# Your top 3 worst (VRC) brands



## Schmitty (Sep 7, 2008)

Alright. lets have it. The worst. The ugliest. The greatest dis-service to VRC and bikes in general. the brands you would never buy or have in your collection. The crap the 'other guys' ride.Maybe still in business, maybe thankfully gone. Lets sling mud.

In no order:

---GT---

Had the world by the sack with BMX, and then totally flubbed it with mtn bikes. The unoriginators of the Triple Triangle (guaranteed to make your bike ride like crap), and the groove tube. And the graphics.. yikes.

---Reflex---

Don't know what to say... Frankenstein meets Erector Set meet Super Glue.


---Jamis/Iron Horse/Yokota/Shogun---

I know, it's four, but who cares. The bikes you bought because the whole bike cost less than wholesale on the grouppo you stripped off it. Who comes up with these names?


-Schmitty-


----------



## bushpig (Nov 26, 2005)

I have to disagree with on on the Shoguns. I had one of their 700c bikes and it was cool. I also dig the Prairie Breaker Pro, particularly in the blue, pink, purple and chrome. Yum.


----------



## sho220 (Aug 3, 2005)

I always liked Jamis's....Dragon and Diablo were pretty sweet. I don't think I'd throw Yokota in there either.

I think you're right on with Iron Horse though...

How about Mongoose? What they churn out nowadays would make it embarrasing to ride anything with "Mongoose" written on it...

Although I've never ridden one and will probably get flamed for this...Yeti...they certainly look cool, but they just seem to be very over-rated and over-hyped...I could be wrong though...:skep:


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

none are classics.

the triple triangle is an offense to nature.


----------



## Mr. Doom (Sep 23, 2005)

*Can you really hate a Zaskar?*



colker1 said:


> none are classics.
> 
> the triple triangle is an offense to nature.


IMO Schwinn began the huffyication of name brand MTB companies and has taken it to a new level year after bloody year. Cannondale would be my second pick but they have a tradition of doing things wrong to keep up.

Mongoose was virtually destroyed and GT nearly suffered the same fate but has some good products today.


----------



## MendonCycleSmith (Feb 10, 2005)

Gotta step up for Jamis on this one. As I recently discovered, how many crappy companies had Serotta build their top end steel HT frames? Even if only for a year or two....

My Dakota LTD came with full second gen Deore, Suntour Power Cams, and even had cute little cordura booties for them to keep the works clean inthe east coast crap. Also included a shoulder strap with requisite braze ons. Too many little niceities to be lumped in with total shyte.

Crap brands, hmmm, well, Trek's easy to beat on 

I'd go with Mongoose, never saw the excitement there, and yeah, any GT I picked up seemed overly heavy, perhaps I just never saw the nice ones.....

Iron Horse? Have an old one on the wall in the shop right now. Talk about overbuilt. I'd venture a guess at close to 40 lbs, for a rigid HT, yikes!


----------



## mechagouki (Nov 30, 2007)

First off, MCS and Schimtty, If either of you are ever in Toronto, PM me and I will gladly loan you the Xizang for the day (this is a genuine friendly offer), It has a Triple Triangle frame, it's not heavy and it rides like a dream. I'm sure gm1230126 and Rumpfy could tell you some good things about GT too.

My worst 3 VRCs

Fat Chance - Neon is an offense to nature, kindergarten graphics - prone to fatal rust. Shock-a-billy a notable low point.

Manitou - peculiar geometry, durability of a Kleenex.

Yeti - all their good features done first by BMX companies, unlike Cannondale their brand name doesn't rhyme with "crack'n'fail"..................but it should. E-stays.

Oh and IMHO this thread does VRC a disservice, it's just going to exclude/upset people (yes, I know I'm not helping), and goodness knows, this forum needs some new blood.


----------



## tductape (Mar 31, 2008)

I like em all. As long as they are built well enough too have the ability to shift and brake well. I get a smile when I see almost anything from the full rigid era. Doesn't mean I would like to make room in the garage for most of them, but they all make me want to have a look see.......


----------



## sho220 (Aug 3, 2005)

MendonCycleSmith said:


> Gotta step up for Jamis on this one. As I recently discovered, how many crappy companies had Serotta build their top end steel HT frames? Even if only for a year or two....
> 
> My Dakota LTD came with full second gen Deore, Suntour Power Cams, and even had cute little cordura booties for them to keep the works clean inthe east coast crap. Also included a shoulder strap with requisite braze ons. Too many little niceities to be lumped in with total shyte.
> 
> ...


Don't know if I'd consider Trek's crap. They usually had good frames with good parts spec...they were always just very bland and boring...I can't think of a single one that I'd go out of my way to get.


----------



## themanmonkey (Nov 1, 2005)

mechagouki said:


> My worst 3 VRCs
> 
> Fat Chance - Neon is an offense to nature, kindergarten graphics - prone to fatal rust. Shock-a-billy a notable low point.
> 
> ...


I don't know if I'd call them the worst, but they would definitely rank up there as some of the most over-rated. Heck I've owned all three and my YO! is still one of the ones I wish I hadn't sold, but still pretty over-rated.

For worst I'd say Kestrel which rode dead and over-stiff. Nishiki they were a budget brand that did good road bikes, but their MTBs were heavy and weird. Lastly and maybe top of the list is the Raleigh Technium bikes. Not only did they separate JRA, but because the rear ends were heavy steel they were really tail heavy. I used to pull the dead frames out of the dumpster at the Kent, WA warehouse and glue them back together and ride them until they died again.


----------



## Boy named SSue (Jan 7, 2004)

sho220 said:


> Don't know if I'd consider Trek's crap. They usually had good frames with good parts spec...they were always just very bland and boring...I can't think of a single one that I'd go out of my way to get.


When I was in high school, a few of my friends rode the bonded aluminum ones. A couple of those came apart. They rode like crap when they didn't. Another friend had the donut bike. Complete pile of crap. Then came the Y-bikes which were barely an improvement. The best Treks BITD were the lower end steel ones. I can't defend their bikes, the only ones they got right were by accident.

I also never like Trek for the fact that they sat on the sidelines of MTB as a sport and let others invest time and money developing it. They never sponsored a team until the late eighties. The only VRC Trek I would have any interest in would be the first team bike designed by WTB.


----------



## byknuts (Aug 9, 2008)

trek for sure, GT? no way!
their mtb's were designed in the same manner as their bmx's.. made to handle, made to jump, NOT made for comfort. heavy? never built a zaskar that came in over 24 pounds, even with old parts and commuter tires.

I agree, this thread's a troll-bait for arguments.
But for the sake of stirring the pot, I'd put mongoose as more of a lame duck than iron horse, schwinn up there no matter what, and miyata for consumately boring metalflaked bikes.
(Lawill schwinns notwithstanding, I loved those)

Admit, it IS interesting seeing regional biases pop up...


----------



## lucifer (Sep 27, 2004)

I am gonna have to disagree about fat chance. Their handling is superb. A lot of thought went into the design and more importantly the construction of those frames.

Here's my 3

Grafton - pretty stuff that didn't last worth a damn or work all that well. The reason the cranks are so rare these days is because most of them are broken. 

Rock shox - overrated back then. Overrated today.

Trek - their early suspension bikes were abysmal and their hardtails were lackluster.


----------



## sho220 (Aug 3, 2005)

Boy named SSue said:


> When I was in high school, a few of my friends rode the bonded aluminum ones. A couple of those came apart. They rode like crap when they didn't. Another friend had the donut bike. Complete pile of crap. Then came the Y-bikes which were barely an improvement. The best Treks BITD were the lower end steel ones. I can't defend their bikes, the only ones they got right were by accident.
> 
> I also never like Trek for the fact that they sat on the sidelines of MTB as a sport and let others invest time and money developing it. They never sponsored a team until the late eighties. The only VRC Trek I would have any interest in would be the first team bike designed by WTB.


I stand corrected...when I think of Treks I imediately think of their steel rigid bikes. All your points are right on...they've had alot of abominations. The terrible-ness of Y-bikes alone is enough to land them on this list...


----------



## Shayne (Jan 14, 2004)

byknuts said:


> heavy? never built a zaskar that came in over 24 pounds, even with old parts and commuter tires.


early 90's Zaskar LE frame weight for a ~19" was 4.2lbs....comperable to a similar vintage Rockhopper.


----------



## KDXdog (Mar 15, 2007)

I hate to say it, because I liked the stuff, and bought much of it, but Ringle.

I was a pretty light guy back in the day, I broke almost nothing from other companies, but broke, in no order:
seat collar clamp, seat post (shaft cracked), hub set (threaded) f & R, water cages (2), wheel quick release. 

Anti chain suck thing is still in service.

Haro's Mountain Bikes were ugly and heavy. BMX bikes ok.


----------



## bushpig (Nov 26, 2005)

The Mongoose Team Tomac bike is sick.


----------



## nuck_chorris (Jun 6, 2008)

so Gt's triple triangle frame is too stiff, i ask because im thinking of getting a GT peace 9r


----------



## cegrover (Oct 17, 2004)

Wow - no one has mentioned Univega!

Most of the rest at least had some really cool bikes:

Raleigh: Tomac bikes
GT: Zaskar, Xizang, Psyclone, others
Schwinn: Paramountain, early KOM (similar frame, really), Paramounts, Homegrowns, Rocket 88 (not exactly vintage)
Jamis: Early fillet brazed stuff - though people will argue over whether they're brazed frames or whether it might be decorative.


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

bushpig said:


> The Mongoose Team Tomac bike is sick.


yeah, the 87 Mongoose John Tomac Signature is one cool bike:


----------



## mechagouki (Nov 30, 2007)

nuck_chorris said:


> so Gt's triple triangle frame is too stiff, i ask because im thinking of getting a GT peace 9r


(Higher end)Steel and Ti GTs have a great feel to them - not too stiff but with good power transfer. I can't claim to love the aluminum bikes - the earlier ones are particularly harsh. haven't ridden one of the new carbon Zaskars, although as monocoques the triple triangle is presumably only still there as a branding device. Interestingly the 2010 GT Tachyon "flat-bar road bikes" do not have a triple triangle.

Peace 9r reviews here - running at 4.47/5 over 17 reviews:

http://www.mtbr.com/cat/bikes/29er/gt/peace-9r/PRD_415865_1548crx.aspx


----------



## byknuts (Aug 9, 2008)

nuck_chorris said:


> so Gt's triple triangle frame is too stiff, i ask because im thinking of getting a GT peace 9r


yup they're harsh... or have excellent power transfer... depends on your point of view! 
i loved them!! sprint like mad!! 
no idea if that transfers over favourably to the newer ones... model to model you can get quit a bit of variation in feel, never mind decade to decade! :thumbsup:

Never got the chance to sprint about on an LTS but I always wanted to try one out.
Had 2 zaskars, both were hard-riding frames, but fast.
(take my opinion with a grain of salt, i loved my breezer twister too!)


----------



## Linoleum (Aug 25, 2008)

Wow, I'm just bummed hearing the GT comments. My 90's steel Karakoram has a great ride on the trail, not too stiff at all. My first year Zaskar on the other hand is like piloting a feathery brick if that makes sense. So while the Zaskar has a much more desirable name, look, race-ability... the Karakoram is a much more enjoyable experience. I'll shut up now.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

mechagouki said:


> First off, MCS and Schimtty, If either of you are ever in Toronto, PM me and I will gladly loan you the Xizang for the day (this is a genuine friendly offer), It has a Triple Triangle frame, it's not heavy and it rides like a dream. I'm sure gm1230126 and Rumpfy could tell you some good things about GT too.
> 
> My worst 3 VRCs
> 
> ...


 
you hate great handling? lightning fast race bikes? cool paint?


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

Shayne said:


> early 90's Zaskar LE frame weight for a ~19" was 4.2lbs....comperable to a similar vintage Rockhopper.


i had a karahoram and it was the heaviest bike i have ever met.
nice painting though. good handling. maybe i shouldn't bash it at all...
it handled much better than my khs, my litespeed and my carbon composite Trek.

but the triple triangle is an abomination.


----------



## mechagouki (Nov 30, 2007)

colker1 said:


> you hate great handling? lightning fast race bikes? cool paint?


No, where did I say that? Yetis and Fats are undoubtedly great handling fast XC bikes - but those aren't purely VRC qualities. A TREK 9.9 SSL could make both those claims. Yetis do crack and Fats do rust though. As for cool paint, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but graphics that look like they were drawn on with a Sharpie don't really do it for me.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

mechagouki said:


> No, where did I say that? Yetis and Fats are undoubtedly great handling fast XC bikes - but those aren't purely VRC qualities. A TREK 9.9 SSL could make both those claims. Yetis do crack and Fats do rust though. As for cool paint, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but graphics that look like they were drawn on with a Sharpie don't really do it for me.


i had a trek carbon composite. it climbed and handled like crap. 
what should be a VRC quality? durability?


----------



## mechagouki (Nov 30, 2007)

colker1 said:


> i had a trek carbon composite. it climbed and handled like crap.
> what should be a VRC quality? durability?


Don't you ever test ride bikes before you buy them? You bought a Litespeed titanium and a TREK composite (both high-ticket bikes) without an off-road test ride?

And yes, durability is important if you are going to drop serious $$$$ on a vintage bike, plenty of nice steel framed bikes out there that don't have a tendency to rust from the inside out.


----------



## Schmitty (Sep 7, 2008)

Turn that frown upside down! Just a bunch of dudes talking smack about old bikes!

Interesting comments.

Seems like almost every company had at least one cool bike at some point. Totally forgot about Univega! I had an Alpina Uno for my second bike and hated it. Must have blocked it from my memory.

Can we get consensus on Univega and Reflex? 

Trek is terrible too imo.. can't think of one decent atb from them.

-Schmitty-


----------



## muddybuddy (Jan 31, 2007)

How 'bout Raleigh? If you forget about the Ti Tomac model, everything else they have done is garbage or at best completely uninteresting.


----------



## Schmitty (Sep 7, 2008)

muddybuddy said:


> How 'bout Raleigh? If you forget about the Ti Tomac model, everything else they have done is garbage or at best completely uninteresting.


The Edge? It was salmon.. yuk. One of the more memorable advertisements/images of that era.

But yeah, another huge company just absolutely doing all they could to not make money on atbs.

-Schmitty-


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

mechagouki said:


> Don't you ever test ride bikes before you buy them? You bought a Litespeed titanium and a TREK composite (both high-ticket bikes) without an off-road test ride?
> 
> And yes, durability is important if you are going to drop serious $$$$ on a vintage bike, plenty of nice steel framed bikes out there that don't have a tendency to rust from the inside out.


LBS wouldn't let me test ride the TREK. it was my 3rd mtb, looked really nice and i would never thought it would handle like jello. Litespeed i bought direct from factory. both lemons.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

Schmitty said:


> The Edge? It was salmon.. yuk. One of the more memorable advertisements/images of that era.
> 
> But yeah, another huge company just absolutely doing all they could to not make money on atbs.
> 
> -Schmitty-


now, 20 yrs later, they have a good 29er. seems you have to be persistent.:thumbsup:


----------



## mechagouki (Nov 30, 2007)

colker1 said:


> LBS wouldn't let me test ride the TREK. it was my 3rd mtb, looked really nice and i would never thought it would handle like jello.


Fair enough - I had a friend who had an 8700 - you could flex the BB about 4 inches with your foot on the crank bolt. The OCLV bikes are rockets though.:thumbsup:


----------



## datasurfer (Nov 24, 2006)

The original Ringle stuff sure did stink. I was/am a light rider and never had a catastrophic failure from any other brand brands. Their stuff did get better towards the end of the 90's just prior to Sun buying them out. I still have Superduperbubba hubs, a moby deuce seatpost and a slammajamma headset that haven't given me any trouble on my Voodoo Hoodoo. The ringle stem is in alright shape too, but then again it has no moving parts.

Don't get me going about Onza cantilever brakes, however. Went through two sets that cracked if you looked at them wrong...



KDXdog said:


> I hate to say it, because I liked the stuff, and bought much of it, but Ringle.
> 
> I was a pretty light guy back in the day, I broke almost nothing from other companies, but broke, in no order:
> seat collar clamp, seat post (shaft cracked), hub set (threaded) f & R, water cages (2), wheel quick release.
> ...


----------



## mtnwing (Jan 13, 2004)

all you Raleigh haters? What up?!! I loved my Raleigh MT600 and now have a Raliegh MT700 which I love. Yes they aren't custom bikes. They didn't cost a fortune and so I have never posted about them before or tried to act like they were anything special to collect, but they were actually nice bikes IMHO. I raced one at many NORBA event's and even a national championship and my Technium never let me down. I am not saying it was the all out bomb but it was a reasonable bike for the price back then with a good feel. Not like a manitou that was twice the price and cracked quickly or a Cannondale where the headshox blew out before you left the parking lot, or a voo doo which was so still it left you with hemroids after each ride. I raced DH at mt snow, Mt Saint Anne, etc and never had a problem with my Raleigh Technium frame. Did you guys actually ride one of the higher end Techniums with the better aluminum rear? The higher end ones used better Tange metal. They were very compliant and comfortable yet pretty light for a 1200 bike with XT.


----------



## da'HOOV (Jan 3, 2009)

Just curious why the GT Triple Triangle design is so disliked? Was it the different look or the handling?


----------



## mtnwing (Jan 13, 2004)

Many of the older GT's were meaty in the weight departhment. I have soft spot for Zaskars and the nice welds but I think a lot of the hate has to do with the fact that GT was a mass market brand. Too many around to be considered "special". Just my opinion. I think the RTS and LTS were innovative attempts at suspension design. I am not sure the hardtail GT's of the day were really anything special. Not to say people shouldn't like or enjoy them, but they aren't anything to write home about.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

da'HOOV said:


> Just curious why the GT Triple Triangle design is so disliked? Was it the different look or the handling?


it is stupid cause it makes no sense. frames become heavier and brake cable routing convoluted. 
the classic double triangle is a thing of beauty. 
performance bike design is about efficiency and lightweightness. form follows funtion.
check a ritchey: everything is shaved and cut to the minimum weight possible. that's beautifull.


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

mechagouki said:


> First off, MCS and Schimtty, If either of you are ever in Toronto, PM me and I will gladly loan you the Xizang for the day (this is a genuine friendly offer), It has a Triple Triangle frame, it's not heavy and it rides like a dream. I'm sure gm1230126 and Rumpfy could tell you some good things about GT too.
> 
> My worst 3 VRCs
> 
> ...


First off, please don't mention my name and gm1230126 in the same sentence.

As for your list, I tend to agree.

Fat paint is fun and playful. Their handling (on the Wickeds anyway) I didn't like. Seen more than a lot of rusty ones. CC never did any of the welding. Not sure why they're so collectible given how many are out there.

Answer Manitous yes...Doug built Manitous, no.

Yetis are up there with Fats in the rust department. Seen a lot of failed ones too. But, they do ride well at speed and their ain' t nuthin' wrong with an E-stay bike or two.

It'd be too easy to pick entry level bikes or low end bike companies.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

Rumpfy said:


> Not sure why they're so collectible given how many are out there.
> 
> .


nostalgia for the epiphany associated w/their handling.
fats are about handling.

otoh you are right: you can buy a Yo eddy on ebay everyday of the week. unlike classic salsas or Pseries, phoenix,


----------



## nuck_chorris (Jun 6, 2008)

Schmitty said:


> Turn that frown upside down! Just a bunch of dudes talking smack about old bikes!
> 
> Interesting comments.
> 
> ...


trek 850 ? the 80's one was pretty top notch


----------



## hairstream (Apr 20, 2008)

Cunningham,
Potts,
WTB.

...just cause so expensive.


----------



## DoubleCentury (Nov 12, 2005)

How about Giant...and everything they made for everyone else? 

That about covers everything.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

hairstream said:


> Cunningham,
> Potts,
> WTB.
> 
> ...just cause so expensive.


oh yeah,
i don't know why people collect them.  
Rumpfy says it's the cat's meow... but do you trust him?


----------



## sho220 (Aug 3, 2005)

mtnwing said:


> all you Raleigh haters? What up?!! I loved my Raleigh MT600 and now have a Raliegh MT700 which I love. Yes they aren't custom bikes. They didn't cost a fortune and so I have never posted about them before or tried to act like they were anything special to collect, but they were actually nice bikes IMHO. I raced one at many NORBA event's and even a national championship and my Technium never let me down. I am not saying it was the all out bomb but it was a reasonable bike for the price back then with a good feel. Not like a manitou that was twice the price and cracked quickly or a Cannondale where the headshox blew out before you left the parking lot, or a voo doo which was so still it left you with hemroids after each ride. I raced DH at mt snow, Mt Saint Anne, etc and never had a problem with my Raleigh Technium frame. Did you guys actually ride one of the higher end Techniums with the better aluminum rear? The higher end ones used better Tange metal. They were very compliant and comfortable yet pretty light for a 1200 bike with XT.


This is not to be taken seriously. If this thread lives long enough, every brand will take a hit...:thumbsup:


----------



## mainlyfats (Oct 1, 2005)

Wheeler: those guys were the first folks in my orbit to hang XT rear derailleurs on bikes with department store bearing surface parts. Pulling them out of the box I always puked a little in my mouth at how they had cheaped out. I could never sell one to anybody and judged everyone I saw on one a total moron.

Pulstar: a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Particularly because so many people were buying MTBs as touring bikes then, I always wondered how you'd say "straight pull" in Quechua or Farsi. 

IRD: Top dollar craptasticness. Awful wacky and unrideable bikes, seatposts that required hardware spares for Sunday rides, suspension forks designed to break predictably that no one could get parts for...

(Bonus 4th) Boulders: unrefined proof of concept makes it to retail! A maintenance schedule like a navy helicopter or a 50's British motorcycle and just about as noisy.

YMMV, atmo, IMHO, etc.


----------



## LIFECYCLE (Mar 8, 2006)

Funny!!


----------



## themanmonkey (Nov 1, 2005)

sho220 said:


> This is not to be taken seriously. If this thread lives long enough, every brand will take a hit...:thumbsup:


Yea, I can't think of one company that didn't make some POS at one time or another, or didn't have some other kind of problems.


----------



## Schmitty (Sep 7, 2008)

themanmonkey said:


> Yea, I can't think of one company that didn't make some POS at one time or another, or didn't have some other kind of problems.


We're talking the worst. The one's where you think you may have dog pooh on you upper lip when you see them.

This is some scientific stuff, so don't derail it with an all out beotchfest!

-Schmitty-


----------



## Schmitty (Sep 7, 2008)

mainlyfats said:


> Pulstar: a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Particularly because so many people were buying MTBs as touring bikes then, I always wondered how you'd say "straight pull" in Quechua or Farsi.
> QUOTE]
> 
> So true. An old design <1900 when it was probably smart as it did away with the sharp bend in the spoke in a time when spoke tech was barely off the ground. Maybe great if you're prone to constaint overshifting in the low gear.. no spokes to mangle. Total pita to build as the spokes rotate with the nipple. The early made in USA hubs did have excellent bearings though. They look cool.
> ...


----------



## hollister (Sep 16, 2005)

crack'n'fail
T-wreck
GT


----------



## muddybuddy (Jan 31, 2007)

Schmitty said:


> The early made in USA hubs did have excellent bearings though. They look cool.
> 
> -Schmitty-


I have no complaints about building them, as I never had to do that, but the ones that I got in a wheelset in about 1993 lasted through semi regular use until just a couple months ago when I finally broke a spoke. Hubs are still rolling smooth and are slated for a rebuild when I get the time.

As far as being a solution to a problem that didn't exist, you may have a point there. But they do look cool.


----------



## Vlad (Feb 7, 2004)

Balance - Boring and lame Taiwanese aluminum frames with crappy knockoff Manitou rear suspension

Gary Fishers, right around the time that Trek bought them. Boring and uninspiring.

Haro - Whacky frame designs


----------



## themanmonkey (Nov 1, 2005)

Schmitty said:


> We're talking the worst. The one's where you think you may have dog pooh on you upper lip when you see them.
> 
> This is some scientific stuff, so don't derail it with an all out beotchfest!


Oh, I know which is why I listed my 3 way up top.


----------



## sansarret (Mar 17, 2006)

Never been a fan of Marin mountain bikes.


----------



## Schmitty (Sep 7, 2008)

Damn, Balance, Haro and Marin.. three more bad ones...

Those matte finish Marins are real eye bleeders.


-Schmitty-


----------



## mechagouki (Nov 30, 2007)

Schmitty said:


> Those matte finish Marins are real eye bleeders.
> 
> -Schmitty-


 Zolatone ROCKS! (Although neon is still unnatural)

Except on Team USAs

Although, even though I have a soft spot for early '90s Kleins, they do still suck - too stiff, too expensive, too fragile.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

mechagouki said:


> Zolatone ROCKS! (Although neon is still unnatural)
> 
> Except on Team USAs
> 
> Although, even though I have a soft spot for early '90s Kleins, they do still suck - too stiff, too expensive, too fragile.


i checked a 91 klein at the LBS today. still ridden everyday. 
handling is superb, climbs like crazy, great at technical singletrack.


----------



## bikerjay (Sep 16, 2007)

1. Manitou/Answer - I broke numerous mach 5s, even after the recalls and that was as a 100pound teenager. Then there the SX-TI forks, pure crap there too. And frames and Forks with 1.25 steer tubes, then there were the FS frames that incorporate there crappy forks with the rear drops. There forks are still terrible. 

2. PRO FLEX /Girvin / Noleen / K2 

3. your mom

4. T-wreck


----------



## surly357 (Jan 19, 2006)

khs- pretty much all of 'em

trek- mostly their clunky, chainsucking, splatter painted, bonded aluminum monstrosities

cannondale- because i said so


----------



## mechagouki (Nov 30, 2007)

colker1 said:


> i checked a 91 klein at the LBS today. still ridden everyday.
> handling is superb, climbs like crazy, great at technical singletrack.


Yeah, I guess there were good ones and bad ones, I know of quite a few old ones that are still fine, my Team USA (1992) lost its head tube within a year. It did climb really well, and tore through singletrack, but those big old aluminum forks were horrible on bumpy descents.


----------



## singletracktourist (Jul 27, 2005)

mechagouki said:


> Yeah, I guess there were good ones and bad ones, I know of quite a few old ones that are still fine, my Team USA (1992) lost its head tube within a year. It did climb really well, and tore through singletrack, but those big old aluminum forks were horrible on bumpy descents.


yeah, probably like .72mm less "vertical travel" than a steel fork.


----------



## mechagouki (Nov 30, 2007)

singletracktourist said:


> yeah, probably like .72mm less "vertical travel" than a steel fork.


More the difference between the inherent spring of a curved steel fork blade and the brutal stiffness of an 1 1/4" aluminum tube.


----------



## chefmiguel (Dec 22, 2007)

Barracuda 
ParkPre
Ringle


----------



## Mr. Doom (Sep 23, 2005)

Schmitty said:


> Damn, Balance, Haro and Marin.. three more bad ones...
> 
> Those matte finish Marins are real eye bleeders.
> 
> -Schmitty-


What!:eekster: They pimped them with sweet Violet and Teal components, when I was building them and looked like they belonged in a TRON movie.:thumbsup:  :thumbsup:


----------



## singletracktourist (Jul 27, 2005)

mechagouki said:


> More the difference between the inherent spring of a curved steel fork blade and the brutal stiffness of an 1 1/4" aluminum tube.


OK, I'll give you 3mm then. And that's if you're using a flimsy steel fork. I think some grips have 2.7mm of travel.


----------



## singletracktourist (Jul 27, 2005)

I think the 80s Marin bikes were very nicely made, nicely spec'ed and nice geometry. The chinsy Taiwanese Ringle/Grafton knockoff (I think they called it Marin Lite?) stuff they started putting on their bikes though in the 90s was kinda lame. Light though.


----------



## ~martini~ (Dec 20, 2003)

cannondale.
GT
Trek


----------



## lucifer (Sep 27, 2004)

Schmitty said:


> mainlyfats said:
> 
> 
> > Pulstar: a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Particularly because so many people were buying MTBs as touring bikes then, I always wondered how you'd say "straight pull" in Quechua or Farsi.
> ...


----------



## Xizang11 (Feb 3, 2008)

*Blasphemers!*

Well, when I was growing up, that triple triangle was what I lived for....I wanted everyone to see that GT stamp as it blew past their treks, specializeds, and especially canyonsnails.

Most abhored old brands:

Proflex
Cannondale
TREK

Occasionally, Nishiki would hit you with a sweet paintjob....but other than that, they were totally useless.


----------



## McNewbie (Apr 5, 2008)

why so much hate for the triple triangle? it's not such a bad idea in theory. it distributes the shock from the back wheel down the top tube a little which ought to make for better ride. that said, i rode one once that was heavy and a pig, but that's because it was made out of heavy tubes with heavy, cheap kit on it. that particular design is fairly popular with BMX bikes because it's so strong. it's only a little bit more weight if it's made right.


----------



## Flystagg (Nov 14, 2006)

It is just a love it or hate it design, you love it, so don't get to bent out of shape because of those that don't, and definitely don't try to change their mind, personal aesthetic taste cannot be argued with.


----------



## Thylacine (Feb 29, 2004)

I got into a whole world of crap over at another forum for labeling a retro restoration job 'glorious rubbish'.

The cold hard reality is that many of the frames/bikes/brands we have an emotional attachment to, are - let's be honest - functionally way sub-par.

For example, I love vintage Yetis but they're essentially pieces of agricultural equipment. I love Mantises but Richard largely ignored this thing called 'Physics'.

I think what constitutes 'worst' for me, is companies and/or products that were basically tools for a marketing department, or vain attempts to 'cash in' without even trying to bring anything except a new sticker or acronym to the table and were nothing more than 'smoke and mirrors'.


----------



## muddybuddy (Jan 31, 2007)

I really have a hard time knocking GT. No matter what you think of the frame design, they consistantly had good product especially at the higher end. They were also one of the first companies to fully support a pro level race team.

I think there are plenty of other companies that screwed the pooch much worse when it came to deveoping and marketing their MTBs.


----------



## Fatmikeynyc (Jun 20, 2005)

Rumpfy said:


> Fat paint is fun and playful. Their handling (on the Wickeds anyway) I didn't like. Seen more than a lot of rusty ones. CC never did any of the welding. Not sure why they're so collectible given how many are out there.QUOTE]
> 
> Since when did rust stop you?
> 
> ...


----------



## DJ Giggity (Sep 9, 2008)

I don't really get the VRC thing. All of these impressions were made at the time. This is a very fun post for a troll post.

1) GT - Good marketing but they just sucked to ride. Yes, this includes the Zaskars. Even their best bike had no soul. The LTS was innovative but I wouldn't want to ride one. 

2) Klein - I am going to take some crap for this one. These were great unless you wanted to go down hill. Sketchy and fragile. The original mantra was one of the most sucktastic bikes of all time

3) Trek - This if for those horrible early fs bikes. Shame on you.

Component special mention - Kooka - we warrantied just about everything we sold. 

Hat tip - Mainlyfats - That is a nice collection of suck. I couldn't agree with you more.


----------



## pinguwin (Aug 20, 2004)

DJ Giggity said:


> 2) Klein....


I don't buy the fragile part, the rest is fair enough.


----------



## cegrover (Oct 17, 2004)

pinguwin said:


> I don't buy the fragile part, the rest is fair enough.


I was wondering about that - we don't get too many 'broken Klein' stories here. Yeti and Manitou seem to be the most frequently failed frames listed here...at least among the sought-after ones.

The posts here generally confirm that VRC is like anything else - to each his or her own. The same thing happens in the collector car world...lots of people restore cars that never were the best-driving, but still enjoy the hell out of them.


----------



## themanmonkey (Nov 1, 2005)

I guess you didn't own many. I'm in for two broken Rascals and one Attitude.

Added content: I worked for a large high-end shop in the Seattle area at the time and we sold a ton of Kleins and saw a bunch of broken ones too.


----------



## cegrover (Oct 17, 2004)

themanmonkey said:


> I guess you didn't own many. I'm in for two broken Rascals and one Attitude.
> 
> Added content: I worked for a large high-end shop in the Seattle area at the time and we sold a ton of Kleins and saw a bunch of broken ones too.


Nope - just a Mountain Klein, and only for the last couple years. As I said, I'm basing this on reports here, which is completely unscientific...


----------



## pinguwin (Aug 20, 2004)

themanmonkey said:


> I guess you didn't own many.


Eleven of them. They have been my primary bike, both riding and racing, for nineteen years. My main bike is a 96 Attitude and has more miles than I can imagine. One broken one, a 1990 Attitude. It had a faulty weld. Don't get me started on that.


----------



## themanmonkey (Nov 1, 2005)

All mine were early-90s, so maybe that's part of it. They were always hush-hush about the bikes even when we rode with the folks at Capitol Forest. Most of the failures we saw were downtube fatigue cracks just below the HT/DT weld. Though there were some ST/BB and driveside CS cracks too. Maybe they beefed them up, or maybe you're just lucky.


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

My boss had a rotating (ie warranteed on a regular basis) Rascal that would crack about every 3-5 months at the seat cluster perpendicular to the clamp slot. He was a hard riding, bigger rider and used all of a 400mm IRD post so I'm sure that didn't help. I also saw a Rascal pop its head tube off in a G out. Made a nice sound. 

Not bagging on Kleins, we just sold a decent amount of them back in the '80s and that's about all I saw.


----------



## laffeaux (Jan 4, 2004)

McNewbie said:


> why so much hate for the triple triangle?


Not sure. I own a Team Avalanche and like the way it rides. It has several unique features that other bikes don't have. It's a neat bike to me.

Worst 3...

1. All of the non-descript non-innovative makers who offered frames that were indistinguishable from other brands. I'd list names, but I forget their names as soon as I walked out of the bike shop.

2. Specialized: They made some nice bikes. However, they copied a Ritchey to make the first affordable mountain bike; in doing so, they copied it incorrectly and made the worst riding mountain bike of all time. I guess a test ride was out of the question.

3. Huffy and companies like them: Making crappy bikes that will not survive if ridden as intended is not the way to build a company.


----------



## utahdog2003 (Jul 8, 2004)

DJ Giggity said:


> Component special mention - Kooka - we warrantied just about everything we sold.


I'll run with that. For me, no other company exploited the popularity of the mountain bike to fill the planet with garbage components more than Kooka. By far, the worst component brand ever. I'd be happier with a bike dressed to the nines with stuff labled Rockwerx, Delta and Pyramid than to have a bike hung with Kooka trash. Pure Garbage.

Yokota does not belong on any hate list. Those who include Yokota in the conversation are pretty damn misguided. Steel Yokota Half Domes, El Caps and Yosemites, like early KHS Montana Pros and Comps and higher end Jamis frames, were very nice machines, regardless of price. Plus they made some great tandems to boot. If you have no interest in Yokota, fine. But Hate?...You're just wrong.


----------



## utahdog2003 (Jul 8, 2004)

laffeaux said:


> Not sure. I own a Team Avalanche and like the way it rides. It has several unique features that other bikes don't have. It's a neat bike to me.


Agree...I've got a Team Avalanche too, and while I wouldn't rub my naked love-shaft on the thing, it's still a fine bike.


----------



## pinguwin (Aug 20, 2004)

Monkey, actually I would put Klein on my hated three list. 

* I loved the bikes, but hated the company. Terrible at customer service, producing things on schedule, getting things shipped on time, etc. I know that the company itself isn't the focus of the thread, but they were up there for me in frustration.

I suppose if I had to choose two others

* Shimano for their frequent microsoft-like behavior back in the day. I never forgave them for push-push shifters. That said, I still use their shifting goodies (and a few other parts)

* Fisher I didnt really hate the bikes themselves so much as the fact that they weren't innovators and...don't get me started on the Gary Fisher/wackJob hate thing.

Fillet-Brazed, that sound you described of the head tube popping off. Yep, heard that one once. Not nice, not nice at all.


----------



## wv_bob (Sep 12, 2005)

pinguwin said:


> I never forgave them for push-push shifters.


My Spot came with an SRAM X5 shifter, which is push-push, so that design isn't dead by a long shot. Nothing like rolling up on a hill, pushing the lever to downshift, and realizing you've just pushed the wrong one. :madman:


----------



## cegrover (Oct 17, 2004)

I guess I just got used to push-push because that's what my second MTB had, and I put a ton of miles on that bike. The only thing that bothers me about push-push today is the old, sticky grease problem they tend to have, but that's pretty easily rectified with WD40 (as are most problems in life).

Of course, I still gladly use twist shifters on my modern FS bike, so you may want to take my shifter comments with a grain of salt...


----------



## laffeaux (Jan 4, 2004)

cegrover said:


> I guess I just got used to push-push because that's what my second MTB had, and I put a ton of miles on that bike. The only thing that bothers me about push-push today is the old, sticky grease problem they tend to have, but that's pretty easily rectified with WD40 (as are most problems in life).


My complaint against them was that when I wore full-fingered gloves (i.e. all winter) the material on my glove's thumb would get stuck between the two shifters after using the bottom lever. Definitely a pain.


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

laffeaux said:


> My complaint against them was that when I wore full-fingered gloves (i.e. all winter) the material on my glove's thumb would get stuck between the two shifters after using the bottom lever. Definitely a pain.


I never made it to the glove issue because they were really awful even without gloves.


----------



## pinguwin (Aug 20, 2004)

I'm with Fillet-brazed. It is one thing to come out with a design and let it die if it was bad. What I had a problem with was cramming it down people's throats and telling them it is good for you whether you like it or not.


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

pinguwin said:


> I'm with Fillet-brazed. It is one thing to come out with a design and let it die if it was bad. What I had a problem with was cramming it down people's throats and telling them it is good for you whether you like it or not.


They changed it within a year though didn't they? Rapid-Fire Plus with the trigger?


----------



## IF52 (Jan 10, 2004)

Push-Push wasn't the bad idea, it was how the levers were positioned. They were too close together and too close in size. I remember everybody that saw them when they first came out, customers and mechanics alike, commented on that and questioned why Shimano didn't make one button a push and the other a pull. Low and behold Shimano's next design came out with a push lever and a trigger.

Suntour Express was way worse.


----------



## pinguwin (Aug 20, 2004)

What bothered me was that they replaced great working parts, thumbshifters, with crap. Making the simple complex and thinking "Gee-whiz, that's neat". They did improve the shifters with rapidfire plus but it was still not as reliable as thumbies. It was also the corporate behavior of Shimano at the time that is inevitable when you dominate a marketplace.


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

pinguwin said:


> What bothered me was that they replaced great working parts, thumbshifters, with crap. Making the simple complex and thinking "Gee-whiz, that's neat". They did improve the shifters with rapidfire plus but it was still not as reliable as thumbies. It was also the corporate behavior of Shimano at the time that is inevitable when you dominate a marketplace.


The reason push-push shifters came to be was because lots of racers smartly turned their thumbshifters upside down (where they should be IMO) so Shimano was listening to their racers. I love the second iteration of Rapid Fire with the trigger. Even if they were less reliable I would still prefer them, but that has not been the case in almost 20 years of using them.

I never wanted to turn my thumbshifters upside down because I liked index shifting and I didn't want my rear shifter on the left. One of those brain things like switching brakes from US style to moto style.

Here's a pic of one of my bikes with the shifters mounted on the underneath (where your thumb naturally resides):


----------



## IF52 (Jan 10, 2004)

Fillet-brazed said:


> The reason push-push shifters came to be was because lots of racers smartly turned their thumbshifters upside down (where they should be IMO) so Shimano was listening to their racers. I love the second iteration of Rapid Fire with the trigger. Even if they were less reliable I would still prefer them, but that has not been the case in almost 20 years of using them.
> 
> I never wanted to turn my thumbshifters upside down because I liked index shifting and I didn't want my rear shifter on the left. One of those brain things like switching brakes from US style to moto style.
> 
> Here's a pic of one of my bikes with the shifters mounted on the underneath (where your thumb naturally resides):


I ran that setup for a while. I seem to recall liking it alright, but like you it was weird getting used to the switched front/rear orientation. I think what I liked best was running the 4 finger levers further inboard so that it mimicked a 2 finger in how it was oriented to your hand on the bar, but was a longer mechanical lever. At this point looking back, it was probably more for just badness factor.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

IF52 said:


> I ran that setup for a while. I seem to recall liking it alright, but like you it was weird getting used to the switched front/rear orientation. I think what I liked best was running the 4 finger levers further inboard so that it mimicked a 2 finger in how it was oriented to your hand on the bar, but was a longer mechanical lever. At this point looking back, it was probably more for just badness factor.


i like thumbshifters better than rapid fire. i like it better w/ my fingers and my eyes; i like to look at them and know which ring and gear i am riding.


----------



## mechagouki (Nov 30, 2007)

I just switched back to an 8 speed drivetrain using thumbshifters on one of my bikes, I do love the positive feel you get shifting with thumbshifters - I still like Rapidfire though, well set up it works great. For those of you lucky enough to not have to keep up with Shimano's constantly changing hardware - Push Push was recently re-introduced - in a fashion - pushing on the back of the Rapidfire trigger will also perform a shift - why? Keeps your index finger free for braking maybe?

I always figured that Shimano stopped making thumbies 'cause if you looked after them they never wore out - so few moving parts - anyone who has ever cracked open a Rapidfire pod will know the same cannot be said for that system.

At least Shimano have finally deigned to provide users of the top 2 off-road groups with little covers to cover the holes left when you remove those awful gear indicators. Only took 15 years.


----------



## singletracktourist (Jul 27, 2005)

mechagouki said:


> I just switched back to an 8 speed drivetrain using thumbshifters on one of my bikes, I do love the positive feel you get shifting with thumbshifters - I still like Rapidfire though, well set up it works great. For those of you lucky enough to not have to keep up with Shimano's constantly changing hardware - Push Push was recently re-introduced - in a fashion - pushing on the back of the Rapidfire trigger will also perform a shift - why? Keeps your index finger free for braking maybe?


Well SRAM came out with a version of the push push which I think is better than Shimano's 1990 version, (but I still don't like it) and I think Shimano gave the optional push push to capture some of the SRAM market possibly. It's a nice option and I use it sometimes. I actually sometimes use my thumb to hit the trigger even on the M95x shifters when blitzing the singletrack, but I run my shifters kinda steep (rotated clockwise) which facilitates this. That said, I do really like the new M970 shifters and use both motions on the trigger given the situation.



mechagouki said:


> I always figured that Shimano stopped making thumbies 'cause if you looked after them they never wore out - so few moving parts - anyone who has ever cracked open a Rapidfire pod will know the same cannot be said for that system.


That's the common conspiracy theory, but I think Shimano's motivation is improving the product. Besides, I've seen many a thumbshifter with soft and dead clicks when they get old.


----------



## outside! (Mar 15, 2006)

IF52 said:


> I ran that setup for a while. I seem to recall liking it alright, but like you it was weird getting used to the switched front/rear orientation.


It was easy to get used to if you set up your first MTB that way simply by not know any better. Some of us still run our shifters this way. Disadvantages, long throw on rear shifter. Advantages: Can feel what gear your in and fine tune front derailer easily, super positive shifts and the best is the ability to shift all the way across the rear cluster in one shift.


----------



## IF52 (Jan 10, 2004)

singletracktourist said:


> Well SRAM came out with a version of the push push which I think is better than Shimano's 1990 version, (but I still don't like it)


I like the SRAM stuff. The position is way better than the first gen rapid fire and I never have to move my index finger to down shift. It is kind of odd switching from bike though since I only have X0 shifters on one bike and XTR RF on everything else.



singletracktourist said:


> I actually sometimes use my thumb to hit the trigger even on the M95x shifters when blitzing the singletrack, but I run my shifters kinda steep (rotated clockwise) which facilitates this.


I do that on my M95x shifters too. Looking at the trigger, it kind of looks like they had that in mind.


----------



## pinguwin (Aug 20, 2004)

singletracktourist said:


> That's the common conspiracy theory, but I think Shimano's motivation is improving the product. Besides, I've seen many a thumbshifter with soft and dead clicks when they get old.


Thumbies do wear out, but I think you will have to agree they last a very, very long time. I don't think of it as a conspiracy theory so much as a marketing ploy. If you can sell someone simple with 7 parts or something complex with 70 parts, which do you think will cost more?

It's not about a conspiracy where Yozo Shimano meets with the Smoking Man but what Shimano can do to make more money.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

pinguwin said:


> Thumbies do wear out, but I think you will have to agree they last a very, very long time. I don't think of it as a conspiracy theory so much as a marketing ploy. If you can sell someone simple with 7 parts or something complex with 70 parts, which do you think will cost more?
> 
> It's not about a conspiracy where Yozo Shimano meets with the Smoking Man but what Shimano can do to make more money.


Shimano doesn't seem to listen to what cyclists want but instead make what they think cyclists need. 
they make goood stuff but a lot of people want thumbies. it wouldn't be that big of a deal to make them.
the same goes w/ 8sp stuff. i don't want 9sp for a reason: 8sp is more stable and consistent on humid, muddy environment. 
they phased out square taper BBs so i have to go w/ other brands.
next they will phase Vs out but then i don't care because there are plenty of aftermarket brakes, hubs, levers..
it's the shifting that makes shimano relevant.


----------



## outside! (Mar 15, 2006)

colker1 said:


> they make goood stuff but a lot of people want thumbies. it wouldn't be that big of a deal to make them.
> the same goes w/ 8sp stuff. i don't want 9sp for a reason: 8sp is more stable and consistent on humid, muddy environment.
> they phased out square taper BBs so i have to go w/ other brands.
> next they will phase Vs out but then i don't care because there are plenty of aftermarket brakes, hubs, levers..
> it's the shifting that makes shimano relevant.


8 spd is definitely more durable. I do like the 11-34 cassette on the new bike though. The 34 keeps my fat butt in the saddle longer on the steep climbs instead of walking. It makes the middle chainring more usable for me also. I often wonder if there would be a market for thumbshifters, especially for front shifting.


----------



## cegrover (Oct 17, 2004)

outside! said:


> 8 spd is definitely more durable. I do like the 11-34 cassette on the new bike though. The 34 keeps my fat butt in the saddle longer on the steep climbs instead of walking. It makes the middle chainring more usable for me also. I often wonder if there would be a market for thumbshifters, especially for front shifting.


I built my El Santo up with 8-speed for durability reasons. It definitely works better, in more conditions and for longer than 9-speed. I, too, would love an 8-speed cassette with 34T cog, though. As far as fine-tuning the front, twist shifters work as well as thumbies for that.


----------



## singletracktourist (Jul 27, 2005)

pinguwin said:


> Thumbies do wear out, but I think you will have to agree they last a very, very long time. I don't think of it as a conspiracy theory so much as a marketing ploy. If you can sell someone simple with 7 parts or something complex with 70 parts, which do you think will cost more?
> 
> It's not about a conspiracy where Yozo Shimano meets with the Smoking Man but what Shimano can do to make more money.


7 parts would also cheaper to manufacturer with less labor, engineering and materials if you are looking at money as the main factor.

As was mentioned, many racers preferred their thumbshifters upside down, so it was a performance change in my eyes, and done so utilizing racer feedback for changes. I think maybe they could have made more money letting go of all their hundreds of engineers and we could all still be riding M700 since Shimano would no longer be in the marketplace anyway if all they had to sell today was Deerhead gruppos.

Surely marketing and profit are vital to any business, but hopefully improvement of the product is as well. I think Shimano does a good job of that. I think one would have a hard time honestly saying all of Shimano's changes are merely for the purpose of planned obsolesence or marketing.


----------



## pinguwin (Aug 20, 2004)

Colker, well put. Singletracktourist, I know you were being facetious about the Deerhead stuff and no one seriously advocates that it was better than M735 stuff. Shimano does make good stuff and certainly not everything they did was bad (not even close) but I think Colker has some good points. 

My original inclusion of them in my list was that they behaved like Microsoft in some ways, which their essential monopoly in the past allowed them to do.


----------



## Thylacine (Feb 29, 2004)

colker1 said:


> Shimano doesn't seem to listen to what cyclists want but instead make what they think cyclists need.
> they make goood stuff but a lot of people want thumbies. it wouldn't be that big of a deal to make them.
> the same goes w/ 8sp stuff. i don't want 9sp for a reason: 8sp is more stable and consistent on humid, muddy environment.
> they phased out square taper BBs so i have to go w/ other brands.
> ...


I think a lot of this we true 15 years ago, but generally the new Shimano stuff is awesome and very rider orientated. Classic example is XT cranks. 200 bucks, double the stiffness of the old square taper....best bang for buck crank out there. Their shifting is still unparalleled. Their disc brakes are good value and work well.

Like all companies that exist to make money, there's going to be a degree of anti-competitive hank-panky (such as attempted proprietary BCD chainrings) but ultimately the market will sort that sort of stuff out.

I think the Shimano-hate is generally out-moded and out-dated these days, just like square taper cranks and v-brakes. 

And hey, if you don't like it, mix it up with some Sram, right?


----------



## mechagouki (Nov 30, 2007)

Thylacine said:


> Classic example is XT cranks. 200 bucks


Where? I'll take 10 sets!


----------



## pinguwin (Aug 20, 2004)

Thylacine said:


> I think a lot of this we true 15 years ago...I think the Shimano-hate is generally out-moded and out-dated these days...if you don't like it, mix it up with some Sram, right?


As far as 15 years ago, of course, everything we talk about is fifteen years old . I see Shimano hate as being less than it was and a large part of that is due to Sram giving people options.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

Thylacine said:


> I think a lot of this we true 15 years ago, but generally the new Shimano stuff is awesome and very rider orientated. Classic example is XT cranks. 200 bucks, double the stiffness of the old square taper....best bang for buck crank out there. Their shifting is still unparalleled. Their disc brakes are good value and work well.
> 
> Like all companies that exist to make money, there's going to be a degree of anti-competitive hank-panky (such as attempted proprietary BCD chainrings) but ultimately the market will sort that sort of stuff out.
> 
> ...


i've got a un71 on a 15yr old bike which has been ridden hard and it's still rolling. do i need more stiffness? no. did i need octalink w/it's short life span? no.
i like the look of old fashioned cranks. a bicycle is a thing of beauty as much as an old porsche cabriolet is a thing of beauty. any subaru rides better than the porsche right?..


----------



## Thylacine (Feb 29, 2004)

pinguwin said:


> As far as 15 years ago, of course, everything we talk about is fifteen years old . I see Shimano hate as being less than it was and a large part of that is due to Sram giving people options.


Man, you must really hate the Germans still.


----------



## Thylacine (Feb 29, 2004)

colker1 said:


> i've got a un71 on a 15yr old bike which has been ridden hard and it's still rolling. do i need more stiffness? no. did i need octalink w/it's short life span? no.
> i like the look of old fashioned cranks. a bicycle is a thing of beauty as much as an old porsche cabriolet is a thing of beauty. any subaru rides better than the porsche right?..


A Porsche vs a Subaru of the same value....the Subie will smash it.

GTR vs Porsche 911 Turbo? Half the price and SMASHES it.

I'm sure there's a point in there somewhere but you never did make any sense, Colker :thumbsup:


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

Thylacine said:


> Man, you must really hate the Germans still.


hate is a strong word. i still find shimano shifters unpleasant to look at and indexed shifting..well... is it really such a great idea?


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

Thylacine said:


> A Porsche vs a Subaru of the same value....the Subie will smash it.
> 
> GTR vs Porsche 911 Turbo? Half the price and SMASHES it.
> 
> I'm sure there's a point in there somewhere but you never did make any sense, Colker :thumbsup:


it's you that seem unable to grasp my subtlety. no biggie, subtlety is underrated in our day and age.


----------



## paetersen (Jul 28, 2007)

*gotta stick up for trek a bit*

just a little bit. the early 90's 970 and 990 steel hardtails were great riding bikes imo.


----------



## sho220 (Aug 3, 2005)

colker1 said:


> Shimano doesn't seem to listen to what cyclists want but instead make what they think cyclists need.
> they make goood stuff but a lot of people want thumbies. it wouldn't be that big of a deal to make them.
> the same goes w/ 8sp stuff. i don't want 9sp for a reason: 8sp is more stable and consistent on humid, muddy environment.
> they phased out square taper BBs so i have to go w/ other brands.
> ...


I'm sure Shimano gets a lot of input from riders and probably takes a lot of it into consideration, but you're not going to please all of the people all of the time. Sure they've had a few stinkers, but Shimano makes great stuff...then and now...

And a lot of people want thumbies like a lot of people want gum wall tires...I can't believe First Flight isn't rich by now with the repro gum walls they offer???  :thumbsup:


----------



## mechagouki (Nov 30, 2007)

sho220 said:


> I'm sure Shimano gets a lot of input from riders and probably takes a lot of it into consideration, but you're not going to please all of the people all of the time. Sure they've had a few stinkers, but Shimano makes great stuff...then and now...
> 
> And a lot of people want thumbies like a lot of people want gum wall tires...I can't believe First Flight isn't rich by now with the repro gum walls they offer???  :thumbsup:


They should get some gumwall 1.9 Smokes made (or white Porcs  )


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

sho220 said:


> I'm sure Shimano gets a lot of input from riders and probably takes a lot of it into consideration, but you're not going to please all of the people all of the time. Sure they've had a few stinkers, but Shimano makes great stuff...then and now...
> 
> And a lot of people want thumbies like a lot of people want gum wall tires...I can't believe First Flight isn't rich by now with the repro gum walls they offer???  :thumbsup:


riders have been missing thumbshifters it's been a long, long time. xt thumbies sell like hot cakes on ebay... but shimano believes we should not ride w/ thumbies.
we have been saying and proving 8sp is better on nasty trail conditions and shimano ignored us again.
you pretend 9sp is better in the woods? good for you. doesn't make it fact for a lot of riders out there though.


----------



## wv_bob (Sep 12, 2005)

pinguwin said:


> they behaved like Microsoft


<off topic>
It always makes me smile when people point at Microsoft as an example of the Evil Empire, while Apple hides behind their facade of their marketing machine and throws rocks

The Simpsons got it just about right regarding Apple.http://www.hulu.com/watch/46753/the-simpsons-mapple-store
</off topic>


----------



## ckevlar (Feb 9, 2005)

And yet in the end Porsche will still be an icon while the other two will be beer cans. 



Thylacine said:


> A Porsche vs a Subaru of the same value....the Subie will smash it.
> 
> GTR vs Porsche 911 Turbo? Half the price and SMASHES it.
> 
> I'm sure there's a point in there somewhere but you never did make any sense, Colker :thumbsup:


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

colker1 said:


> riders have been missing thumbshifters it's been a long, long time. xt thumbies sell like hot cakes on ebay... but shimano believes we should not ride w/ thumbies.
> we have been saying and proving 8sp is better on nasty trail conditions and shimano ignored us again.
> you pretend 9sp is better in the woods? good for you. doesn't make it fact for a lot of riders out there though.


Just curious why 8 speed is better in the woods and how do you measure that? Are you talking about the .1mm of extra space you get between cogs?


----------



## Shayne (Jan 14, 2004)

*Exactly*

People in the drivetrain forum bag on 9spd all the time too.
Personally I have no problem with 10spd in the mud. I haven't so much as touched a barrel adjuster since I rebuilt that bike in March 2008.

By that theory why not stick with 7 or 6 speed then? 8 is more fragile and prone to the elements than 7
7 more than 6
etc....


----------



## IF52 (Jan 10, 2004)

What's the problem with 9 speed? 8 or 9, doesn't matter to me. I don't have problems with shifting on either, unless I'm using worn out parts.


----------



## cegrover (Oct 17, 2004)

Shayne said:


> By that theory why not stick with 7 or 6 speed then? 8 is more fragile and prone to the elements than 7
> 7 more than 6
> etc....


Because chain width/cog spacing was largely the same until Shimano 9spd came along.

My better half has 9-speed on her bike, and it seems to be largely okay, but she doesn't ride as often as I do. I just find 9-speed more prone to ghost shifting due to small bits of cable stretch or mud/muck. It can be run fine in many cases, but the few 9-speed setups I've had have required more frequent (albeit fairly simple) attention than the many 6-, 7- and 8-speed setups I've had.

It will be interesting to see how SRAM does with 10-speed.


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

cegrover said:


> Because chain width/cog spacing was largely the same until Shimano 9spd came along.
> 
> My better half has 9-speed on her bike, and it seems to be largely okay, but she doesn't ride as often as I do. I just find 9-speed more prone to ghost shifting due to small bits of cable stretch or mud/muck. It can be run fine in many cases, but the few 9-speed setups I've had have required more frequent (albeit fairly simple) attention than the many 6-, 7- and 8-speed setups I've had.
> 
> It will be interesting to see how SRAM does with 10-speed.


ok, but if both chain width _and_ cog spacing change together you get no more or no less margin for error.


----------



## cegrover (Oct 17, 2004)

Fillet-brazed said:


> ok, but if both chain width _and_ cog spacing change together you get no more or no less margin for error.


Yes, _if_ - _and only if_ - the change is proportionate. They could both change and make it worse - I don't have the numbers in front of me to see what actually happened, I just know 9-speed is more sensitive to small changes...


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

cegrover said:


> Yes, _if_ - _and only if_ - the change is proportionate. They could both change and make it worse - I don't have the numbers in front of me to see what actually happened, I just know 9-speed is more sensitive to small changes...


well, they do both change. and how do you know that it is more sensitive to small changes?

there are two somewhat valid (and very minor) arguments for 8 over 9 but this isn't one of them IMO.


----------



## cegrover (Oct 17, 2004)

Fillet-brazed said:


> well, they do both change. and how do you know that it is more sensitive to small changes?
> 
> there are two somewhat valid (and very minor) arguments for 8 over 9 but this isn't one of them IMO.


I just know 9-speed is somewhat harder to keep in tune - seems to be more sensitive to cable stretch and possibly dirt/mud. Interestingly, I have had less trouble with SRAM 9-speed, which may indicate the Shimano 2:1 system's amplification of the cable movement makes it more sensitive. Maybe that, combined with the cogs being spaced closer, causes the problems - certainly not proof positive, but a theory... Again, it's not like 9-speed doesn't work, but it does seem to require more routine maintenance. YMMV


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

cegrover said:


> I just know 9-speed is somewhat harder to keep in tune - seems to be more sensitive to cable stretch and possibly dirt/mud. Interestingly, I have had less trouble with SRAM 9-speed, which may indicate the Shimano 2:1 system's amplification of the cable movement makes it more sensitive. Maybe that, combined with the cogs being spaced closer, causes the problems - certainly not proof positive, but a theory... Again, it's not like 9-speed doesn't work, but it does seem to require more routine maintenance. YMMV


ok, I was just curious how you arrived at that. I've never had an issue keeping 6,7,8,9,10 speed in tune but then turning a barrel adjuster a quarter turn I probably do sub-conciously while riding.  It probably is ever so slightly more finicky (we're talking tenths and hundredths of a millimeter differences here), but most definitely not a game changer for me or even something I'd ever notice between the two systems.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

Fillet-brazed said:


> Just curious why 8 speed is better in the woods and how do you measure that? Are you talking about the .1mm of extra space you get between cogs?


how do you measure chainsuck?


----------



## muddybuddy (Jan 31, 2007)

colker1 said:


> how do you measure chainsuck?


By how many times it can happen before your frame fails?


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

colker1 said:


> how do you measure chainsuck?


what causes 8 speed to chainsuck less than 9?


----------



## The Golden Boy (Oct 7, 2009)

Thylacine said:


> A Porsche vs a Subaru of the same value....the Subie will smash it.
> 
> GTR vs Porsche 911 Turbo? Half the price and SMASHES it.
> 
> I'm sure there's a point in there somewhere but you never did make any sense, Colker :thumbsup:


You know the Germans always make good stuff...


----------



## sho220 (Aug 3, 2005)

The Golden Boy said:


> You know the Germans always make good stuff...


always? VW's?

Subies rock! :thumbsup:


----------



## IF52 (Jan 10, 2004)

sho220 said:


> always? VW's?
> 
> Subies rock! :thumbsup:


Hell yeah VWs! 240lbft of torque, 40mpg, 50 state legal. You betcha!


----------



## wv_bob (Sep 12, 2005)

The Golden Boy said:


> You know the Germans always make good stuff...





sho220 said:


> always? VW's?


Apparently some need the image for the joke to click


----------



## sho220 (Aug 3, 2005)

wv_bob said:


> Apparently some need the image for the joke to click


damn...I completely missed that...:skep:


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

Fillet-brazed said:


> what causes 8 speed to chainsuck less than 9?


who knows?


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

sho220 said:


> always? VW's?
> 
> Subies rock! :thumbsup:


i will take a VW Passat any time.


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

colker1 said:


> who knows?


so is this the consensus, that 9 chainsucks more than 8? I've never heard that one.

you'd think the narrower chainrings might cut through the grime better and that the narrower chain would have less of a chance of getting jammed/wedged.


----------



## Boy named SSue (Jan 7, 2004)

colker1 said:


> i will take a VW Passat any time.


Take the Audi A4. Same platform as a Passat with a nicer interior, better suspension options, more engine options, and a more performance oriented AWD.

I heart quattros and Subies all said and done though. Owned and loved both.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

Fillet-brazed said:


> so is this the consensus, that 9 chainsucks more than 8? I've never heard that one.
> 
> you'd think the narrower chainrings might cut through the grime better and that the narrower chain would have less of a chance of getting jammed/wedged.


experience says 9sp are not as stable as 8sp where i ride.. otoh i don't need 9sp. i am against buying into something i don't need.


----------



## IF52 (Jan 10, 2004)

Fillet-brazed said:


> so is this the consensus, that 9 chainsucks more than 8? I've never heard that one.
> 
> you'd think the narrower chainrings might cut through the grime better and that the narrower chain would have less of a chance of getting jammed/wedged.


Just throwing this out there - 9sp chain on a not 9sp chainring? I know for example Surly advices against 9sp chains with their smaller rings because the teeth are too thick.

Just a guess...


----------



## bgfthntr (May 18, 2009)

KDXdog said:


> I hate to say it, because I liked the stuff, and bought much of it, but Ringle.
> 
> I was a pretty light guy back in the day, I broke almost nothing from other companies, but broke, in no order:
> seat collar clamp, seat post (shaft cracked), hub set (threaded) f & R, water cages (2), wheel quick release.
> ...


----------



## IF52 (Jan 10, 2004)

bgfthntr said:


> Gotta disagree with you on Ringle' stuff. Had the same on a racing rig years ago and it all out lived the bike. I'm still using one of the cages today.... just my two cents


I like the Ringle stuff too, and still run a bunch of it, but it definitely had its flaws. There is a thread on this forum someplace with many pictures of cracked flanges and such. I know the early Super 8s had issues with the rathet ring shattering. They later improved this area, and even later went to the Super Duper 8 which had a beefier ring and larger pawls.


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

colker1 said:


> experience says 9sp are not as stable as 8sp where i ride.. otoh i don't need 9sp. i am against buying into something i don't need.


the 7 speed guy said he doesn't need 8 speed. and the 6 speed guy said he doesn't need 7...


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

Fillet-brazed said:


> the 7 speed guy said he doesn't need 8 speed. and the 6 speed guy said he doesn't need 7...


they are absolutely right.


----------



## pinguwin (Aug 20, 2004)

wv_bob said:


> <off topic="">
> It always makes me smile when people point at Microsoft as an example of the Evil Empire, while Apple hides behind their facade of their marketing machine...[/URL]
> </off>


If you look at the size and market share of the two companies, the ability of one to do mayhem to the market place is much greater than the other. When companies were making decisions as to which markets to enter, they were generally making the calculations on being buried (or better yet, bought out) by microsoft. Also for ease of communication, more people would understand the reference to MS rather than Apple. Apple had some completely idiotic software patents over the years, I don't hold them up as a shining example (I develop under Linux).


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

colker1 said:


> they are absolutely right.


but at least they aren't accusing the newer stuff of being more chainsuckish as an attempt to nullify their lesser stature in life due to having one cog less than the higher stature guys with one more cog..


----------



## cegrover (Oct 17, 2004)

pinguwin said:


> If you look at the size and market share of the two companies, the ability of one to do mayhem to the market place is much greater than the other. When companies were making decisions as to which markets to enter, they were generally making the calculations on being buried (or better yet, bought out) by microsoft. Also for ease of communication, more people would understand the reference to MS rather than Apple. Apple had some completely idiotic software patents over the years, I don't hold them up as a shining example (I develop under Linux).


Apple has a monopoly among "creative types", however!


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

Fillet-brazed said:


> but at least they aren't accusing the newer stuff of being more chainsuckish as an attempt to nullify their lesser stature in life due to having one cog less than the higher stature guys with one more cog..


how do you know? what if a couple of 6sp riders felt a lesser stature in life yesterday and didn't report to you?


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

colker1 said:


> how do you know? what if a couple of 6sp riders felt a lesser stature in life yesterday and didn't report to you?


you lost me on the question, but regardless, that was entirely in jest.


----------



## KDXdog (Mar 15, 2007)

Audis:
Yeah I loved my A4 turbo, right up until it blew a timing belt and the top end of the motor.
Audi sucked when it came to warrantee, many class action suits followed those turbo -4's...I'll never buy another.

So some of you think FATs were in the 3 worst category? I can see some of you not voting them in the top 3 BEST, but worst? 

Same logic that dictates that Obama deserved the Noble.

Makes zero sense.


----------



## Megaclocker (Sep 28, 2005)

colker1 said:


> how do you know? what if a couple of 6sp riders felt a lesser stature in life yesterday and didn't report to you?


9spd ghost shift ans is more prone to crap then 8spd.
8spd ghost shift and is more prone to crap then 7spd...
...

...

8spd was a nice compromise. They had, if I remember correctly, the same cog thickness that the 7spd cog had (shorter freehub). Wider cog are less prone to chainsuck,slipping,etc.

With 8spd cassette and chain you could actually do more then 1000km, before it was worn...

10spd mtb is an awful idea. Even with 9spd (I ride with 9spd now) I find myself too often cleaning the smaller sproket (11-12-14 teeth) because they slip. 11T is a bad idea too. 12-32 FTW.


----------



## mechagouki (Nov 30, 2007)

Apple's not a big success because of their funny computers (one mouse button?), iPods made them what they are today - and they do control that market.

Not that I have any strong preferences as far ahow many cogs I have at the back - it is a fact that the more you dish a wheel over to accomodate more cogs the weaker (laterally)the wheel gets - that's a downside to bigger cassettes.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

mechagouki said:


> Apple's not a big success because of their funny computers (one mouse button?), iPods made them what they are today - and they do control that market.
> 
> Not that I have any strong preferences as far ahow many cogs I have at the back - it is a fact that the more you dish a wheel over to accomodate more cogs the weaker (laterally)the wheel gets - that's a downside to bigger cassettes.


Apple has always been big w/ graphics application types.


----------



## geckocycles (Sep 3, 2006)

themanmonkey said:


> Yea, I can't think of one company that didn't make some POS at one time or another, or didn't have some other kind of problems.


Bet you won't say that to my face or have much of a face left if you do. LOL.
I'm sure you forgot about me.

I vote for any bike that has vent holes and won't float.


----------



## wv_bob (Sep 12, 2005)

colker1 said:


> Apple has always been big w/ graphics application types.


IMO that's more because those people tend to be trendy than it is that the Apple machines are better


----------



## wv_bob (Sep 12, 2005)

geckocycles said:


> Bet you won't say that to my face or have much of a face left if you do. LOL.


Never thought I'd live to see the day I'd encounter an attack gecko.

Maybe you could help with some answers here http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_some_gecko_attack_techniques


----------



## mainlyfats (Oct 1, 2005)

So the 3 worst VRC brands are:

Apple
Microsoft
VW/Porsche

Good to know. I'll avoid them at all costs.


----------



## geckocycles (Sep 3, 2006)

wv_bob said:


> Never thought I'd live to see the day I'd encounter an attack gecko.
> 
> Maybe you could help with some answers here http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_some_gecko_attack_techniques


Check back now. LOL


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

wv_bob said:


> IMO that's more because those people tend to be trendy than it is that the Apple machines are better


No. It's because the adobe suite was supposed to perform slightly different on OS platforms about 10 yrs ago.
i work on mac at home and windows at work. the machine w/windows is always infected w/ virus. :nono:


----------



## IF52 (Jan 10, 2004)

colker1 said:


> the machine w/windows is always infected w/ virus. :nono:


It wouldn't be if you'd quit surfing porn at work.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

IF52 said:


> It wouldn't be if you'd quit surfing porn at work.


it's in a classroom! it's used by students..


----------



## tductape (Mar 31, 2008)

IF52 said:


> It wouldn't be if you'd quit surfing porn at work.


Porn sites, Wait, VRC is where I go for my bike porn.....


----------



## wv_bob (Sep 12, 2005)

colker1 said:


> No. It's because the adobe suite was supposed to perform slightly different on OS platforms about 10 yrs ago.
> i work on mac at home and windows at work. the machine w/windows is always infected w/ virus. :nono:


You need better virus protection


----------



## IF52 (Jan 10, 2004)

colker1 said:


> it's in a classroom! it's used by students..


Like I said...



Game sites, social network sites, it's all the same. Any place gullible people go people will exploit them.


----------



## themanmonkey (Nov 1, 2005)

Wow I think this is the most divergent thread drift I've ever seen on the VRC board.

Posted from a MacBook Pro.


----------



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

I'm normally quite happy with my Mac, but beware upgrading to Snow Leopard! My department's printers don't support it. Other than that issue SL has been great though....


----------



## wv_bob (Sep 12, 2005)

themanmonkey said:


> Wow I think this is the most divergent thread drift I've ever seen on the VRC board.
> 
> Posted from a MacBook Pro.


I agree

Posted from a TRS-80 - would that be considered VRC?


----------



## Schmitty (Sep 7, 2008)

*Perfect*



wv_bob said:


> I agree
> 
> Posted from a TRS-80 - would that be considered VRC?


It started off completely pointless, and so it ends (or does it).

-Schmitty-

(it aint about the computer)


----------



## da'HOOV (Jan 3, 2009)

I think Smoked Gouda, Jarlsburg Swiss and Applewood Smoked English Chedder are the best


----------



## cegrover (Oct 17, 2004)

KDXdog said:


> Same logic that dictates that Obama deserved the Noble.
> 
> Makes zero sense.


Someone needs to nominate Obama for the Mountain Bike Hall of Fame.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

cegrover said:


> Someone needs to nominate Obama for the Mountain Bike Hall of Fame.


he should win a downhill race.. in absentia. :thumbsup:


----------



## DugB (Sep 14, 2008)

Schmitty said:


> mainlyfats said:
> 
> 
> > Pulstar: a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Particularly because so many people were buying MTBs as touring bikes then, I always wondered how you'd say "straight pull" in Quechua or Farsi.
> ...


----------

