues with carbon swing arms, and a design that used a now defunct shock, the Fox Alps.
> 
> ...


would you believe my buddy still rides a super v?


----------



## wrightcs77 (Oct 6, 2008)

Here is my 1997 Proflex 957. I love the bike. I have never considered it "craptastic" as I think it is better for xc riding than many current designs.


----------



## gm1230126 (Nov 4, 2005)

Can all these 96 and 97 bikes be considered vintage? Most of them would be 2nd or 3rd generation versions for most of theses companies.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

MendonCycleSmith said:


> Super V's, rightly, wrongly, or perhaps sadly, are easily the most copied design on the planet for cheap bikes. Go to any Walmart and you'll see what I mean....


That's hilarious! Cdale wasn't even the second company, let alone the first company to company to come out with that basic design.


----------



## iheartbicycles (Mar 14, 2008)

Mountain Cycle Shawn said:


> That's hilarious! Cdale wasn't even the second company, let alone the first company to company to come out with that basic design.


If all you're talking about is the pivot point. Otherwise, the huge downtube with seat mast was the trademark of the early Super V's.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

iheartbicycles said:


> If all you're talking about is the pivot point. Otherwise, the huge downtube with seat mast was the trademark of the early Super V's.


Yeah, that huge downtube and seat mast was a trademark of Mountain Cycle and Crosstrac Sonoma almost 10 years before Cdale. The single pivot was used by another handfull of companies way before Cdale.


----------



## iheartbicycles (Mar 14, 2008)

Mountain Cycle Shawn said:


> Yeah, that huge downtube and seat mast was a trademark of Mountain Cycle and Crosstrac Sonoma almost 10 years before Cdale. The single pivot was used by another handfull of companies way before Cdale.


There was about 1 year between the launch of the San Andreas and the SuperV.

They're quite different bikes, though.

The San Andreas used a rubber bumper, instead of a shock absorber.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

iheartbicycles said:


> There was about 1 year between the launch of the San Andreas and the SuperV.
> 
> They're quite different bikes, though.
> 
> The San Andreas used a rubber bumper, instead of a shock absorber.


The Super V came out in 1990 or '91?

No, The SA, for a short time used an elastomer shock. Ok, I guess you can call that rubber bumpers. But the type of shock isn't that big of a deal. The SA came out in fall of '89. I don't think there were to many air or coil shocks out yet. But, they had the same basic layout: High forward single pivot, seat mast, no top tube and a huge downtube

Your right about one thing, although very similar, they are very different, thank god. I owned a Super V for about 2 days and it was nothing compared to my SA. But my friend liked it and I sold it to him for $100 less then I paid for it, so I didn't lose my ass. He still has the bike.


----------



## Shogun700 (Jun 15, 2009)

Interesting thread. I just picked a 1995 KHS Montana FXT Team off ebay for the XT/XTR M900 parts: eBay - New & used electronics, cars, apparel, collectibles, sporting goods & more at low prices

It would have originally come with XTR canti's, so I consider it on the outer edge of the 'vintage' classification-here's a crappy pic from bikepro so you can see the basic setup, although I'm pretty sure this bike is a '96:










Anyone have any familiarity with these? No one has mentioned it in the thread yet, so I'm thinking they either didn't sell well, were pieces of junk, or both. My working knowledge of fully suspended bikes is minimal, but the basic design seems to be in common use these days, although considerably beefier.


----------



## seat_boy (May 16, 2006)

I really liked my old Pro Flex 857:










HUGE improvement over the 856, on which I blew $2000 after MBA praised it so highly. But I was young, first job out of college, and could afford it back then... but from the swingarm to the shock, the 857 was worlds better.


----------



## Dougal (Jan 23, 2004)

Shogun700 said:


> Interesting thread. I just picked a 1995 KHS Montana FXT Team off ebay for the XT/XTR M900 parts: eBay - New & used electronics, cars, apparel, collectibles, sporting goods & more at low prices
> 
> It would have originally come with XTR canti's, so I consider it on the outer edge of the 'vintage' classification-here's a crappy pic from bikepro so you can see the basic setup, although I'm pretty sure this bike is a '96:
> 
> Anyone have any familiarity with these? No one has mentioned it in the thread yet, so I'm thinking they either didn't sell well, were pieces of junk, or both. My working knowledge of fully suspended bikes is minimal, but the basic design seems to be in common use these days, although considerably beefier.


A mate owned one but badged as an Avanti Nitro. The travel was short (probably 2.5 inches) but worked okay. The biggest problem was the noleen shock was massively overdamped. If you can liven up the shock they should work well even against todays short travel offerings..


----------



## Shogun700 (Jun 15, 2009)

Dougal said:


> A mate owned one but badged as an Avanti Nitro. The travel was short (probably 2.5 inches) but worked okay. The biggest problem was the noleen shock was massively overdamped. If you can liven up the shock they should work well even against todays short travel offerings..


Thanks for the info, after looking it over in the flesh I'm not necessarily surprised by your assessment. The rear triangle is well-made, I wouldn't call it beefy but it's not at all cheap or flimsy. The shock will be serviceable for now...I might search around for something more modern to replace it with eventually. It will be perfect as my girlfriends first full suspension ride, and I have a Ted Wojcik Soft Trac coming my way in the next couple weeks, should be a really interesting comparison.

If I have time tomorrow I'll get some pics of the KHS and post them up.


----------



## RoxMDO (Nov 12, 2011)

mosslager said:


> 2001 Schwinn Rocket 88... bushing problems fixed... great bike that could be had with both V-brakes or disk and with and without a rear lockout Fox shock. Still riding mine (took this pic today).


I bought the same bike in 2001 and have just added Avid BB7 discs, renewed the rear cluster, rebuilt the Fox shock and added new Mavic wheels. I'm keeping all of the old parts in case I want to make it original again.

I was wondering what fork you added to your bike.


----------



## GusCrowell (May 18, 2021)

modifier said:


> I just put this 95 FSR back into service a few weeks ago by turning it into a single speed. It works really well. Not super light at around 28lbs but not hindering. Before this incarnation it was just hanging there. Now it gets to play.


Hi,

Do you want to sell this bike?

Thanks,
Gus


----------



## RETROROCKS (Sep 25, 2004)

I ride an 04 specialized enduro the horst link design has been in use since the 90's and still in use today. Espcially since the patent has expired and companies no longer have to pay specialized to use it.
There are other brands that used that suspension design even back then as well khs comes to mind. I also liked the k2 4000 5000 single pivot. climbed great, but the suspension suffered under braking. There were a lot of attempts back in the day at fs bikes.. the horst link/ 4 bar/ FSR suspension was the first to really work!!!


----------



## CrozCountry (Mar 18, 2011)

Austin Dave said:


> Or are old full-suspension bikes like old computers


Yes, they are.


Austin Dave said:


> Are there any older (even vintage) full-suspension bikes that are worth riding?


Absolutely. Unlike computers, you can still have tons of fun on them, assuming that they still work (and don't cost too much). Computer apps changed a lot over the years, but you are still a human riding a bike on a trail. Just don't send too hard.

Advice: Get it cheap, get it working, and don't upgrade. Other than tires, nothing is worth upgrading on ancient bikes.


----------



## Emax (Dec 4, 2005)

CrozCountry said:


> Advice: Get it cheap, get it working, and don't upgrade. Other than tires, nothing is worth upgrading on ancient bikes.


I guess that depends on the definition of "worth". I've upgraded older pre-2007 full suspension bikes with disc brakes from 2018 and the upgrade was well worth it. One could also upgrade to wider rims if they wanted - it would also be a worth while upgrade. I'm pretty sure that upgrading the rear shock to something with a platform is also worth it.

Getting any bike part cheap is pretty hard these days - but there are deals that can be had if one looks in the right places at the right time.


----------



## CrozCountry (Mar 18, 2011)

Emax said:


> I guess that depends on the definition of "worth". I've upgraded older pre-2007 full suspension bikes with disc brakes from 2018 and the upgrade was well worth it. One could also upgrade to wider rims if they wanted - it would also be a worth while upgrade. I'm pretty sure that upgrading the rear shock to something with a platform is also worth it.
> 
> Getting any bike part cheap is pretty hard these days - but there are deals that can be had if one looks in the right places at the right time.


When it comes to upgrades, it's almost always more cost effective to start with a better bike. With older bikes it's never one component: brakes, suspension, wheels, etc. And when you are done, you are still riding a frame that is too short lengthwise, tall top tube between your legs and sketchy handling. It's better to save that "upgrade" money for purchasing something better down the road.

When someone "upgrades", it means they are getting serious about the sport. At that point, you will feel the differences in 10-20 years of bike development on the trail and in your pocket.


----------



## Emax (Dec 4, 2005)

Given that this is a vintage forum... I think you're missing the point... Some folks like the old bikes because they are smaller, quicker handling and they know how to ride them well. 
Nothing wrong with having an older bike that is decked out in top notch components from its era, and a few new parts that makes it perform better than it did when new. 
I know I'm having a blast on my outdated 26ers every time I get out on the trails.


----------

