# trek with Y frame?



## Deartist7 (Sep 28, 2014)

I just found this bike around on my local CL and it looks so bad that i'm wondering if it's even real. I found a few similar looking ones in google but still, just...holy crap.









Just curious.


----------



## mik_git (Feb 4, 2004)

Yeah, Trek Y frame, kinda a big deal back in the 90's. Not saying they were good, being the definition of URT, butlots about and some were top end expensive.


----------



## laffeaux (Jan 4, 2004)

Yes, very real. Trek and Fisher frames of the late 90s were all designed to look like electric guitars.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

They took the design from a great small brand: Mantis.


----------



## MendonCycleSmith (Feb 10, 2005)

Say it ain't so, big boys stealing the creative work of smaller builders, for profit?

I fail to belive that. It's shocking to me.....


----------



## ameybrook (Sep 9, 2006)

colker1 said:


> They took the design from a great small brand: Mantis.


Huh? Exactly how?


----------



## DoubleCentury (Nov 12, 2005)

ameybrook said:


> Huh? Exactly how?


Maybe Ibis?


----------



## Guest (Jan 7, 2016)

ameybrook said:


> Huh? Exactly how?


 I always thought they took the design from Sesame Street


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

Deartist7 said:


> it looks so bad that i'm wondering if it's even real.


When you say bad, do you mean good? :lol:


----------



## Deartist7 (Sep 28, 2014)

My old walmart bike looked better than that. And I've been told it's pretty ugly, so yeah..


----------



## Deartist7 (Sep 28, 2014)

I thought it wasn't real because of the stickers. Maybe those are not the original? 
Regardless the frame itself, I can't imagine Trek putting stickers that way.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

ameybrook said:


> Huh? Exactly how?


Like this: The name of the Mantis is Flying V.. taken from Gibson Flying V guitar. As Lafeaux said: Trek was trying to to copya guitar. Who did it first? Mantis.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

DoubleCentury said:


> Maybe Ibis?


Suspension is copied from Ibis but the guitar shape is Mantis.


----------



## mik_git (Feb 4, 2004)

Deartist7 said:


> My old walmart bike looked better than that. And I've been told it's pretty ugly, so yeah..


ughly, yep, crap, probably, but still a $3k+ bike back in the day... still prettier and better than a proflex though haha 

oh and not all the stickers are original, only the Trek and OVLC ones are.


----------



## iamkeith (Feb 5, 2010)

This conversation reminded me of that interview with John Burke, long-time CEO of Trek, from a few years back:

From The Top - Trek CEO John Burke - Pinkbike

Specifically, how he listed the Why Bikes as being one of their great accomplishments:

_"The Y Bikes, 1995. Those were amazing bikes."_

But singled out an un-remarkable and completely ordinary rigid mtb as their single worst mis-step... because of poor paint and component selections:

_"I'll tell ya, my least favorite bike in the history of Trek is the 1990 6000. It was neon-yellow bike with black splash paint. It was perhaps the worst bike that we ever produced. It didn't shift well, the brakes sucked."_

http://www.retrobike.co.uk/forum/download/file.php?id=223988


----------



## asphalt_jesus (Aug 13, 2010)

colker1 said:


> Suspension is copied from Ibis but the guitar shape is Mantis.


Actually, Chuck Ibis licensed the design from John Castellano. Schwinn had one too. That was a decent product from Schwinn, but, near the end for Schwinn.

It actually works great but it doesn't look like a motorcycle so it doesn't sell. it doesn't squat when you pedal... When you descend the suspension is "unlocked."

Castellano Designs | Zorro, son of Szazbo

The Trek was a "me too" product.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

asphalt_jesus said:


> Actually, Chuck Ibis licensed the design from John Castellano. Schwinn had one too. That was a decent product from Schwinn, but, near the end for Schwinn.
> 
> It actually works great but it doesn't look like a motorcycle so it doesn't sell. it doesn't squat when you pedal... When you descend the suspension is "unlocked."
> 
> ...


From what I recall, Castellano didn't patent URT design, only his "sweet spot" pivot location which the Schwinn also used. It wasn't the first URT and the Trek was not a sweet spot bike and therefore had nothing to do with Castellanos design or patent.

The idea behind URT was to have rear suspension downhill and rigid uphill, (no chain effect on suspension). But they tended to bob when pedaling, even though there is no chain effect, just from the squat of acceleration.

I think Castellano's design placed the pivot higher so the acceleration vector would go through the pivot and not rotate it (as much).

They could work ok, from my limited experience, but these days we don't have the same fears of active suspension for climbing. They could have the advantage of a radical rearward axle path without the problem of chain growth. But when the suspension tries to compress, it is trying to move your bodyweight as well, since you are standing on the pedals which are connected to the swing arm.


----------



## iamkeith (Feb 5, 2010)

I have never ridden a URT bike, but have always had a question about it - and this conversation is as good a place as any to ask, I guess: 

I've always heard this explanation of how it would lock out when climbing, but then become active when descending. Just by looking at it though, it intuitively seems like it would be the exact opposite. Like the only way to compress it would be to put your weight on the saddle. 

Am I seeing something wrong, or am I unique in that I generally stay seated for long, grueling climbs, and then stand on the pedals for the entirety of the subsequent, bomber downhill?


----------



## Acme54321 (Oct 8, 2003)

There are probably a lot of people on this forum that drooled over these things in the 90s. As a kid with a 96 800 Sport I used to stare at the catalog pictures of these things all day. Catalogs.... another blast from the past. I collected them from the shops by the dozen.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

iamkeith said:


> I have never ridden a URT bike, but have always had a question about it - and this conversation is as good a place as any to ask, I guess:
> 
> I've always heard this explanation of how it would lock out when climbing, but then become active when descending. Just by looking at it though, it intuitively seems like it would be the exact opposite. Like the only way to compress it would be to put your weight on the saddle.
> 
> Am I seeing something wrong, or am I unique in that I generally stay seated for long, grueling climbs, and then stand on the pedals for the entirety of the subsequent, bomber downhill?


No, you are right. It's more active when seated.


----------



## jeff (Jan 13, 2004)

I spent many a day hanging out in the Catamount factory during the mid-late 90's. The designer there claimed that he beat Castellano to the punch with the modern URT. Of course, like so many designs, it was originally done 100 years earlier. The Catamounts had a different pivot location than the Sweet Spot that did not lock out as much while out of the saddle. It responded more in the saddle but with weight back and out is was pretty supple. Loved that bike.


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

I always thought the Y frame bike was to the mtb industry what Kriss Kross was to the music industry. Being the 90's I assume trek wanted something that looked "radical" or "extreme" so they designed (or copied) a frame that was pretty much the opposite of a traditional double triangle frame. Kriss Kross did pretty much the same thing by wearing their clothes backwards. Both looked radical and extreme, but neither were any good. Didn't stop either from selling though.

I believe trek came up with the "y" bike design in 1993, which was after the mantis. However, I don't remember any other bikes at that time with a similar suspension design. The sweet spot design, while a URT, is quite different than the Y bikes suspension. 

My biggest issue with the URT is that is not full suspension. With the URT there is only suspension to two of the three contact points, the bars and saddle, but not the pedals. Since the BB is directly connected to the rear axle, that means when the rear axle moves, the BB moves as well. A suspension seat post on a HT will provide the same suspension effect, but with a much, much better ride and pedaling efficiency.


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

jeff said:


> Of course, like so many designs, it was originally done 100 years earlier...


Mantis was not the first... I am sure there are plenty more examples, this was just the first one I found.

Being that this bike does not have a seat tube like the treks y bike, I bet they copied this frame design instead of the mantis


----------



## Deartist7 (Sep 28, 2014)

Okay, didn't expect such a long topic come out of such an ugly bike, lol, specially since I thought it was a fake trek.
But anyway, you just got me into wondering if this is also a "URT" bike:









I got something better now (duh), but that's how I started riding, so I learned to appreciate that thing. Now that I think about it, the rear suspension never really feel like it was doing it's job unless I was seated. 
Maybe because it's also a URT design? Unreliable as f*ck but I guess it is.


----------



## mik_git (Feb 4, 2004)

Yeah but ou have to remember, in the 90's they were still trying to figure out rear suspension (or front as well) and were trying all sorts of things (from motorbikes, cars and whatever else they could dream up) to figure out what worked. It was a case of some suspension is better than none (but not really in a lot of cases). The stuff that worked hung atround, the stuff that didn't went by the wayside, or ended up on el cheapo bikes from wallmart, so they looked like stuff that was good, that wasn't.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

mik_git said:


> Yeah but ou have to remember, in the 90's they were still trying to figure out rear suspension (or front as well) and were trying all sorts of things (from motorbikes, cars and whatever else they could dream up) to figure out what worked. It was a case of some suspension is better than none (but not really in a lot of cases). The stuff that worked hung atround, the stuff that didn't went by the wayside, or ended up on el cheapo bikes from wallmart, so they looked like stuff that was good, that wasn't.


Good point. When the Y bike came out, front suspension was still somewhat controversial, let alone rear suspension. It seems absurd to criticize a design from those days. We got to where we are by trying all sorts of different designs back in the 90's, when people weren't even sure if suspension was a good idea, let alone the right kind of suspension. Thousands of Y bikes were sold to thousands of people who had thousands of great rides on them. Trek Y bikes are part of the history of mountain bikes.

In 1995, when the Y bike came out, I rented a Proflex as the first suspension bike (front or rear!) I ever rode. The elastomer suspension nearly catapulted me off the bike sometimes, but I was convinced that FS was the way to go for my next bike.

I settled on a 1996 Jamis Dakar which seemed as modern as the space shuttle at the time, with it's 60 mm spring travel in the rear and 60 mm elastomer Judy fork up front. I still have that bike, and it doesn't look so modern anymore.


----------



## mik_git (Feb 4, 2004)

Ha, my mate got a Proflex Animal (the one with the HED wheels) he loved it, I thought it was terrible, the rear and was bouncy and the fork, that parrallelogram thing, seemed to fold under the front thanmove through travel...
But then I had a Manitou, which if you were on lovely singletrack was a complete weapon, but point it down soemthing steep (as in less than a gentle slope), watch out, it was fine until soemthing fully compressed the rear and your weight a bit to the front, then it would try to eject you over the bars.


----------



## iamkeith (Feb 5, 2010)

smilinsteve said:


> It seems absurd to criticize a design from those days...
> 
> We got to where we are by trying all sorts of different designs back in the 90's, Trek Y bikes are part of the history of mountain bikes...


Totally agree.



smilinsteve said:


> I settled on a 1996 Jamis Dakar which seemed as modern as the space shuttle at the time... I still have that bike, and it doesn't look so modern anymore.


Well, it's been 2016 for a few days now. Your bike is now 20 years old, and therefore eligible for sharing on the VRC forum 

Isn't that the rule? If not, you all better prepare yourselves anyway - because in exactly 12 months I intend to share the only two full-suspension bikes I currently own. Both of which I still sometimes ride. 

I'm only being slightly ironic when I say this: Looking back like this, it is amazing how quickly suspension developed, because by 1997 - just two years after that Trek - suspension designs (not shock valving or geometries - but mechanical designs) were almost completely perfected.


----------



## mik_git (Feb 4, 2004)

iamkeith said:


> Totally agree.
> 
> Isn't that the rule? If not, you all better prepare yourselves anyway - because in exactly 12 months I intend to share the only two full-suspension bikes I currently own. Both of which I still sometimes ride.


Nope I believe it's Pre 98, not 20 years...


----------



## MendonCycleSmith (Feb 10, 2005)

So, if I detested the design back then too,rode other designs at that time that I preferred, and am just remaining true to my beliefs, am I still wrong?


:devil:


----------



## Uncle Grumpy (Oct 20, 2005)

iamkeith said:


> I'm only being slightly ironic when I say this: Looking back like this, it is amazing how quickly suspension developed, because by 1997 - just two years after that Trek - suspension designs (not shock valving or geometries - but mechanical designs) were almost completely perfected.


The Santa Cruz Heckler and the GT LTS were around at the same time as the Y-Bike and were damn good designs that still hold up today.

Some people just wanted suspension that didn't really work, and the Y bike met that demand.

But yeah, I totally agree that it wasn't long for the URTs to be mostly relegated to department store bikes (save for the sweet spot designs) and for suspension designs to develop to a point of working well.

Grumps


----------



## asphalt_jesus (Aug 13, 2010)

iamkeith said:


> I've always heard this explanation of how it would lock out when climbing, but then become active when descending.


Yes, it works exactly as advertised. I have a Schwinn URT. Pedal and it is rigid. Coast and the suspension works. Klein had a bike with a high pivot too.

IMO, it is a great suspended XC design. What it isn't is an all-mountain type bike where you are looking for lots of suspension.

But, it doesn't look like a motorcycle, so it's not going to sell well.


----------



## asphalt_jesus (Aug 13, 2010)

iamkeith said:


> Totally agree.
> I'm only being slightly ironic when I say this: Looking back like this, it is amazing how quickly suspension developed, because by 1997 - just two years after that Trek - suspension designs (not shock valving or geometries - but mechanical designs) were almost completely perfected.


Perfected isn't the right word. It's what sold/sells.

Designs that look like motorcycles sell much better.


----------



## asphalt_jesus (Aug 13, 2010)

singletrackmack said:


> Since the BB is directly connected to the rear axle, that means when the rear axle moves, the BB moves as well. A suspension seat post on a HT will provide the same suspension effect, but with a much, much better ride and pedaling efficiency.


You have made up your mind about a design you have never ridden.

The suspension locks out when you pedal unless you bounce around on the seat like a madman. Please spare us pedaling efficiency jargon as you are using it to confirm your bias.

We've hit upon a pet peeve of mine. The high pivot is a valid bicycle suspension design. Too many people equate bicycles with motorcycles and the bicycle media confirm their bias. I'll stop now.


----------



## tahoebeau (May 11, 2014)

Not a fan of the URT


----------



## Uncle Grumpy (Oct 20, 2005)

tahoebeau said:


> Not a fan of the URT


Same here. That's because you and I like bicycles that look like motorcycles.

Apparently.

Grumps


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

asphalt_jesus said:


> We've hit upon a pet peeve of mine. The high pivot is a valid bicycle suspension design. Too many people equate bicycles with motorcycles and the bicycle media confirm their bias. I'll stop now.


High pivot is not the same as URT.

I do agree with your point that it is a "valid" design, although not a popular one. Some people like hard tails, some people like fully active suspension, so why shouldn't there be a place for semi-active suspension?


----------



## iamkeith (Feb 5, 2010)

asphalt_jesus said:


> You have made up your mind about a design you have never ridden.


Sorry -I'm the one who hasn't ridden a URT. I didn't mean to start an argument - it was just something I've always been curious about, and this seemed like an opportunity to ask. (I'm just happy to have an interesting conversation going on, because this place has been so dead lately.)

I don't think I bounce around like a mad man when I pedal, but I don't think that design would work for me because of the way I _always_ stand up when descending - either to be able to shift my weight, or to get my arse behind the saddle, or just to use my legs as shock absorbers. Not saying I do it correctly, or that it wouldn't work for others.



asphalt_jesus said:


> Perfected isn't the right word. It's what sold/sells.
> 
> Designs that look like motorcycles sell much better.


"Perfected" might not be the right word, but "settled" is. I'm not fluent in suspension terminology, but I think I'm talking about 4-Bar / Horst-link setups, which have completely dominated the market - at least since 1997, I think.

If I understand correctly, this happened even after Specialized bought the patent and other companies had to pay royalties to use it, so it must be somewhat superior. To be fair though, I always thought that one of the main reasons that such designs became and remain popular is that it looked like a BICYCLE, and NOT a motorcycle. In other words, there is still a rear "triangle" of sorts.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

iamkeith said:


> (I'm just happy to have an interesting conversation going on, because this place has been so dead lately.)


Yeah no kidding!
So to continue, a design I always thought was under rated, which isn't a URT, but has some things in common with it is the GT I-Drive (and the old Maverick).

High single pivot bikes have the advantage of a rearward axle path to better absorb hits which are usually coming from the front. The downside to this is too much chain growth causing pedal kickback etc. The URT can have a rearward axle path without the chain growth, but has the other downsides we've been discussing, like not working well with your weight on the pedals.

So the I drive puts the bottom bracket separate from the main triangle and from the swingarm, by connecting it to the swingarm with a link (or the acentric barrel of the old I drive).

By doing this, they can basically have a high single pivot design with rearward axle path, while the bottom bracket can move back a little to limit chain growth, but the rear triangle can also move separate from the bottom bracket to keep it active.


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

asphalt_jesus said:


> You have made up your mind about a design you have never ridden.
> 
> The suspension locks out when you pedal unless you bounce around on the seat like a madman. Please spare us pedaling efficiency jargon as you are using it to confirm your bias.
> 
> We've hit upon a pet peeve of mine. The high pivot is a valid bicycle suspension design. Too many people equate bicycles with motorcycles and the bicycle media confirm their bias. I'll stop now.


I grew up riding MTBs in the early 90's and I have ridden URTs. Low, middle and high pivot.

The high and middle pivot I thought were the worst and I am not the only one.
Here is what Terraplane Bikes, the only builder that I know of who still build a URT (besides big box stores), has say about pivot placement on the URT:

"The reason early URT designs were so bad was that they would place the pivot way up high. This meant that the bottom bracket would move an enormous amount as the suspension compressed, and this sucked for two reasons. One, you had a seat height that would change as the suspension compressed. Two, the suspension would only work when you were sitting down. This was advertised as a benefit, but in reality it was horrible."

This would be why no one, not even big box stores make a high or middle pivot URT. They are "horrible".

As for my pedaling efficiency jargon and my bias, this is what wikipedia has to say about the URT design:

"as the URT's suspension moves, the distance between seat and pedals changes, detracting from pedaling efficiency. Furthermore, when the rider shifts any weight from the seat to the pedals, he or she is shifting weight from the sprung part of the bike to the unsprung parts. As such, part of their weight would not be suspended by the suspension system anymore. Since pedaling itself is a shift of this weight, the design is very prone to suspension bob."

As you can see I am not just making this **** up. The design has bad pedal efficiency and a suspension system that didn't work when you needed it to.

I guess it is a good design for leisurely rides that don't require any kind of aggressive riding or pedaling. Mainly for people who like to stay seated the entire ride. This would be why big box stores sell the URT design so well. Can you picture the average wall mart customer riding aggressively?

However, I have to say, Terraplane Bike's Pocket Rocket and 6 Gun look pretty cool, and steel.


----------



## asphalt_jesus (Aug 13, 2010)

Uhh, okay, so cobbling some facts together that seem related accomplishes little.

Department store bikes are evidence of nothing.
You post a quote that claims no suspension and suspension bob occur simultaneously. 
And then you claim there is no suspension when pedaling. But there is..
Is there no suspension bob at all in more modern linkages? No. They bob too.

You forgot a link to Castellano's product. Castellano Designs | Zorro, son of Szazbo

Get back to me when you find that bobless suspension that always works perfectly everywhere.

We're waaaay off topic at this point. The y-bike was bad.


----------



## Uncle Grumpy (Oct 20, 2005)

asphalt_jesus said:


> And then you claim there is no suspension when pedaling. But there is..


The "suspension" in a URT works when pedalling. That's because the frame is split in 2 parts with a pivot point.

In a URT the rear wheel is not suspended from the main frame like in a swing arm, 4-bar or VPP design. Rather, in URT, the whole drivetrain is suspended from the frame.

2 different ways of doing it. URTs suspend the whole drivetrain which has its pros and cons. Some people don't like them. Some people don't like chorizo sausage. That's okay. I like stout and I don't criticise those who like lagers.

And at the end of it, you ride what you prefer. I still have a Catamount design Barracuda hanging up in the basement that I have to finish and ride in anger. The little time I spent on it as a temporary build gave me some laughs, in that I found the way it rode to be hilarious. Maybe I'm used to big sellers that look like motorcycles.

Grumps


----------



## Deartist7 (Sep 28, 2014)

I just saw that Trek's FB page posted a throwback about the Y-33. Funny that we are talking about the same topic.


----------



## asphalt_jesus (Aug 13, 2010)

Uncle Grumpy said:


> In a URT the rear wheel is not suspended from the main frame like in a swing arm, 4-bar or VPP design.


Except when you unweight the pedals... Without a doubt, it is not a universal solution to all terrain. Maybe the Catamount's design decisions weren't great. The Schwinn was pretty good.

Here's a whole thread going into some details about the same old issues and very modern pivots.
http://forums.mtbr.com/xc-racing-tr...on-hrough-roots-spider-web-roots-1001575.html It reads like they fix it with modern shock valving, not a new pivot designs. And, BTW, constantly rooty, rocky riding would be a pretty bad fit for a URT.

For those that have been around for a while, I'm pretty sure someone will rediscover the URT. Just like rediscovering wide bars, then narrow bars, now wide bars.... Let's not forget the current fascination with seat droppers.

And, BTW, I saw twin brothers riding a matching pair of VERY well preserved Trek Y-bikes they probably brought new in the Santa Monica mountains near The Hub. I should have gotten a picture.


----------



## Uncle Grumpy (Oct 20, 2005)

asphalt_jesus said:


> Except when you unweight the pedals...


Like this?









"Wheeeee, my URT rides so well!"



asphalt_jesus said:


> And, BTW, constantly rooty, rocky riding would be a pretty bad fit for a URT.


May as well get a hardtail.



asphalt_jesus said:


> For those that have been around for a while, I'm pretty sure someone will rediscover the URT.


Some people stayed true. Walmart for example. When they catch on, let us know.



asphalt_jesus said:


> And, BTW, I saw twin brothers riding a matching pair of VERY well preserved Trek Y-bikes they probably brought new in the Santa Monica mountains near The Hub. I should have gotten a picture.


Identical twins? See, they're freaks to begin with. Dress them the same and it's spooky. Put them on the same bikes and you're in a Stephen King movie.

Grumps


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

Funny stuff grumps.

Really, other than getting over a large obstacle, why would you want to unweight your pedals and get your center of gravity as high as possible? This is exactly the opposite of what you would want when cornering or riding at speed.



asphalt_jesus said:


> Uhh, okay, so cobbling some facts together that seem related accomplishes little.
> 
> Department store bikes are evidence of nothing.
> You post a quote that claims no suspension and suspension bob occur simultaneously. And then you claim there is no suspension when pedaling. But there is. Is there no suspension bob at all in more modern linkages? No. They bob too...


Since the bb is directly connected to the rear axle, the pedals are not suspended from rear axle movement. Even when sitting, your feet are not suspended from the rear axle movement. So no mater whether you stand or sit, the pedals are not suspended. However, because of the suspension design, the bike bobs when you pedal. So, regardless of if your standing or sitting, when you pedal the bike bobs and your feet are not suspended from the rear axle. If your standing and pedaling then the bike is like a HT with pedal bob.

So this is how the bike bobs while the pedals are not suspended from rear axle movement.

The idea behind the URT was to eliminate pedal feedback from pedaling, which it does. However, by doing so there is no way to have anti-squat, so the design bobs much more than the regular UFT. All rear suspension bikes are pron to some bob as you have pointed out. However, a UFT can use a combination of anti-squat and platform dampening to reduce pedal bob, while a URT only has platform dampening to reduce pedal bob.

And, while URT does eliminate pedal feedback from pedaling, since the bb is directly connected to the the rear axle, you now have trail feedback going to the pedals instead. Also, when sitting, you not only have trail feedback to the pedals, but the distance between the seat and pedals change as the suspension compresses and extends.

So basically the URT eliminated pedal feedback from pedaling, but in doing so, it increases pedal bob since there is no way to use anti squat to reduce bob, it makes it so the distance from the bb to the seat is constantly changing and, most important of all, does not suspend your feet from rear axle movement. This is why almost no mtb manufacturer, other than department store brands, use this design.


----------



## crossracer (Jun 27, 2004)

Having sold lots of these bikes in the 90's you have to consider the time. There was no internet. GASP SHOCK> Velo news was an actual newspaper. Catalogues where were people shopped and drooled over product. 

The competion for this bike at the time was the Specialized 4 bar linkage bikes (which used bushings so slop became common). The Klein Mantra (high pivot URT) the Schwinn home grown series (mid point URT) (Oh and hard to find) and these trek URT. Yes pro flex was out there but in Delaware that was about all the full squish you could ever hope to find. 

THe thing about URT, good or bad, it did ride pretty decent. IE it was easy on the body, and in its own way opened the door to a much wider acceptance of full squishy. 

Plus the early fox shocks had a really really HIGH Stiction issues. THey worked but more for the big bumps. Heck those early rock shock judys could be serviced with a allen key set and a set of snap ring plyers. (not anymore)LOL LOL 

Finally say what you want about these URT's from trek, that pivot point was BOMB PROOF. I never ever seen one in for overhaul or service, the darn thing just worked like a charm. 

Lordy looking back 20 years I really miss those days. It really was a fun time to be in bikes.


----------

