# Is a Trek Y series vintage



## CS2 (Jul 24, 2007)

I saw a nice Trek Y3 for sale. A quick search function turned up rather mixed results. First, is it really vintage or just a used bike. Will it have any future collectibility? It is a really unique looking frame.

Tim


----------



## Shayne (Jan 14, 2004)

*Vintage, Yes, Its Old*

Classic, no.
Collectable, not so much.
Cheap? It should be.


----------



## CS2 (Jul 24, 2007)

Shayne said:


> Classic, no.


How about future classic


Shayne said:


> Collectable, not so much..


See # 1


Shayne said:


> Cheap? It should be.


What would you consider cheap for a 1998 in good condition?

Tim


----------



## Shayne (Jan 14, 2004)

*Doubtful IMHO*

Nothing special about them. Probably one of the uglier "Y" design frames.

Cheap, ~$100 depending on what's been upgraded
Average ~$250
The top of the line OCLV versions go for under $500 with XT and XTR


----------



## mojo_matic (Jul 15, 2007)

I think that the OCLV bikes will be classics.... upper end, like Y-33, and SL series. Great riding bikes, especially with lock out thumbie for rear shock. Considering that these were early carbon bikes with a viable suspension design holds some weight, in my opinion. Of course, I am not as OLD school as other collectors here. Regardless, it is odd that even a 10-15 year old bike is called "vintage?" 

The Y-3...... low end boat anchor.


----------



## beepbeep (Sep 3, 2006)

They made a bad-ass Hawaiian graphics version, that could end up being collectable, I wouldn't mind one for my tiki room! :eekster:


----------



## patineto (Oct 28, 2005)

Yes Trek *Y* bikes will be famous someday, do to the incredible amount of Suckers that feel for them and TREK magnificent advertising machine.

but never as a bicycle design


----------



## bushpig (Nov 26, 2005)

There has been so much change in mountain bike design since 1978 it is pretty amazing. Road bikes aren't much different than they were in the 50s, but mountain bikes are ... very different. Seems to me that early suspension designs provide the cheap finds that earlier bikes offered not that long ago. That said, I don't dig them at all.


----------



## mojo_matic (Jul 15, 2007)

patineto said:


> Yes Trek *Y* bikes will be famous someday, do to the incredible amount of Suckers that feel for them and TREK magnificent advertising machine.
> 
> but never as a bicycle design


Have you ever ridden one? With the rear shock lock out for hammering up hills, I thought it was a great like weight suspension bike. At least the guy who placed second in XC expert series back home thought so.... Considering the other designs out during the same timeframe, the Y bike made for a decent lightweight XC suspension bike.

The VRX was a total POS.

How many other other manufacturers and custom bike builders used the same pivot design?

The OCLV hardtails and road bikes were crap bikes built for suckers as well?

God forbid that an American company like Trek grew exponentially with the help of some great designs (and yes, magnificent advertising campaigns), while Schwinn and other went belly up and were sucked up by foreign markets.


----------



## Shayne (Jan 14, 2004)

*Mostly, Yeah*



mojo_matic said:


> The OCLV hardtails and road bikes were crap bikes built for suckers as well?


But that's a discussion for another thread.


----------



## mojo_matic (Jul 15, 2007)

Wow, really?!  I have been very pleased with the 8900 (aluminum) and 9.8 that I owned. Also pleased with old 5500 and current Madone 5.6 SL as well (other than finish easily marred). I have run into very few people who have actually spent time on these bikes who were dissatisfied, and the few frames that I did see damaged were well taken care of by Trek. We recently had a lady who had the aluminum lug on here 1990 2200 crack at the seat post binder. Trek replaced it with last years OCLV 110 Madone 5.2 SL frame...I was floored! To each their own I guess. Cheers

I can see how some people may think that Y frame is fugly. Some people really dig them. After borrowing a friends YSL400 for a race, I was very pleased...and I still refer hardtails. 

I do hate Trek's loud graphix and earlier disc mounts though.


----------



## muddybuddy (Jan 31, 2007)

I do like Treks carbon bikes, especially the hard tails and the STP bikes, but this is the only reason I'd buy a Y-bike  :

http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=368249&highlight=y+guitar


----------



## CS2 (Jul 24, 2007)

Seems like the Y bikes are Love/Hate machines.  
I saw one for sale locally, a Y3 for $350. It seemed high to me considering what I've read so far. I'll probably just pass and find another vintage Rockhopper.

Tim


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

bushpig said:


> There has been so much change in mountain bike design since 1978 it is pretty amazing. Road bikes aren't much different than they were in the 50s, but mountain bikes are ... very different. Seems to me that early suspension designs provide the cheap finds that earlier bikes offered not that long ago. That said, I don't dig them at all.


the Y road from Trek is ...hmmm... interesting. but URTs w/ low pivots, no thanks.


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

mojo_matic said:


> Wow, really?!  I have been very pleased with the 8900 (aluminum) and 9.8 that I owned. Also pleased with old 5500 and current Madone 5.6 SL as well (other than finish easily marred). I have run into very few people who have actually spent time on these bikes who were dissatisfied, and the few frames that I did see damaged were well taken care of by Trek. We recently had a lady who had the aluminum lug on here 1990 2200 crack at the seat post binder. Trek replaced it with last years OCLV 110 Madone 5.2 SL frame...I was floored! To each their own I guess. Cheers
> 
> I can see how some people may think that Y frame is fugly. Some people really dig them. After borrowing a friends YSL400 for a race, I was very pleased...and I still refer hardtails.
> 
> I do hate Trek's loud graphix and earlier disc mounts though.


The URT design is flawed. The suspension is hindered/semi locked out when you stand up because youre standing on the swingarm and your whole body becomes sprung weight (ie unsuspended). Whats the first thing you do when youre flying through a rough section?


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

Fillet-brazed said:


> The URT design is flawed. The suspension is hindered/semi locked out when you stand up because youre standing on the swingarm and your whole body becomes sprung weight (ie unsuspended). Whats the first thing you do when youre flying through a rough section?


and then when you sit and pedal your saddle to BB sacred length is constantly screwed up by the design.


----------



## LQQK (Jan 6, 2004)

mojo_matic said:


> Great riding bikes, especially with lock out thumbie for rear shock.


Isn't that a hardtail then?


----------



## banks (Feb 2, 2004)

A few were made into electric gee-tars


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

That's not actually a flaw, that was a design feature. Remember that this was before platform shocks and the only definite cure to chain-induced compression was to put the drivetrain on the swingarm. Also this was before "fully-active" suspension came into favour as well. We'd just come from a large number of designs (Trek/IronHorse/Mountain Cycles for mid to high pivot canti-beams, Boulder and Mantis Monoshocks, GT's rocker-tuned bikes, etc) which used the chain torque in fact to LOCK out the suspension under power as much as possible but with bobbing resulting as the chain loads reduced. A Semi-active design which used the rider weight to lockout the suspension and never bobbed from chain-torque was seen as a major innovation and its why Fisher, Trek, Schwinn, Ibis, Rocky Mountain, Klein, Voodoo, and many others jumped onto the URT bandwagon. The only trick to riding one was remembering to stay seated for the rough stuff for a change and actually allow the rear suspension to do what it was supposed to and soak up the impacts.


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

DeeEight said:


> That's not actually a flaw, that was a design feature. Remember that this was before platform shocks and the only definite cure to chain-induced compression was to put the drivetrain on the swingarm. Also this was before "fully-active" suspension came into favour as well. We'd just come from a large number of designs (Trek/IronHorse/Mountain Cycles for mid to high pivot canti-beams, Boulder and Mantis Monoshocks, GT's rocker-tuned bikes, etc) which used the chain torque in fact to LOCK out the suspension under power as much as possible but with bobbing resulting as the chain loads reduced. A Semi-active design which used the rider weight to lockout the suspension and never bobbed from chain-torque was seen as a major innovation and its why Fisher, Trek, Schwinn, Ibis, Rocky Mountain, Klein, Voodoo, and many others jumped onto the URT bandwagon. The only trick to riding one was remembering to stay seated for the rough stuff for a change and actually allow the rear suspension to do what it was supposed to and soak up the impacts.


I realize that was the design intent, but its still a flaw in my opinion. I want suspension to work when hauling the mail through rough terrain. Thats the main reason I want it.

I also dont like platform stuff. Its a compromise if you ask me. Or maybe I havent ridden the right one.


----------



## azjeff (Jun 3, 2006)

Fillet-brazed said:


> The URT design is flawed. The suspension is hindered/semi locked out when you stand up because youre standing on the swingarm and your whole body becomes sprung weight (ie unsuspended). Whats the first thing you do when youre flying through a rough section?


Respectfully disagree. My main ride for 3 or 4 years was a Catamount URT. Awesome eastern woods trailbike. Yes you had to adjust your riding some but it gave up nothing to any other design. Well, it wasn't as flickable in tight/fast twisties cause it had a high BB but that had nothing to do with suspension action. The only reason I sold it was it was all wrong for this rocky, ledgy Arizona riding. Too high and short. And it was real touchy to tire selection.



Colker 1 said:


> and then when you sit and pedal your saddle to BB sacred length is constantly screwed up by the design.


This was a media problem. The sensation of the seattube shrinking is only noticeable when you ride seated through a smooth compression, and the amount was less than an inch. Otherwise the normal amount of body movement on a mountain bike totally hides it otherwise. And zero pedal induced jacking or sinking or chain yanking.


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

azjeff said:


> Respectfully disagree. My main ride for 3 or 4 years was a Catamount URT. Awesome eastern woods trailbike. Yes you had to adjust your riding some but it gave up nothing to any other design. Well, it wasn't as flickable in tight/fast twisties cause it had a high BB but that had nothing to do with suspension action. The only reason I sold it was it was all wrong for this rocky, ledgy Arizona riding. Too high and short. And it was real touchy to tire selection.
> 
> This was a media problem. The sensation of the seattube shrinking is only noticeable when you ride seated through a smooth compression, and the amount was less than an inch. Otherwise the normal amount of body movement on a mountain bike totally hides it otherwise. And zero pedal induced jacking or sinking or chain yanking.


Ever seen a downhill bike with a URT design? Ever seen a motocross bike with footpegs on the swingarm?

As to the seat position changing, whether you can feel it or not, thats not a good relationship to have varying.


----------



## mojo_matic (Jul 15, 2007)

LQQK said:


> Isn't that a hardtail then?


No.... You lock out when hammering on slow technical sections and uphill.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

DeeEight said:


> That's not actually a flaw, that was a design feature. Remember that this was before platform shocks and the only definite cure to chain-induced compression was to put the drivetrain on the swingarm. Also this was before "fully-active" suspension came into favour as well. We'd just come from a large number of designs (Trek/IronHorse/Mountain Cycles for mid to high pivot canti-beams, Boulder and Mantis Monoshocks, GT's rocker-tuned bikes, etc) which used the chain torque in fact to LOCK out the suspension under power as much as possible but with bobbing resulting as the chain loads reduced. A Semi-active design which used the rider weight to lockout the suspension and never bobbed from chain-torque was seen as a major innovation and its why Fisher, Trek, Schwinn, Ibis, Rocky Mountain, Klein, Voodoo, and many others jumped onto the URT bandwagon. The only trick to riding one was remembering to stay seated for the rough stuff for a change and actually allow the rear suspension to do what it was supposed to and soak up the impacts.


maybe on fireroads... take those things w/ their steepening headangles when you place yourself behind the seat on technical singletrack and they make no sense.


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

azjeff said:


> Respectfully disagree. My main ride for 3 or 4 years was a Catamount URT. Awesome eastern woods trailbike. Yes you had to adjust your riding some but it gave up nothing to any other design. Well, it wasn't as flickable in tight/fast twisties cause it had a high BB but that had nothing to do with suspension action. The only reason I sold it was it was all wrong for this rocky, ledgy Arizona riding. Too high and short. And it was real touchy to tire selection.


Exactly... my only singlespeed is a full suspension built around a catamount frame. It works great on the terrain in this area (eastern canada woods, lots of roots and exposed rock).



> This was a media problem. The sensation of the seattube shrinking is only noticeable when you ride seated through a smooth compression, and the amount was less than an inch. Otherwise the normal amount of body movement on a mountain bike totally hides it otherwise. And zero pedal induced jacking or sinking or chain yanking.


I've found that many people just seem to want to "bounce" when pedalling regardless of whether its a hardtail or a full suspension, and this motion tends to confuse the suspension and causes it to move regardless of whether its an URT or not.


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

Fillet-brazed said:


> Ever seen a downhill bike with a URT design? Ever seen a motocross bike with footpegs on the swingarm?


YES.... Rocky Mountain Pipeline, 4-5-6" Freeride/DH bikes... used very successfully for years in the BC North Shore by professional riders.


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

colker1 said:


> maybe on fireroads... take those things w/ their steepening headangles when you place yourself behind the seat on technical singletrack and they make no sense.


EVERYTHING with front suspension experiences a steepening head angle when the fork moves, technical singletrack and it being an URT matters little. We get it, you don't like URTs. Fine, but millions of others DID like them, bought them, and kept them for a long time. Many of us still own them.

For that matter, the Haro Sonix platforms are a modified URT... the whole drivetrain is attached to the swingarm, but now the swingarm is suspended from the main frame not by a single pivot point, but a couple pairs of swing-links making it into a VPP bike. And guess what, the Haro's have been found to be one of the best pedaling FS designs yet, even in technical singletrack.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

DeeEight said:


> EVERYTHING with front suspension experiences a steepening head angle when the fork moves, technical singletrack and it being an URT matters little.


if i throw my body weight behind the seat on a hardtail, the front shox unloads, extends and slackens the head angle. the same body movement on a URT unloads the rear shox which by extending compresses the front. 
in a 4 bar or single pivot non unified it's the weight on pedals and BB which compress the susp. on URTs it's the weight on the saddle.
a steepening head angle in steep drops doesn't work for me. i like the other way around.


----------



## azjeff (Jun 3, 2006)

Fillet-brazed said:


> Ever seen a downhill bike with a URT design? Ever seen a motocross bike with footpegs on the swingarm?
> 
> As to the seat position changing, whether you can feel it or not, thats not a good relationship to have varying.


Ever see a 40 lb xc bike? And MX bike design is irrelevant to early/mid 90s MTB design. I noted the URT design wasn't good for everything but it wasn't a throw-away either like 50% of the early designs.

You vary the sacred leg extension length more sliding from front to back on the saddle than the URT does.

We've beat this horse to death and nobody changed their mind yet

Holy SH*T! I agree with D8 about something:eekster:


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

azjeff said:


> Ever see a 40 lb xc bike? And MX bike design is irrelevant to early/mid 90s MTB design. I noted the URT design wasn't good for everything but it wasn't a throw-away either like 50% of the early designs.
> 
> You vary the sacred leg extension length more sliding from front to back on the saddle than the URT does.
> 
> ...


yeah, but an MX bike has suspension that properly soaks up bumps when going fast. Thats what Im saying. And thats what a DH bike must offer as well so youre not going to see a compromised susp system there. Let alone one that is severely hampered when you stand up. If Im gonna be carrying the 3lb+ weight of rear suspension it better work darn well when standing. Thats a personal thing obviously. Everything in life is a compromise in one way or another.

And for D8, the Pipeline was not a DH bike and they havent made it for many years as far as I know. I will agree that a URT can pedal well for a suspension bike, but for me they dont earn their keep when it comes time to do their job suspending a standing rider. And thats the only reason I would want to carry said weight.


----------



## ShiverDC (Mar 6, 2008)

beepbeep said:


> They made a bad-ass Hawaiian graphics version, that could end up being collectable, I wouldn't mind one for my tiki room! :eekster:


The Y-50 was pretty rad back in the day... i know a bunch of people out this way that loved them... isnt there a couple of rarer trek y bikes... the black y-50 for one?


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

Fillet-brazed said:


> And for D8, the Pipeline was not a DH bike and they havent made it for many years as far as I know. I will agree that a URT can pedal well for a suspension bike, but for me they dont earn their keep when it comes time to do their job suspending a standing rider. And thats the only reason I would want to carry said weight.


It was introduced in 1998, it was in production until 2002 and when introduced it was used by the sponsored riders as DH bikes instead of the "Team DH" which was basically a 5" travel linkage equipped Element that was rather prone to breakages. As to the standing rider... standing on an URT does not completely lock out the suspension, it just shifters a greater amount of unsprung mass to the swingarm. The effect of moving 150 pounds of body weight to a swingarm already fighting against a 750 pound spring to move isn't as bad as you and others are trying to make it out to seem to be. My Catamount's rear suspension STILL absorbs impacts when I'm standing better than any hardtail does.


----------



## fjyang (May 4, 2007)

The Trek Y carbon series perform vary well for its time and still does 12 years later. You have to ride one to accurately feel the pro and cons of this bike and I think the media and web bashing without first hand experiance exaggerate the issues more then its due. I have no problems keeping up with my friends Iron Hourst with DW link. A modern platform shock will do wonders on Trek Y bikes. A proper set up (rear shock) and modern parts a Y bike will reward you with instant acceleration when stand up to hammer and still plush enought to absorb bumps even when standing. It will never be as plush as modern bikes but its no way near what the people are claiming how bad it is.

I have a unique Trek Y design bike by a German company called Fischer (see attached pic black bike) which does not use a URT but still have use the carbon Y shape frame with disc brake tabe and that design pretty much bring the Y bike design up to modern standards without any of Y's preceived flaws.

To me the Y frame design is one of most beautiful monocoque carbon frames ever made.


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

fjyang said:


> A modern platform shock will do wonders on Trek Y bikes.


Platform shocks are useless on all URT's... the whole point to a URT is that because the drivetrain is completely (cranks/bb/cogset/chain) on the swingarm, there can never be ANY drivetrain-induced shock compression (DISC)... EVER !!! And all that platform shocks do is add a low-speed compression damping circuit to tune out DISC effects on the suspension. DW-Link bikes by their very nature also work best without a platform shock because the linkage is designed to use the weight transfer during accelleration to counter the DISC effect. Adding a platform shock to URT's and DW-links just makes the suspension respond worse to small-bump impacts (which the shock treats the same as DISC).


----------



## fjyang (May 4, 2007)

Perhaps in theory the URT will eliminate any drivetrain induce compression/bobing but in reality one of the issue people have with Y bikes is the bobing. 

There is a Yahoo Y bike enthusiast group online and the members who have change out the stock 1998 Fox Vanilla air shock with latest air shocks (pro-peddle, SPV, M.C) all noticed a night and day difference on the Y frame. Maybe the 1998 shock technology just isnt up to task to deliver what URT's in theory can do but a modern shock (platform or not) is deliverying/catch up with the benefits of URT's from the 90's

I personally have not try a platform shock on the Y frame but instead have a 7"x2" Risse Terminator shock on my Y11 with tunning to match my weight/bike/riding style. The guys a Risse also stack some shimes on valving to give it some "platform"  and I would also say the difference over p.o.s 98 Fox Van. is night and day. The critical thing it to get the air pressure right.

I have a RP23 on my other bike Whyte PREST-1(single pivot none horst link) and when the pro peddle is turn off on that bike the bobing is noticeable so I turn it on ridding while climbing and flates but turn off pro peddle on down slopes. 

If you take a 12 year old bike along with its shock/fork/brakes, everything sucks compared to newer bikes, if you update the parts then the gap becomes smaller.


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

fjyang said:


> Perhaps in theory the URT will eliminate any drivetrain induce compression/bobing but in reality one of the issue people have with Y bikes is the bobing.


You, like others are confusing body weight transfer induced motions of the suspension bike and body motions with the suspension actually bobbing from the drivetrain. I can make a HARDTAIL feel like its bobbing if I wished but I long since figured out how to pedal my bikes smoothly without lurching my body all over causing the suspension to react to the movements.


----------



## fjyang (May 4, 2007)

If one is riding on smooth paved road then yes but in the real world condition of off road riding with rocks, roots, droops its hard to keep a ideal body motion/balance/weight distribution? So we rely on better shock technology to compensate for our not so perfect riding style and make riders and bikes perform better in adverse conditions. Its a academic discussion at this point, I thought we're talking about Y bikes


----------



## sho220 (Aug 3, 2005)

Used to have a Schwinn Homegrown Sweet Spot. Like a hard tail in the rough, and 4 inches of travel when you didn't need it! And it was heavy to boot! Was fairly stiff when hammering out of the saddle though. It was a nice looking bike and well constructed, but seemed sooooo pointless. A good steel frame feels as (if not more so) smooth and responsive as a URT, without all the extra weight...


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

sho220 said:


> Used to have a Schwinn Homegrown Sweet Spot. Like a hard tail in the rough, and 4 inches of travel when you didn't need it! And it was heavy to boot! Was fairly stiff when hammering out of the saddle though. It was a nice looking bike and well constructed, but seemed sooooo pointless. A good steel frame feels as (if not more so) smooth and responsive as a URT, without all the extra weight...


Thats exactly why I dont get the design.


----------



## fjyang (May 4, 2007)

I've ridden my hardtails back to back with my Trek Y's and there is no way a hard tail is as smooth as full suspension, even the URT's. A semi-active suspension is still waaaaay better then no suspension. A hardtail will not be as fast or smooth on slopes/rough stuff and i've even add suspesnion seat post to take the edge off which helps but your legs are still the shock. 

Me and my buddies done un-scientific test with our bikes, a Iron Hourse Azure DW, Trek Y11, Giant Hardtail and a Nishiki fully rigid bike. We rode down our favorite trail and see who is faster to the bottom and the result is the same order I listed the bikes above. Switched riders and still the same result.

A stock Trek Y11 weight 27lb and top of line Y33 back then with XTR weight 24lb. I would not considered them heavy compared to modern equiv.

If one take a 10 year old fork and shock and put it on latest and greatest DW, VPP or whatever P, would it still perform as well because of the linkages? I would add one has to recognized how much fork and air shock tech has come and their impact on bike pefromance is probably just as much as latest linkage designs.

If you look at GT I-drives, its basically a URT with a twist at the bottom bracket so it maintain fix distance between saddle height and BB but still a URT, also I-Drive is one of longest production system beside the Horst Link on the market. Haro's Sonix as DeeEight mentioned its a URT with extra linkage at the BB. Its all a variation of the URT and bike designer are re-examining the older concept with advances made in shocks and forks.

The current GT Marathon or Carbon Pro bike is the closest thing to comparing Trek Y carbon bikes and their top of line 24lb model cost $5,000!


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

fjyang said:


> I've ridden my hardtails back to back with my Trek Y's and there is no way a hard tail is as smooth as full suspension, even the URT's. A semi-active suspension is still waaaaay better then no suspension. A hardtail will not be as fast or smooth on slopes/rough stuff and i've even add suspesnion seat post to take the edge off which helps but your legs are still the shock.
> 
> Me and my buddies done un-scientific test with our bikes, a Iron Hourse Azure DW, Trek Y11, Giant Hardtail and a Nishiki fully rigid bike. We rode down our favorite trail and see who is faster to the bottom and the result is the same order I listed the bikes above. Switched riders and still the same result.
> 
> ...


An I-Drive is not a URT. The rider is still fully suspended while standing unlike a URT. THe difference is that it moves seperate from the swingarm. The I-drive was a really great concept but just a little too much going on maybe down in that huge shell. Had some extra suspension drag too due all the mechanics of it.


----------



## fjyang (May 4, 2007)

It really depend on your definition of URT. If one considered as long as BB and drive train is on the swing arm and not part of the main frame then I-Drive's are part of URT family, just that GT is smart enough not to called it URT derivative. I-Drive suspend the BB in a concentric housing in the old version or suspend it in a linkage fashion in the new version but they're all part of the rear triangle. I think one of the new Maverick bike is a URT derivative but like Haro and GT they won't even touch the URT word with a ten foot pole to use it to describe their design.

I always have the idea to draft a I-drive swing arm onto a Trek Y frame.


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

fjyang said:


> It really depend on your definition of URT. If one considered as long as BB and drive train is on the swing arm and not part of the main frame then I-Drive's are part of URT family, just that GT is smart enough not to called it URT derivative. I-Drive suspend the BB in a concentric housing in the old version or suspend it in a linkage fashion in the new version but they're all part of the rear triangle. I think one of the new Maverick bike is a URT derivative but like Haro and GT they won't even touch the URT word with a ten foot pole to use it to describe their design.
> 
> I always have the idea to draft a I-drive swing arm onto a Trek Y frame.


Well its not a URT in two ways.

1. URT = Unified Rear Triangle. The I-drive does not have that, but just the opposite - the bb is attached to the front triangle.

2. It doesnt have the bad traits of a URT.

It could be confused with one if you didnt understand what was taking place in that big mechanism, though. But, its entirely different in the way it works.


----------



## cegrover (Oct 17, 2004)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the primary difference:

1) On a URT, the saddle and BB are separated, which is to say one is suspended and one's not.
2) On most, if not all, other FS designs, the saddle and BB are together.

Okay, back to a VRC topic...

*fjyang:* Do you have pictures of that rigid Nishiki you mentioned???


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

GT I-drives (and their schwinn/mongoose cousins) and the Maverick frames are considered floating BB linkages... (as was the Giant DH bike that Paul Turner designed for John Tomac in the late 90s). Standing on the pedals of an I-drive does NOT increase the unsuspended mass of the swingarm (unlike on URTs).


----------



## KDXdog (Mar 15, 2007)

I have a RockShox seatpost on my Indy, a much better URT solution.:thumbsup:


----------



## fjyang (May 4, 2007)

If you insist that URT must mean that it have a BB that is in a fixed fashion like Trek Y and others then so be it. Most will tell the difference of suspension design by if the BB is part of the main frame, thats one type of suspension and if the BB is part of rear triangle then its the other type (URT). Unified Rear Triangle to mean "part of" not fixed or absolute. Most people already associate URT with bad performance so if one improve upon the URT or a variation of, it must not be URT but Floating BB or I-|Drive. 

Is Horst link or Faux Horst Link not belong to the same family? even though one supposely perform better then the other?


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

If you ride a Trek Y-frame or GT I-drive, you lose either way. How about that.


----------



## laffeaux (Jan 4, 2004)

Rumpfy said:


> If you ride a Trek Y-frame or GT I-drive, you lose either way. How about that.


LOL

A positive trait of a URT is that you can make it into a single-speed, since the chain length does not change during the travel. Most any other design will have some change in the chain length during suspension travel.


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

laffeaux said:


> LOL
> 
> A positive trait of a URT is that you can make it into a single-speed, since the chain length does not change during the travel. Most any other design will have some change in the chain length during suspension travel.


Like a Snookum or a Slingshot!?


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

laffeaux said:


> LOL
> 
> A positive trait of a URT is that you can make it into a single-speed, since the chain length does not change during the travel. Most any other design will have some change in the chain length during suspension travel.


Excellent, EL! Im getting a URT now.

And this also proves that an I-drive is not a URT because you cant run it with a fixed chain length!

fjyang, look closely at an I-drive, the bb shell is directly connected to the front triangle and moves totally independent of the rear triangle. It is not "unified" with the rear triangle by any means.


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

fjyang said:


> If you insist that URT must mean that it have a BB that is in a fixed fashion like Trek Y and others then so be it. Most will tell the difference of suspension design by if the BB is part of the main frame, thats one type of suspension and if the BB is part of rear triangle then its the other type (URT). Unified Rear Triangle to mean "part of" not fixed or absolute. Most people already associate URT with bad performance so if one improve upon the URT or a variation of, it must not be URT but Floating BB or I-|Drive.
> 
> Is Horst link or Faux Horst Link not belong to the same family? even though one supposely perform better then the other?


I think we're insisting because we KNOW WE'RE RIGHT AND THAT YOU'RE WRONG ! And yes, the Unified Rear Triangle does mean that the BB shell is fixed to the swingarm member that the rear wheel attaches to also. I-drives are floating BB's. It wasn't just some new term invented for marketing purposes. It is a totally different type of suspension design. By your broad definition of what an URT is, then the concentric-BB pivot linkage bikes like Lenz and Kona produce would be URTs since they too don't experience any chain growth/influence on the suspension. But they're not URTs. Slingshots are URTs as well, albiet with a VERY high pivot point.


----------



## fjyang (May 4, 2007)

Okay I got it, all URT should be burn and banish from the face of the earth. Please sent all your Trek Y33, YSL to me free of charge and I'll recycle it for you  

Attached is my URT alternative, since you guys "love" the URT so much, I can't wait to hear what the people have to say about the Softride  

fillet-brazed, Yes I know exactly what I-Drive looks like, my brother have one. There is a dog-bone/linkage that connects the BB to the main frame to prevent it moving while the rear triangel move through its suspension travel but the BB is still part of the rear triangle, That is what I'm trying to say. I understand your prespective but your not reading mine.


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

Softrides are not URTs... the rear wheel isn't suspended at all so its still a hardtail... just one with an intergral suspension beam supporting the seatpost/saddle. I've owned and ridden Softride bikes. They're "interesting" to ride if all you want is the longest travel suspension seatpost known.

Back to the I-Drive... you're failing to understand that a swingarm pivoting concentrically AROUND the BB shell does not make the bike an URT. The BB shell absolutely must move WITH the swingarm member the rear wheel is attached to (because its part of that frame member) when the suspension compresses/rebounds for it to be an URT. If it doesn't, no matter what it looks like visually, then its NOT an URT. Anything that limits that BB shell from moving with the rear wheel at precisely the same angle and distance nullifies the "perspective" of yours that its an URT. Your perspective is flawed to begin with, but you'll swear blind that you're right and everyone else here with years more experience and knowledge that you are the ones who are wrong.


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

fjyang said:


> Okay I got it, all URT should be burn and banish from the face of the earth. Please sent all your Trek Y33, YSL to me free of charge and I'll recycle it for you
> 
> Attached is my URT alternative, since you guys "love" the URT so much, I can't wait to hear what the people have to say about the Softride
> 
> fillet-brazed, Yes I know exactly what I-Drive looks like, my brother have one. There is a dog-bone/linkage that connects the BB to the main frame to prevent it moving while the rear triangel move through its suspension travel but the BB is still part of the rear triangle, That is what I'm trying to say. I understand your prespective but your not reading mine.


those are known as a UFART (Unified Front And Rear Triangle).


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

What I really enjoy is fjyang has caused Dee-Eight and Fillet Brazed to join forces.

This has never happened before and is a big deal.


----------



## laffeaux (Jan 4, 2004)

Fjyang, URTs have their place. Like I say, they make great single speeds. There's no bobbing when climbing out of the saddle, and they take the edge off of the bumps.

Here's my modified-URT (a URT with a horst link) that is set up for SSing.


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

That's not an URT... that's a floating BB...


----------



## mechagouki (Nov 30, 2007)

All suspension systems have their problems and what does or doesn't bother you is very much a personal thing, like it or not fashion has a lot to do with it - Santa cruz still use a forward located single pivot design on some of their bikes, despite the fact that this suspension method has serious flaws associated with it. URT bikes vary greatly from model to model, the pivot location on the TREK Ys is probably not ideal, but move it a long way up and forward (like the KLEIN mantra) and performance improves greatly (don't take my word for it - check out http://www.mtbr.com/reviews/Bike/product_18702.shtml where the Mantra has a rating of 4.56/5.00 over 150+ reviews). A lot of people also seem to think that they can just jump on a full-sus bike and ride the way they did on their hardtail or rigid, obviously you have to adapt your riding style to the bike beneath you. As for the currently fashionable Horst/4 bar link; it's a fairly stable design which avoids some of the problems that a new rider might have with other FS designs, but only by sacrificing much of the simplicity that makes bicycles such wonderful machines. Nobody's really right or wrong on this one, so why waste energy arguing about it?


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

mechagouki said:


> All suspension systems have their problems and what does or doesn't bother you is very much a personal thing, like it or not fashion has a lot to do with it - Santa cruz still use a forward located single pivot design on some of their bikes, despite the fact that this suspension method has serious flaws associated with it. URT bikes vary greatly from model to model, the pivot location on the TREK Ys is probably not ideal, but move it a long way up and forward (like the KLEIN mantra) and performance improves greatly (don't take my word for it - check out http://www.mtbr.com/reviews/Bike/product_18702.shtml where the Mantra has a rating of 4.56/5.00 over 150+ reviews). A lot of people also seem to think that they can just jump on a full-sus bike and ride the way they did on their hardtail or rigid, obviously you have to adapt your riding style to the bike beneath you. As for the currently fashionable Horst/4 bar link; it's a fairly stable design which avoids some of the problems that a new rider might have with other FS designs, but only by sacrificing much of the simplicity that makes bicycles such wonderful machines. Nobody's really right or wrong on this one, so why waste energy arguing about it?


I agree, theyre all different.

The Horst link is not currently fashionable - its been fashionable since the early 90s and in my opinion the best one out there and is why its still going today. I like that with a non-platform shock and a lockout for my long climbs.

And for the record, we werent arguing (atleast most recently) about the ride, but whether or not an I-drive is a URT or not.


----------



## mechagouki (Nov 30, 2007)

Fillet-brazed said:


> And for the record, we werent arguing (atleast most recently) about the ride, but whether or not an I-drive is a URT or not.


Oh sorry,

It's not:thumbsup:


----------



## fjyang (May 4, 2007)

You guys totally misunderstand my point ;-) If you read my post, I'd never said I-Drives are URT's but "URT derivative", "URT Family", " URT with a twist at the bottom bracket". If one read mountain bike magazines that have reviewed I-Drive, Haro Sonix or Maverick bikes, they all have used the word "unified rear triangle" to describe their design.

I'd also never said Softrides are URT's either, rather, since most have such a negative connotation regarding URT's, I'd post the Sofride pic to entice even more sarcastice comments like I've seen with URT's. 

Softride's concept of "suspend the rider not the bike" is an even worse performing suspension design then URT's and I rode them both so I know, but Softride is a one of kind riding experiance that will put a smile on your face regardless what one think of its concept and all my friends who have ridden mine can attest to that.

I kind of understand why all the Trek Y and URT bike owners have their own discussion group outside most bike forums to avoid all the flak regarding their bike designs. 

Not arguing anymore just expressing opinions and I respect and appreciate all the knowledge that's been throw around URT's and other designs. By the way laffeux, I really like what you've done with your "EX-URT" rear end, how does it ride?


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

fjyang said:


> You guys totally misunderstand my point ;-) If you read my post, I'd never said I-Drives are URT's but "URT derivative", "URT Family", " URT with a twist at the bottom bracket". If one read mountain bike magazines that have reviewed I-Drive, Haro Sonix or Maverick bikes, they all have used the word "unified rear triangle" to describe their design.


let me guess...you read it in Mountain Bike Action therefore it must be true right? The magazine which stopped using the term freeriding instead to make up the term "triple black diamond bikes" when the rest of the industry still calls freeride bikes....thats right... freeride bikes.



> I'd also never said Softrides are URT's either, rather, since most have such a negative connotation regarding URT's, I'd post the Sofride pic to entice even more sarcastice comments like I've seen with URT's.


You're really new around here aren't you?


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

Fillet-brazed said:


> Excellent, EL! Im getting a URT now.


That's why I got a catamount...


----------



## bushpig (Nov 26, 2005)

I don't like rear suspension.


----------



## fjyang (May 4, 2007)

I see, I've been trick by the bike mags.  they're just using the term loosely. I guess the BB have to be fixed and move with rear triangle to be able to call it URT. Nice Catamount, don't see too many around.


----------



## mechagouki (Nov 30, 2007)

bushpig said:


> I don't like rear suspension.




Way to Mod BP!


----------



## sho220 (Aug 3, 2005)

I love rear suspension...


----------



## itsdoable (Jan 6, 2004)

The i-Drive is a 4-bar linkage.


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

no the i-drive isn't a 4-bar...


----------



## itsdoable (Jan 6, 2004)

DeeEight said:


> no the i-drive isn't a 4-bar...


I would argue, along with the designer, that it is by definition. 2 short links, a swing arm, and the front triangle, with the bb on the shortest link. Unless you define a 4-bar by the bb on the main triangle.


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

A single-pivot linkage / Faux-Bar sure... given that the rear wheel mounts to the main swingarm member which pivots not off those two short links, but off the main frame itself... but not a true 4-bar. But since that type of SPL has already been classed as a floating-bb linkage.... which the I-Drive and the Maverick frames are examples of.

And coming from that particular designer, who's ripped off other designers and brands in the past, I don't put much stock in what he says or does anymore. Let's see... he stole the rocker-tuned design from Schwinn-Buell, he stole horst-links used on the LTS/STS from Amp Research, and he stole the Y-frame layout used by the I-Drives from Trek (yes, Trek has a design patent on Y-style frames, its what caused GT to settle a lawsuit out of court with Maverick/Trek over the SL-7 frames and its floating BB link design as Trek countersued over the violation of their patent). Oh NOT to mention he stole the whole floating BB linkage idea from Paul Turner himself.


----------



## jacdykema (Apr 10, 2006)

bushpig said:


> I don't like rear suspension.


Thank God, someone said it at last! I don't much care for front either, truth be told. I like to feel the trail.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

bushpig said:


> I don't like rear suspension.


coool. 

me neither. i barely tolerate front shocks.


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

colker1 said:


> coool.
> 
> me neither. i barely tolerate front shocks.


the body is one of the best shock absorbers out there. The only problem is it gets overwhelmed and cant keep up when the speeds are high. For stuff like slow speed trials though, there is nothing better than the body.

There is a different flow and beauty to riding rigid and with suspension.


----------



## fjyang (May 4, 2007)

Hey guys and all the tech guru. The 2000 Jamis Diablo is one of my favorite bike beside the Trek Y and I'm bringing back the URT's again. The Jamis have a URT but the pivit is concentric with the BB so its both a URT and a Floating BB? 

The distance from the seat and BB does not change while the rear triangle is moving through its travel but since the BB and pivit point is concentric the benefit of URT (no chain growth) also applies. Do we call this UFT (Unified Floating Triangle)? haha


----------



## laffeaux (Jan 4, 2004)

The Jamis is not a URT, but does look a lot like the Y-bike.

I'll let the suspension gurus name it.


----------



## TRIPLE R (Jan 17, 2008)

*Gary F rear triangle*



fjyang said:


> The Trek Y carbon series perform vary well for its time and still does 12 years later. You have to ride one to accurately feel the pro and cons of this bike and I think the media and web bashing without first hand experiance exaggerate the issues more then its due. I have no problems keeping up with my friends Iron Hourst with DW link. A modern platform shock will do wonders on Trek Y bikes. A proper set up (rear shock) and modern parts a Y bike will reward you with instant acceleration when stand up to hammer and still plush enought to absorb bumps even when standing. It will never be as plush as modern bikes but its no way near what the people are claiming how bad it is.
> 
> I have a unique Trek Y design bike by a German company called Fischer (see attached pic black bike) which does not use a URT but still have use the carbon Y shape frame with disc brake tabe and that design pretty much bring the Y bike design up to modern standards without any of Y's preceived flaws.
> 
> To me the Y frame design is one of most beautiful monocoque carbon frames ever made.


The rear triangle on that orange Y looks exactly the same as my Gary F Joshua x1 bike ,did Gary get trek to supply him the rear triangles or did trek use Garys design I seriously would like to know


----------



## TRIPLE R (Jan 17, 2008)

*Gary F*

:thumbsup:


----------



## TRIPLE R (Jan 17, 2008)




----------



## TRIPLE R (Jan 17, 2008)

check out my 800 behind


----------



## mechagouki (Nov 30, 2007)

TRIPLE R said:


>


looks like you've got something caught in your big ring


----------



## TRIPLE R (Jan 17, 2008)

mechagouki said:


> looks like you've got something caught in your big ring


na just the way the pic is taken


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

This has got to be one of the worst threads on the VRC right now.

They're not really vintage....or even good suspension bikes for that matter.

Four pages of sh!t.


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

Fisher Joshua's were patterned after the Trek Y-bikes... the Y came first, when Trek bought Fisher, Fisher suddenlly got forced to produce URTs.

As to the Jamis Diablo, its a monoshock with a concentric pivot, it is NOT an URT. Again, for the learning impaired, to be an URT, the BB shell must be physically attached to the swingarm and move with it exactly. On the Diablo, when the suspension compresses and the swingarm moves, it moves around the BB shell. The BB doesn't move at all. Its attached to the main frame.


----------



## fjyang (May 4, 2007)

The Trek Y and Gary Fisher Joshua share the same URT. They can be swap on both bikes but the way its constructed is a little different. Attach are pics from a Y bike group member that have drafted a Gary Fisher URT onto the Y frame. That also share the same pivot bearings. Both Fisher an Trek have the Y frame in 80mm & 100mm travel version depending on the shock length and stroke. Joshua model fetch quite a respectable price on ebay even though its not carbon frame.


----------



## XR4TI (Sep 6, 2005)

Rumpfy said:


> This has got to be one of the worst threads on the VRC right now.
> 
> They're not really vintage....or even good suspension bikes for that matter.
> 
> Four pages of sh!t.


LOL


----------



## XR4TI (Sep 6, 2005)

Rumpfy said:


> This has got to be one of the worst threads on the VRC right now.
> 
> They're not really vintage....or even good suspension bikes for that matter.
> 
> Four pages of sh!t.


If you change "Number of Posts to Show Per Page" to 100. It's only one page of sh!t. Super funny. Hard to stop laughing.


----------



## TRIPLE R (Jan 17, 2008)

each to his own,I guess,I quite like my josh,yer its not top performance but it is quality and even tho it has p bob it handles the trails smoothly and is fun to cruise to work on now and then,and designed by a man of vision.thanks for your valued input Fjyang and D8


----------



## fjyang (May 4, 2007)

DeeEight said:


> As to the Jamis Diablo, its a monoshock with a concentric pivot, it is NOT an URT. Again, for the learning impaired, to be an URT, the BB shell must be physically attached to the swingarm and move with it exactly. On the Diablo, when the suspension compresses and the swingarm moves, it moves around the BB shell. The BB doesn't move at all. Its attached to the main frame.


Perhap we can try to expand your horizon a little, the Jamis is both a floating bb since the designer place the pivot concentric with BB and also fits the characteristic of an URT as it has no chain growth. When the BB and pivot are inline/concentric, they are unified and in theory have best of both worlds.

I guess reviewers from Mountain Bike Action, Dirt Rag, Mountain Bike are just full of Sh!t and talking out of their Arssss when they describe many other design with the word URT. I'm writing a complaint to Richard Cunninghan and ask him to fire their idiot staff that can't tell URT=Sh!t, I-Drive= Good Sh!t from Floating BB= Umber Sh!t


----------



## fjyang (May 4, 2007)

One last pic of sh...........t :thumbsup: Nice paint job


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

fjyang said:


> Perhap we can try to expand your horizon a little, the Jamis is both a floating bb since the designer place the pivot concentric with BB and also fits the characteristic of an URT as it has no chain growth. When the BB and pivot are inline/concentric, they are unified and in theory have best of both worlds.
> 
> I guess reviewers from Mountain Bike Action, Dirt Rag, Mountain Bike are just full of Sh!t and talking out of their Arssss when they describe many other design with the word URT. I'm writing a complaint to Richard Cunninghan and ask him to fire their idiot staff that can't tell URT=Sh!t, I-Drive= Good Sh!t from Floating BB= Umber Sh!t


Like Rumpfy said, this thread is pathetic. The Jamis is not a URT and I dont think any of those magazines would call it that. If they did they were flat out wrong. It happens all the time. In fact MBA could possibly be wrong more than it is right. Its written for 13-17 year olds and seems to be written by the same.

The Y bike doesnt belong here.

And D8, thanks for pointing out that the Jamis is a monoshock since there are many bikes with dual rear shocks.


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

fjyang said:


> Perhap we can try to expand your horizon a little, the Jamis is both a floating bb since the designer place the pivot concentric with BB and also fits the characteristic of an URT as it has no chain growth. When the BB and pivot are inline/concentric, they are unified and in theory have best of both worlds.


Perhaps you can start to LEARN the terminology and technology better and then you'd stop trying to teach us about bikes we understand far better than you do. You look at a picture and go "oh that's an URT and that's a floating BB" because what they look like visually, without actually understanding what the differences between them are.

A FLOATING BB bike needs to move the BB seperately from the main frame and from the swingarm... hence the name... it floats between the two... and is used to counter the chaingrowth that occurs as the axle moves upwards and rearwards. Concentric swingarm pivots around the BB shell predate the floating BB linkage design by several years and are completely difference. Yes the first I-Drives did employ a concentric BB pivot for the swingarm itself but that doesn't mean all floating BB designs have to do so (GT themselves abandoned the concentric swingarm pivot) and it doesn't mean that all bikes with concentric pivots are floating BBs. KHS had one shown at Interbike and the Taipei bike shows back in 1992. Lenz and Kona have been offering models using them for a decade. Wheeler had one in titanium around 1994/95. In all cases they were were NOT floating BBs as the BB shell was part of the main frame, and thus didn't ever move independantly of it.



> I guess reviewers from Mountain Bike Action, Dirt Rag, Mountain Bike are just full of Sh!t and talking out of their Arssss when they describe many other design with the word URT. I'm writing a complaint to Richard Cunninghan and ask him to fire their idiot staff that can't tell URT=Sh!t, I-Drive= Good Sh!t from Floating BB= Umber Sh!t


Its not that the bike magazine staff are full of sh|t its that you're an idiot who can't tell the difference between what's being talked about in magazines and what you see in pictures because you don't actually understand the differences between the designs. There are people who have practical real experience knowledge and just book knowledge all over this site. You don't even qualify as one of the book knowledge folks though. You've got magazine knowledge at best. And apparently just the magazines with colour pictures...



fillet-brazed said:


> And D8, thanks for pointing out that the Jamis is a monoshock since there are many bikes with dual rear shocks.


The monoshocks term in bicycles came about by staffers at magazines like MBA (who were originally pooled from DirtBike Action magazine) to explain the difference between different suspension frame designs. The original Monoshock term came from early-80s Yamaha dirt bikes which used a single-pivot triangulated tube structure swingarm driven by a single coil-over shock and named Monoshocks by Yamaha. Most other off-road motorcycles at the time used a single-pivot cantilever beam design swingarm often with more than one shock driving them. So the terms got carried over to mountain bikes because most of the full suspension frame builders came motorcycle backgrounds as did most of the mountain bike magazine writers. So bikes with one-piece cantilever beam swingarms were called cantilever beam bikes (Mountain Cycles San Andreas, Trek T3C, Iron Horse/Verlicchi design, etc) and those that had triangulated tube swingarms (Boulder Gazelle, First gen Mantis Profloater, etc) were called Monoshock bikes. This was especially the case when many of those early suspension designs did in fact employ multiple shocks. The first Foes FAB for example ran double Fox Alps 4 air shocks mounted end to end to get the 2" stroke needed for the 3:1 leverage ratio swingarm to deliver 6" of wheel travel. This was at a time though that the longest travel suspension fork was the 3" Proforx LT.


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

DeeEight said:


> The monoshocks term in bicycles came about by staffers at magazines like MBA (who were originally pooled from DirtBike Action magazine) to explain the difference between different suspension frame designs. The original Monoshock term came from early-80s Yamaha dirt bikes which used a single-pivot triangulated tube structure swingarm driven by a single coil-over shock and named Monoshocks by Yamaha. Most other off-road motorcycles at the time used a single-pivot cantilever beam design swingarm often with more than one shock driving them. So the terms got carried over to mountain bikes because most of the full suspension frame builders came motorcycle backgrounds as did most of the mountain bike magazine writers. So bikes with one-piece cantilever beam swingarms were called cantilever beam bikes (Mountain Cycles San Andreas, Trek T3C, Iron Horse/Verlicchi design, etc) and those that had triangulated tube swingarms (Boulder Gazelle, First gen Mantis Profloater, etc) were called Monoshock bikes. This was especially the case when many of those early suspension designs did in fact employ multiple shocks. The first Foes FAB for example ran double Fox Alps 4 air shocks mounted end to end to get the 2" stroke needed for the 3:1 leverage ratio swingarm to deliver 6" of wheel travel. This was at a time though that the longest travel suspension fork was the 3" Proforx LT.


I know what a monoshock is. I had one on my '78 YZ80.  There is no need to call a bike's design a monoshock setup because Ive never seen a dual shock on a bike. My friend actually had the original Foes Fab back in 93-94 with 6" of rear travel and it only had one Fox Alps shock with a 2" stroke. I do believe I recall seeing some sort of proto with back to back shocks but that is entirely different from a dual shock setup on the early motorcycles.


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

Well you may not have seen one, but I have seen full suspension bikes with dual rear shocks. That KHS I mentioned with the concentric BB pivot was a cantilever beam... it has two small coil shocks behind the seattube and about an inch behind the BB shell, to support the swingarm. They looked like valve springs from a car adapted to support the swingarm. Each was probably rated around 2000 pounds given the location and incredibly high leverage ratio of the beam at that spot. 

But calling triangulated-swingarm single pivots as monoshocks has been the convention in the bicycle world now for nearly twenty years. You may not agree with it, but you're in the minority then because even the bike designers themselves called them that.


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

DeeEight said:


> Well you may not have seen one, but I have seen full suspension bikes with dual rear shocks. That KHS I mentioned with the concentric BB pivot was a cantilever beam... it has two small coil shocks behind the seattube and about an inch behind the BB shell, to support the swingarm. They looked like valve springs from a car adapted to support the swingarm. Each was probably rated around 2000 pounds given the location and incredibly high leverage ratio of the beam at that spot.
> 
> But calling triangulated-swingarm single pivots as monoshocks has been the convention in the bicycle world now for nearly twenty years. You may not agree with it, but you're in the minority then because even the bike designers themselves called them that.


Ok, so there was one mountain bike with dual shocks (Ive never seen it). I do recall now, that in the BMX days there were a couple dual shocked bikes and the successors to those were probably called monoshocks but not in the mtb world. 99.99% of all FS bikes are monoshocks, why bother calling it that? Should we also call them monoshock, dual wheel, monohandlebar designs? Do you have a pic of this KHS? What mtb manufacturers label their design as a monoshock?


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

Fillet-brazed said:


> Ok, so there was one mountain bike with dual shocks (Ive never seen it). I do recall now, that in the BMX days there were a couple dual shocked bikes and the successors to those were probably called monoshocks but not in the mtb world. 99.99% of all FS bikes are monoshocks, why bother calling it that? Should we also call them monoshock, dual wheel, monohandlebar designs? Do you have a pic of this KHS? What mtb manufacturers label their design as a monoshock?


I explained that... it was the TRIANGULATED TUBE SWINGARM with a single pivot that Yamaha used for their bikes, and that some bike designers adopted as well, that got the naming convention carried over. I explained this was done to differentiate them from single-pivot cantilever beam designs. PAY ATTENTION! They'll be a quiz later. There were other dual-shock bicycle designs other than that KHS... perhaps if you'd paid closer attention to the mountain bike world 15 years ago you'd be aware of them.


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

DeeEight said:


> I explained that... it was the TRIANGULATED TUBE SWINGARM with a single pivot that Yamaha used for their bikes, and that some bike designers adopted as well, that got the naming convention carried over. I explained this was done to differentiate them from single-pivot cantilever beam designs. PAY ATTENTION! They'll be a quiz later. There were other dual-shock bicycle designs other than that KHS... perhaps if you'd paid closer attention to the mountain bike world 15 years ago you'd be aware of them.


:lol: Oh boy. So what are these dual shock bikes? And what designers label their design as a monoshock? Im simply asking for you to back up what you say. Thats all. Dont get mad..


----------



## hollister (Sep 16, 2005)

*please*

just let this thread die a quite death


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

Fillet-brazed said:


> :lol: Oh boy. So what are these dual shock bikes? And what designers label their design as a monoshock? Im simply asking for you to back up what you say. Thats all. Dont get mad..


Santa Cruz for starters labeled the heckler, tazmon, superlight, julianna and bullit as Monoshocks. Boulder bicycles labeled their bikes as monoshocks, Richard Cunningham described his first generation Mantis Profloater as a Monoshock (the second generation went to a mac-strut design). Litespeed's Ocoee in 1993 was a monoshock design.

As to dual shock bikes...umm... Manitous duh. Twin Shock rear suspension. And the Miyata DH bikes that were made for Greg herbold, same type of twin-shock but with rockshox fork guts. Balance and Marin also had the twin-shock rear ends. Supergo's first Access FS had a twin-shock setup with a triangulated swingarm using a concentric BB main pivot. Open up any MBA from 1993 and you can find pictures of that frame in the supergo ads. They only sold thousands of them worldwide. Probably doesn't count in your imaginary world of make believe.


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

DeeEight said:


> Santa Cruz for starters labeled the heckler, tazmon, superlight, julianna and bullit as Monoshocks. Boulder bicycles labeled their bikes as monoshocks, Richard Cunningham described his first generation Mantis Profloater as a Monoshock (the second generation went to a mac-strut design). Litespeed's Ocoee in 1993 was a monoshock design.
> 
> As to dual shock bikes...umm... Manitous duh. Twin Shock rear suspension. And the Miyata DH bikes that were made for Greg herbold, same type of twin-shock but with rockshox fork guts. Balance and Marin also had the twin-shock rear ends. Supergo's first Access FS had a twin-shock setup with a triangulated swingarm using a concentric BB main pivot. Open up any MBA from 1993 and you can find pictures of that frame in the supergo ads. They only sold thousands of them worldwide. Probably doesn't count in your imaginary world of make believe.


ok, good example. The bikes with the Manitou forks on the rear I had forgotten about (Herbold's was only a prototype as far as I recall). I was thinking about an actual rear shock (like a Fox Alps or a Fox Float, etc) used in a dual shock design. Ok, fine.

As for Santa Cruz using the term I never heard it. Doesnt mean it wasnt used. I think I do recall the Boulder labeled as such...

Ok, maybe now we can let this thread die unless fjyang has some more "URT" bikes to post.  Hollister, do you have any bikes to post?


----------



## hollister (Sep 16, 2005)

Fillet-brazed said:


> Hollister, do you have any bikes to post?


no.


----------



## hollister (Sep 16, 2005)

and I honestly mean that


----------



## hollister (Sep 16, 2005)

let this die 

what a waste of bandwidth


----------



## ssmike (Jan 21, 2004)

Fillet-brazed said:


> I was thinking about an actual rear shock (like a Fox Alps or a Fox Float, etc) used in a dual shock design.


Sorry, should have resisted to let this die.

Double rear shock: Kestrel Rubicon.


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

ssmike said:


> Sorry, should have resisted to let this die.
> 
> Double rear shock: Kestrel Rubicon.


I knew someone was going to bring this one up. But the discussion is about the motorcycle style like this:










Hollister, there will always be OT threads. And just wait about 5 years, this wont be OT as I think this is the next wave of mtb collectibles.


----------



## hollister (Sep 16, 2005)

*hey, if we aint gonna let it die lets prolong this train wreck*



Fillet-brazed said:


> And just wait about 5 years, this wont be OT as I think this is the next wave of mtb collectibles.


and that makes me sick


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

All I'm saying is.....TREKS RULE!!!!!!


----------



## CS2 (Jul 24, 2007)

I'm amazed this is still active and 5 pages long. When I started it all I wanted to know is the Y series vintage or not. This thing has really morphed.

Tim


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

CS2 said:


> I'm amazed this is still active and 5 pages long. When I started it all I wanted to know is the Y series vintage or not. This thing has really morphed.
> 
> Tim


Ah, well in answer to your original question then...no, it's not vintage.

By and large they will have little to no collectors value; the only possible exceptions being pristine, top of the line examples, prototypes, or one-off's. And even then, 'true' collectors will find nothing particularly desirable about them...only those people who started MTB'ing late and have strong nostalgia towards mid to late 90's bikes.


----------



## CS2 (Jul 24, 2007)

Rumpfy said:


> Ah, well in answer to your original question then...no, it's not vintage.
> 
> By and large they will have little to no collectors value; the only possible exceptions being pristine, top of the line examples, prototypes, or one-off's. And even then, 'true' collectors will find nothing particularly desirable about them...only those people who started MTB'ing late and have strong nostalgia towards mid to late 90's bikes.


Great answer. I wish it was the first post, the thread would have died there. 

Tim


----------



## itsdoable (Jan 6, 2004)

DeeEight said:


> ...the Jamis Diablo, its a monoshock with a concentric pivot, it is NOT an URT. Again, for the learning impaired, to be an URT, the BB shell must be physically attached to the swingarm and move with it exactly. On the Diablo, when the suspension compresses and the swingarm moves, it moves around the BB shell. The BB doesn't move at all. Its attached to the main frame.


I thought the BB on the Diablo was mounted directly to the swingarm (BB shell is part of the swingarm), and the front triangle pivots around the BB shell. Same thing really, the difference is all semantics.

Good or bad, they all become vintage and collectible eventually.


----------



## TRIPLE R (Jan 17, 2008)

*NZ style*

Sorry if I piss anyone off but had to show N.Z technology


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

TRIPLE R said:


> Sorry if I piss anyone off but had to show N.Z technology


The motor home?


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

No, look at the frames... top linkage... there's TWO shocks... they both look like Air shocks, the bottom pic with the boxxer, the lower shock looks like a Manitou Radium and the top shock not sure but it has a piggy-back reservoir.


----------



## TRIPLE R (Jan 17, 2008)

top shock is manitou evolver ISX-4


----------



## grawbass (Aug 23, 2004)

Fillet-brazed said:


> ok, good example. The bikes with the Manitou forks on the rear I had forgotten about (Herbold's was only a prototype as far as I recall). I was thinking about an actual rear shock (like a Fox Alps or a Fox Float, etc) used in a dual shock design. Ok, fine.
> 
> As for Santa Cruz using the term I never heard it. Doesnt mean it wasnt used. I think I do recall the Boulder labeled as such...
> 
> Ok, maybe now we can let this thread die unless fjyang has some more "URT" bikes to post.  Hollister, do you have any bikes to post?


Like this?


----------



## TRIPLE R (Jan 17, 2008)

Rumpfy said:


> The motor home?


Lol but you would be suprised that there is a shite load of them here,but thats a conversation for a completely difrent website


----------



## fjyang (May 4, 2007)

I think the twin rear shock are vary early attempt from manufactures to bring full suspension to the mass market in the shortest time possible (a stop gap measure) before the industry can fully develope true FS for bicycle. Most just take the earliest Manitou fork sliders and mounted were the seat stay use to be and Presto FS! haha. I think a lot of bike company were on that band wagon as they don't want to miss the boat just like the URT's in the mid-late 90's. I found pics of Maniou bike with its fork as rear shocks along with Balance and Marin but I know there are many more company that applied fork tube as rear shocks back then.

I agreed the 90's full suspension bikes will be the next collectables. Its basically the golden years of FS design and saw the most variety, experiment and innovation applied to bicycles that have not been equal since. Wheather they're good suspension designs or not does not matter as much as their impact on bike industry and how they bring million of converts to the FS bandwagon. Trek Y bikes in hindsight will belong to the group of bikes that mark a milestone in mountain biking/history regardless of what one think of the URT.


----------



## holden (Jul 27, 2004)

CS2 said:


> I'm amazed this is still active and 5 pages long


Yeah, especially since the answer was given in the first reply from Shayne


----------



## BilletHorse (Oct 25, 2005)

I'll bet you guys that are bashing the Y-22 OCLV bikes have never even ridden one. I have a 1995 model that I have upgraded to disc brakes, carbon bar, oillite bushngs, Fox 2008 rear shock, Manatu fork, etc and it's the best XC bike I have ever been on. It's light for a FSB, rigid, quiet and keeps the tires firmly planted when digging up rocky hills or flying down them. I have been on $5,000 XC FSB bikes that I would not trade mine for.

By the way, I have color sanded 10 layers of white and three clear over an all paint Trek logo, and it's a work of art.


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

BilletHorse said:


> I'll bet you guys that are bashing the Y-22 OCLV bikes have never even ridden one. I have a 1995 model that I have upgraded to disc brakes, carbon bar, oillite bushngs, Fox 2008 rear shock, Manatu fork, etc and it's the best XC bike I have ever been on. It's light for a FSB, rigid, quiet and keeps the tires firmly planted when digging up rocky hills or flying down them. I have been on $5,000 XC FSB bikes that I would not trade mine for.
> 
> By the way, I have color sanded 10 layers of white and three clear over an all paint Trek logo, and it's a work of art.


To each his own. If it ever breaks...there will be plenty of replacements out there for cheap.

And don't call it art, Colker will FREAK out.


----------



## klein nerd (Apr 9, 2008)

*Y bikes will be collectible*

I think the Y bikes are significant because they were the first wildly popular full suspension bike. Very few people rode full suspension when they came out. They sold well and even though they didn't ride that well you saw a lot on the trails and start lines. A lot of the now collectible suspension bikes were very rare and owned generaly by rich old men and have more meaning now than they did back in the day. How often did you see a Mantis, or a Manitou, or a Boulder Defiant, or a Kestrel Rubicon on a ride. They lived in magazines and in the hands of old business men. Bikes don't have to be rare to be on this forum. I think the Y bike is Vintage.


----------



## BilletHorse (Oct 25, 2005)

Another person that has never ridden one. I will admit that when I first got my bike it was almost unrideable, and I endoed quite a few times. When I replaced the fork and nylon pivots however it was a different bike. The frame and suspension tech were sound then and sound now, just all the other stuff needed to be modernized. By the way, my bike weighed 23lbs before the disc brake conversion which is quite a bit lighter than most new FSB bikes. My Y-22 takes brutal thrashing on steep, sharp rocky mountain trails and doesn't break (except I snapped the URT once, got a new one for free from Trek). 
p.s. I was flying down a dirt road almost two weeks ago, hooked a rain rut and slammed my knee into the ground to about 20mph. Tore my ACL and PCL. Bike was fine. Surgery soon.


----------



## klein nerd (Apr 9, 2008)

*It was just that they weren't bad*

I rode the Y model and the Fisher model, Joshua or something. They suck by today's standard. But they were very light and they weren't terrible at anything but downhill. They were sold on looks and weight. Most suspension bikes of that era had serious flaws. Very few that worked could escape the weight penalty, and hard tails were light then. I don't feel like the Y bike had any serious flaws. It beat old problems like bob and opened the door for new problems. Like not absorbing very much.


----------



## BilletHorse (Oct 25, 2005)

I agree that a new 1995 Y bike sucks compared to anything new, but the problems were related to a crappy fork that was too straight up (state of the art at the time) and Fox Alps4 rear shock with no bob control. I have upgraded everything and it rides well up or down. Granted I am an XC rider and I don't do any 4' drops. For now (while rehabbing) I am riding a stationary bike, and it handles like a pig!


----------



## p.doering (Aug 1, 2008)

Hahaha... funny thread.

Such strong opinions, about a bike few have ridden, and even fewer have ridden properly (though no fault of your own).

By now most people know there were several rear ends intended to finish the Y bike, none of which made it to production. The MTB market died down quickly, and management could no longer see investing what it required to complete the bike. All that remain are a few prototypes, and the single-pivot production designs.

Nice to hear that those of you who've actually spent some time on them have nice things to say. Still, the Y was a fairly compromised production bike, and while every bike has setbacks and shortcomings, there are some fairly major ones at the bottom of most of the negative perceptions of this bike, then and now.

A few of them:

1. We designed the Y around a Risse shock. Marketing pulled a last minute switch to the Fox unit based on color. These shocks were longer, and screwed the geometry up. Also didn't have the same stroke, compression & damping properties. Put a Risse on your Y to feel it ride as intended...

2. ...in 1993. But only if you want the ride qualities we wanted in 1993. We also wanted front suspension that rode like it was locked out all the time, and if it moved, you didn't know it. The bike was designed around the Mag 21 (& not Treks own forks, since the design didn't originate there), but by the time it hit the market, it shipped with RS's new Judy, for a very mismatched feel front to back. Run it with a mag 21 to feel the ride as intended. ...in 1993.

3. To compare rides, ride the alternatives. ...from that same period. Spend some time on a Mac Strut AMP bike, or a high pivot Iron Horse or Boulder, etc... then get on the Risse/RSmg21 Y and compare. Only then will you get an idea for why the designer and the engineering team bothered to put all that time and effort into the project. It was a considerable step [in the direction XC FS was going at the time] further than anyone else had gone [at that time].

4. The Y was designed to be a FS XC race bike. It was not supposed to be plush and fully active, it was not supposed to be locked out by an over-tensioned chain with every pedal stroke. It was supposed to be more efficient than low pivots, more active than high pivots, and lighter (lets not forget, it was the early 90's) then either, but most importantly, by removing the major mechanical impact of pivot placement of the former systems, we sought to move as much of the feel and efficiency of the bike from the frame to the shock itself. This is acheived to lesser effect in the single pivot rear end, as there are still a couple mechanical hurdles left, but too, shocks back then were pretty crude, so the frames only rode as well as their clunky dampers. They had none of the stable platform trickery we have today that keep our favorite modern FS bikes from riding like pigs either. Try a new Fox with ProPedal on your Y for an interesting ride, if you're going to compare it with modern suspension goals, and having climbed off modern suspension bikes.

...then you'll just hate the geometry.

It's a bike that was rarely built right, and thus never reviewed right, now or then. Anyway, the time for single pivot urt's thankfully passed quickly.

As for being appropriate here, it's doubtful.

Carbon fiber
Mass Produced
Full Suspension
Looks weird

aren't going to win you many fans among retrogrouches. Post pictures of steel diamond frames. They never get tired of seeing those.


----------



## BilletHorse (Oct 25, 2005)

Here is my bike, which is setup right and balanced.


----------



## BilletHorse (Oct 25, 2005)




----------



## fjyang (May 4, 2007)

p.doering: Thanks for your insight on background and development on Y bikes, its refreshing perspective compared to typical bashing when the word Trek Y & URT appeared.

By any chance you know the size of Risse shock that the frame was originally design around? I'm guessing 6.5x1.5 as the first model year of the Y bike 95' it stated a rear Fox shock size of 6.75x1.75.

My 98 Orange Y-11 got a Risse shock 7x2 and a Magura Laurin 100mm fork which one might think does not belong to a Y frame and the wrong size/travel but few people know that the later 98-2000 Y frames have a modified URT that accept different shock plate to accomodate different shock length and fork travel and still maintain proper geometry which my bike has.

I believed Trek made Y bikes from 95-2000 which was a long production run for any bike model but few knows that two European bike maker take the Y bike concept and improved upon and evolved further from 2001-2003 like Fischer (Germany) which kept the carbon Y frame shape but eliminated the URT all together along with its associated/perceived problems, see pics. The other one is by Bergwerk and its Moonraker model which turn the Y frame into a 6 inch travel monster, also without URT's but still faithfull to the Y shape concept.

If Trek just update the URT with a typical single pivot rear swingarm, the Y frame might soldier on a few more years. I view the URT as a half way solution between a hardtail & full suspension at a time when people view FS as a novelty with few benefits.


----------



## fjyang (May 4, 2007)

BilletHorse: Nice Built! and good to see fellow Y bike enthusiast showing off their ride and not be ashamed of it.


----------



## toyota200x (Sep 9, 2005)

*FJYANG*

Thanks for posting those pics. Awesome looking bikes. I have never ridden a URT frame but I always liked the Homegown and the Y bikes.


----------



## SVG 99 (Jul 14, 2009)

p.doering said:


> Post pictures of steel diamond frames. They never get tired of seeing those.


Ok ...... circa 1994 :


----------



## ae111black (Dec 27, 2008)

fjyang said:


> The Trek Y and Gary Fisher Joshua share the same URT. They can be swap on both bikes but the way its constructed is a little different. Attach are pics from a Y bike group member that have drafted a Gary Fisher URT onto the Y frame. That also share the same pivot bearings. Both Fisher an Trek have the Y frame in 80mm & 100mm travel version depending on the shock length and stroke. Joshua model fetch quite a respectable price on ebay even though its not carbon frame.


Man Those Pics bring back memories!!! good and bad! I broke it! where the seat post mast goes in!!


----------



## mtnwing (Jan 13, 2004)

My personal feeling is that the Y bike is part of MTB FS suspension history and some of the rarer versions like the Hawaii Five O or the original prototypes should be considered collectible. Generally speaking however the basic Y models will never be sought after because they were "too successful" and sealed their own fate. There were a boat load of them built and sold and they are now way too easy to come by - it's a supply and demand thing and part of the fun of collecting is to find rare jewels; no one collects driveway rocks because they are too easy to find. Similar to the cannondale super v, the Y was just too popular and mass produced and didn't change much over the production run. Unlike some of the more "collectible and sought after" bikes of the 80's and early 90's which were made by custom builders in small batches, the Y was mass produced. 

I do agree with some of the posts that this is a pretty neat bike from the era. Love or hate URT, we all remember it and it's got beautiful lines visually. 

It's simplicity and reliability should be appreciated. As with all technology, things evolve and get better over time. Suspension is certainly one area where we can look back and say this or that isn't as good as designs are now. What some here are failing to give credit for with the Y is it is one of the first mass produced monoque carbon FS bikes. Truly ahead of it's time from a materials perspective for the masses. Now days all mfg's offer a carbon single piece frames (no lug construction) but back then there weren't many using carbon monocoque construction for FS mtb's. Trek should be given some credit for this revolution (though some will consider them the devil for starting this trend away from welded bikes). 

Also this was an era where pivots weren't as good and got loosey goosey quickly on many FS bikes after just a few rides; the Y didn't suffer this problem due to it's simplicity. Sure, now days pivots and bearings have gotten better but back then it was a pain in the rear on many FS designs to constantly replace bearings, bushings, and tighten pivot bolts. 

I also think it's great to have a URT or other early suspension bike in your collection to ride occasionally. By doing so, you can better appreciate the pluses and minuses of other newer suspension designs. Being able to experience the differences in designs is one of the things that is truly enjoyable to me about riding vintage bikes. To me a URT is still enjoyable to ride, and is a snapshot in the history of FS progression. For those who don't like URT or carbon for that matter, that's OK, but lets not overlook them for the wrong reasons. That said I agree we should use this v forum to share bikes that are rare or special instead of posting noise.


----------



## trailville (Jul 24, 2006)

It's cool to see threads like this revived occasionally. I think we need a calendar feature so we can automatically set some threads to pop back up to the top of the list every few years. 

This thread has everything. Cool pics, interesting historical information (thanks to p.doering and others), knowledgeable comments, uninformed ramblings, points, counterpoints, love, hate, and random wanderings into unrelated or barely related topics. It's a classic. 

The truth is 90s suspension sucked. But you couldn't get to where we are now without going through the 90s and the various creative solutions applied to mountain biking. So appreciate it for what it is . . . a piece of mountain biking history. 

Personally, I'm glad I stuck with hardtails through the 90s (and much of the 00s too), but I'm glad there were enough people buying this stuff to allow the technology to progress.


----------



## da'HOOV (Jan 3, 2009)

just had to revive this, some pretty spirited exchanges within...great reading methinx


----------



## girlonbike (Apr 24, 2008)

Dang, Stan. I was just getting cozy in here with the Potts and all the pretty bikes at Keyesville.


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

Well since its revived, that Bergwerks isn't actually an URT but a Y-style mainframe with a low-pivot monoshock swingarm. The Giant Warp frames were essentially the same thing. Its funny, apparently trek has a US patent on Y-frames (just the whole Y shape to the main frame). How they patented something they stole the design style for from GP Cycles I'll never know.


----------



## MendonCycleSmith (Feb 10, 2005)

Just couldn't resist throwing a rock at the hornets nest, huh Stan?  

Some pretty funny stuff in there actually. Not saying I like Y bikes, but that's nothing new. But between D8, FB, Rumpfy, Hollister etc, there's some classic punch lines. Coffee out the nose hurts BTW, thanks for the UFART (FB) :lol:


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

Seriously...don't ever give me grief for pot stirring if Stan is gonna bring back threads like this! 


I contributed nearly nothing to this entire thread...but fcuk I'm funny.


----------



## da'HOOV (Jan 3, 2009)

MendonCycleSmith said:


> Just couldn't resist throwing a rock at the hornets nest, huh Stan?
> 
> Some pretty funny stuff in there actually. Not saying I like Y bikes, but that's nothing new. But between D8, FB, Rumpfy, Hollister etc, there's some classic punch lines. Coffee out the nose hurts BTW, thanks for the UFART (FB) :lol:


just trying to do my part  I haven't been using my share of bandwidth lately so I though I'd burn some.

That's what I thought, funny stuff, from funny peeps...:thumbsup:


----------



## _lele_ (Nov 17, 2014)

Hello,

I am in the process of revamping my 1996 Trek Y bike, specifically the URT pivot that has a lot of play.

By chance is there some body that still has the attached parts for sale?

950269 PIVOT SLEEVES
950273 PIVOT AXLE
950278 INTERNAL PIVOT BUSHING
(Bolt not needed)

Thank you in advance,


----------



## DethWshBkr (Nov 25, 2010)

Ancient thread, but oh well.

I loved my Y bike. It's also the only bike I ever had that I didn't ever break, and I beat the everloving snot out if it.
Still have the frame!


----------



## EatsDirt (Jan 20, 2014)

mojo_matic said:


> Great riding bikes


Huh, never would have thought anyone would ever say that.

After breaking a coupe of beloved RTS1 frames the Y bike absolutely killed any interest in rear suspension for me. Serious dogsh!t. While cornering I could push on outside pedal, pin the seat into my inner thigh and get an inch of seatmast/linkage deflection. Horrible geometry as well.

I can't seem to forgive Trek for that POS despite any advances they've made.


----------



## patineto (Oct 28, 2005)

For sure is as "Backwards" and Obsolete as the "Donald" and then they get him Elected/Select..

In short I felt really bad every time one of the slick sales mans at the shop sweet taking my dear friends and costumers into those "Ted Nuggent" guitars (the really resonate like a drum when when you shift or use the rear brakes hard..)

Trek did it a bunch of times before that bike too with all the Springy donut, and then they have the guts to intrude a fully unable shock (cane creek if I remember that was just a gimmick..)


----------

