# 1985 Specialized Stumpjumper Sport



## djmuff (Sep 8, 2004)

Just picked up this Stumpy and took some decent photos of it. Pretty much all there when I got it- just cleaned it up a bit and swapped out the newer seat for a more-correct Specialized. It's big, 22 inches, but I couldn't pass it up for $15.


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

nice find!


----------



## 1971tch (Jun 19, 2008)

If it's too big, you can send it my way!!


----------



## Schmitty (Sep 7, 2008)

Classy.... love the 'alpine gearing'.

-Schmitty-


----------



## ish (Jun 17, 2009)

Sweet find for the price.


----------



## nuck_chorris (Jun 6, 2008)

the geo looks kinda awkward to me


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

nuck_chorris said:


> the geo looks kinda awkward to me


That geometry was pretty sporty back in the day .


----------



## Fiskare (Sep 5, 2008)

I rode one of them for 18 years, then to a Ritchey HT and then to a 4" Maverick. The Stumpy helped me to learn a ton about bike handling - which helped a bunch when I went to FS. I gave up on the frame when a local frame builder pointed out that there were stress waves at the HT/DT union, at the HT/TT union, and at the TT/ST union. I literally beat the heck out of it for a very long time. Typically I went thru one rear wheel per year, one front wheel every two years, plus three forks over the 18 years, not to mention rear ders. and even handle bars every few years. The geometry is very forgiving, which I liked.

I loved it and wish I could find another just as a neighborhood cruiser/trail bike.

Enjoy!

Chris


----------



## unicrown junkie (Nov 12, 2009)

Very nice indeed! I perused the galleries to find old Stumpies, and your's is the first. Very impressive!

I have an '86, it comes with a U-brake instead of cantilevers on the rear. Love it, rides so predictable, sure footed, simple, one of my favorite all time rides.


----------



## Sizzler (Sep 24, 2009)

Could someone please explain the difference between the Stumpjumper and the Stumpjumper Sport? There is conflicting info on the MOMBAT site. An article from 1985 states that the Sport has sportier geometry, with a 70 degree head angle. But then an article from 1986 says the Sport handles like "a tractor trailer in the back alleys of Boston" with its 67 degree head angle. I just picked up a Stumpjumper Sport nearly identical to this one except mine has an XC roller cam brake under the chain stays, and I would like to know more about it. Thanks!


----------



## Z-Man (Apr 25, 2005)

The sport just had different (lower) component spec. Same frame...


----------



## Sizzler (Sep 24, 2009)

That's surprising considering that the sport came with a bunch of nice deerhead components. What do you make of the inconsistant info regarding the headtube angle: 1985-70 degrees, 1986-67 degrees?


----------



## Z-Man (Apr 25, 2005)

Well, I'm sure this was the case for my old 84 Sport, later, things may have changed...


----------



## Sizzler (Sep 24, 2009)

What components came on the 84?


----------



## tductape (Mar 31, 2008)

Z-Man speaks the truth.....


----------



## unicrown junkie (Nov 12, 2009)

Z-Man said:


> The sport just had different (lower) component spec. Same frame...


 Are you sure? My '86 Sport looks like it has longer 'stays than the regular version. I coulda swore that the Sport is more for touring.


----------



## tductape (Mar 31, 2008)

Some good beta to review:

http://www.mombat.org/Specialized.htm

http://www.mombat.org/Specialized_Specs.htm

As always,
Thanks MOMBAT...
T


----------



## tductape (Mar 31, 2008)

https://www.mombat.org/8581Stump1.jpg

https://www.mombat.org/8581Stump2.jpg

https://www.mombat.org/8581Stump3.jpg


----------



## milehi (Nov 2, 1997)

Sizzler said:


> What components came on the 84?


My 1984 Sport had the same components, except the stem was a dual clamp for the bars. The dropouts were vertical and the fork was a bi plane.


----------



## Z-Man (Apr 25, 2005)

Sizzler said:


> What components came on the 84?


 As I recall, derailleurs were Suntour Mountech, as were shifters. Wheels were bolt on Spez hubs with Spez rims. Cranks were Tourneys, brakes by Shimano, Head set was Spez, Handlebars were bullmoose but I upgraded to Spez Stumpjumper yoke clamp, seat was avocet touring2. Many of these parts festoon my current Ritchey now....


----------



## Sizzler (Sep 24, 2009)

Z-Man said:


> The sport just had different (lower) component spec. Same frame...


Sorry to dig this thread up again but I'm really curious about this issue. According to Mombat, the 1986 Stumpjumper with a 20.5" seat tube has 17" chainstays. However, my 1986 Stumpjumper Sport with a 19.5" seat tube has 18.5" chainstays. So, clearly the Stumpjumper has different geometry than the Stumpjumper Sport in addition to having different tubing, but what I don't understand is why. Was the Sport, with it's "touring chromoly" designed to be a 26" touring bike, while the Stumpjumper was designed as an actual mountain bike? Does anyone remember it being marketed that way? Was it unusual to design a touring frame around 26" wheel at that time? I'm vexed!

https://mombat.org/StumpTeam3.jpg


----------



## CS2 (Jul 24, 2007)

Sizzler said:


> Sorry to dig this thread up again but I'm really curious about this issue. According to Mombat, the 1986 Stumpjumper with a 20.5" seat tube has 17" chainstays. However, my 1986 Stumpjumper Sport with a 19.5" seat tube has 18.5" chainstays. So, clearly the Stumpjumper has different geometry than the Stumpjumper Sport in addition to having different tubing, but what I don't understand is why. Was the Sport, with it's "touring chromoly" designed to be a 26" touring bike, while the Stumpjumper was designed as an actual mountain bike? Does anyone remember it being marketed that way? Was it unusual to design a touring frame around 26" wheel at that time? I'm vexed!
> 
> https://mombat.org/StumpTeam3.jpg


Good question. I've got an 83,84,85 and 86 sitting the garage. I'll have to measure them. None are as big as yours. I think they're all 17" with 83 being a 15".


----------



## Z-Man (Apr 25, 2005)

Well you're posting a link to the team model which was drastically different from the SJ and SJ sport geometry-wise and component-wise as well. The team models had chainstays so short you could only run a 1.75 tire...


----------



## Sizzler (Sep 24, 2009)

Z-Man said:


> Well you're posting a link to the team model which was drastically different from the SJ and SJ sport geometry-wise and component-wise as well. The team models had chainstays so short you could only run a 1.75 tire...


1.75! My bridgestone can only clear 2.0 and I thought was ridiculous, but 1.75 is absurd. Thanks for the clarification, do you know if the SJ and the SJ sport have the same geo?


----------



## Z-Man (Apr 25, 2005)

I relying on memory here but you couldn't fit a 2.125 and the next size was 1.75. I coveted those bikes but even back in the day felt that the low clearance must have been due to poor engineering. (One's hanging at a local shop...) I rode the crap out of my 84 Sport and still have most of the parts living on my Ritchey. I remember the SJ and SJ Sport frames being the same in 84, Just the SJ had different colors, fatter tires, and better spec. I seem to remember my Sport retailing for $500 and the SJ for $750. Could very well be wrong... Geometry was slack with a lot of rake and loooong stays, handled like farm equipment. In the late 80's I "Hot Rodded" it for a trip to Colorado by adding a Tioga T-Bone whose length was proportionate to the chainstays, and some Ground Controls. A long stem with slack head angle and lots of rake equal turd-like handling...

I find your avatar frightening....


----------



## Sizzler (Sep 24, 2009)

Z-Man said:


> I find your avatar frightening....


Well, we weren't all born with those dashing good romulan looks!

Thanks again for the info. The reason I'm so interested is that I'm torn between selling this old sport and throwing some dirt drops on to make a commando cruiser. I really don't have use for such a thing, but I really like the design and quality of the frame. Maybe I'll build it up and give it a try, sounds like you liked yours well enough!


----------



## Z-Man (Apr 25, 2005)

I had a blast when I put on a 120mm stem and some Rivendell Albatross bars. Fun commuter...


----------



## Sizzler (Sep 24, 2009)

I decided to throw on the the dirt drops and a 2x9 drivetrain. It's a pretty fun ride, I think I'll go ahead finish it up with some bar tape and a rear rack for the panniers!


----------



## YETIFIED (May 4, 2005)

Will the shifters stay that way?


----------



## Sizzler (Sep 24, 2009)

YETIFIED said:


> Will the shifters stay that way?


I'm not sure if you're asking if they will physically stay-put or if I plan to leave them like that? I tried them facing up but they interfered to much with the little room dirt drops have up top. I flipped them over and they are now in the perfect position for my typical hand placement, and they are snug against the bar.


----------



## iamkeith (Feb 5, 2010)

*reviving old thread again*

I know, I'm late to the conversation. I was searching for information for a restoration on an '85 Stumpjumper frame that I've had laying around for a while, and just stumbled across this thread.

Regarding the differences between the regular Stumpy and the Sport, I think the following is true:
1. The Sport frames were made in Taiwan, and the regular frames were made in Japan.
2. The dropouts (frame ends) were different: horizontal on the Sport, and vertical on the regular Stumpjumper.
3. The seat-stays were attached differently: brazed to the sides of the seat tube on the Sport, and "fastback" (attached to the seat post clamp) on the regular Stumpjumper.

Otherwise, I always thought the geometry was pretty damn similar between the two. The fork was the same, I believe, which would reinforce this. I'm not sure about about the components, but I believe they were more similar than different, too.

I think the main goal of the Sport was simply to offer a less expensive version of the bike, hence the Taiwan frame. So perhaps a few components were different, but not substantially. Shifters/derailleurs were Suntour on the Basic Stumpjumper and Shimano on the Sport, for instance. But it hardly matters at this point, becasue they're all equally quaint (or sturdy) compared to newer stuff.

What's intersting about the 1985 model year, and what might contradict my understanding about the goal of reducing cost with the Sport, is that they seem to have also made both Team Stumpjumpers (higher end / more expensive) and Rockhoppers (lower end / less expensive).

On the other hand, the redundancy/overlap of models and multiple price-points fits pretty well with what we now know about Specialized. They did a pretty good job of dominating the market even then. Kind of genius, in retrospect.

I love either one though, and I think the '85s were easily the "best" year for the vintage Stumpys. Much more refined geometry than earlier models, (I had an '83 or '84. Not sure which anymore - was purchased in '84 and it was silver). And they didn't make the "U-brake mistake" until '86. (Except for the Team Stumpjumper, which seems to have had it by '85) By the time the U-brake was gone in '89, as you know, they had lost the beautiful lugged construction. I think the yellow-orange paint on the '85 sport was the nicest bike color ever.


----------

