# Questions about an early Stumpjumper M2



## goodwinaustin (Jul 29, 2004)

Hey everyone....I have a 1995 stumpjumper FS M2 and was contemplating restoring the drivetrain and shock etc etc; give her a new lease on life.....Does anyone know much about this frame? Where was it built? Quality? What the heck does FS stand for (I was thinking futureshock but the bike came with a mag 21) **** Anyways does anyone think this frame is nice enough to warrant a fairly expensive rebuild? Thank everyone!


----------



## logbiter (Dec 30, 2003)

I'm pretty sure these early ones were made in the Pac NW somewhere, I'm sure someone else will chime in with better knowledge. The FS had something to do with meaning it was suspension corrected geometry. 
Great handling bike! I had a '96, but it's hard on ya for long rides. Depending on the use it's seen, if you like the frame and the ride it's worth a rebuild, but I'm not sure about a real expensive one... you could prolly pick up a new or lightly used one for that price... complete ones go on eBay for relatively cheap. They had a 5 yr warranty on those frames, which if it's been raced, I'd suspect the longevity of it's use.
I sure wish I'd bought one of those purple steel stumpy's the LBS in Santa Cruz was blowing out in '93/94 for $250.
[
QUOTE=goodwinaustin]Hey everyone....I have a 1995 stumpjumper FS M2 and was contemplating restoring the drivetrain and shock etc etc; give her a new lease on life.....Does anyone know much about this frame? Where was it built? Quality? What the heck does FS stand for (I was thinking futureshock but the bike came with a mag 21) **** Anyways does anyone think this frame is nice enough to warrant a fairly expensive rebuild? Thank everyone! [/QUOTE]


----------



## Stick (Jan 12, 2004)

*I have a rigid '94 Stumpjumper M2*

As much as I'd like to say it was built in California, I think these frames were made overseas, possibly in Taiwan. I'll double check my frame when I get home, but I think the sticker said something to the effect of "Designed in USA" (implying that they were designed at specialized HQ in Morgan Hill, but were built elsewhere).

The M2 FS was simply the Stumpjumper M2 w/ *F*ront *S*uspension, while mine came with a chromoly rigid fork.

Quality? They're nice enough frames, but kind of unremarkable by today's standards. The tubes are too stiff. Very harsh ride over the rough stuff. I stopped riding mine after it developed an unsettling creak; the origin of which I was never able to pinpoint.

In hindsight, I should have gotten one of the prestige steel stumpjumpers instead. They were more comfortable and more durable than any of the M2 frames, and were considerably less expensive, too. Regretably, I got suckered in by the lighter weight and fat "metal matrix" tubes of the M2. Live and learn...

Is yours worth rebuilding? Maybe, but I wouldn't invest a lot of cash in it. Mine's been collecting dust for almost 9 years. I've thought about making it a singlespeed, but most likely even that won't happen any time soon. I've got a '95 Bianchi Denali RC that will make a much more comfortable ride, if I ever get around to it.



goodwinaustin said:


> Hey everyone....I have a 1995 stumpjumper FS M2 and was contemplating restoring the drivetrain and shock etc etc; give her a new lease on life.....Does anyone know much about this frame? Where was it built? Quality? What the heck does FS stand for (I was thinking futureshock but the bike came with a mag 21) **** Anyways does anyone think this frame is nice enough to warrant a fairly expensive rebuild? Thank everyone!


----------



## richard huntso (Jul 6, 2004)

I think the last ones made in the USA were the 98 M`2s 
Yours wuuld have been the plain tubed frame, they started butting them in 97, but after some problems added gussets in 98

They are very stiff and tough frames, they along with the GT Zaskars were often kitted out for all manner of things such as dirt jumping

I still use as my main bike a 98 M2 and prefer them to the later M4, if you enjoy riding it put some nice bits on and use till it dies


----------



## Stick (Jan 12, 2004)

richard huntso said:


> I think the last ones made in the USA were the 98 M`2s


I just checked my '94. Two stickers. One says "designed in california" the other "MADE IN USA", so it seems my memory is a little rusty.


----------



## chapel00 (Jan 23, 2004)

*keep only for sentiment*

I bought an M2 fs used in 95 and at that time was a steal at $375, but once on the bike my perceptions changed. I too was drawn by its light weight, but its ride was unforgiving and too harsh. I should of used the money to add additional upgrades to my Explosif-which now I have several. I will no longer look at Al b/c of my experience with the M2. I sold it within the year, luckily I didn't lose too much in the deal.
If you do upgrade it, don't spend too much.


----------



## tube_ee (Feb 1, 2004)

The only thing wrong with the M2 is that they break. The MMC tubing was a blend of aluminum alloy and aluminum oxide. The AlO2 adds significant strength to the tubing, allowing a thinner wall for less weight. The aluminum oxide particles had a nasty habit of migrating away from the heat when the frames were being welded, leaving un-reinforced aluminum at the joints. The aluminum tubing was too thin without the added strength from the AlO2, and the frames would crack.

Specialized abandoned the material after that. 

For a brief moment, MMCs were supposed to be the new "wonder material". They proved to be much harder to work with than anyone expected. So far as I know, tri-bike maker Griffen is the only company building bikes out of MMC anymore. I have no idea what they're using, although from the looks of the bikes, the base metal is probably aluminum.

--Shannon


----------



## uphiller (Jan 13, 2004)

tube_ee said:


> The only thing wrong with the M2 is that they break. The MMC tubing was a blend of aluminum alloy and aluminum oxide. The AlO2 adds significant strength to the tubing, allowing a thinner wall for less weight. The aluminum oxide particles had a nasty habit of migrating away from the heat when the frames were being welded, leaving un-reinforced aluminum at the joints. The aluminum tubing was too thin without the added strength from the AlO2, and the frames would crack.
> 
> Specialized abandoned the material after that.
> 
> ...


What is the new M4 made of then? And is it just a regular old aluminum alloy? And isn't there now an M5? I heard of some problems with the M2, but thought they had just refined the mix and renamed it, rather than totally abandoning it as suggested above.
Tim


----------



## Philo Beddoe (Mar 6, 2004)

*1994 M2 here*

You guys are nuts. This bike is the sh*t. Climbs like a mountain goat (animal not bike)and handles like a dream. I have an full suspension now but will still use the M2 with a surly rigid I just put on for a change of pace now and then.


----------



## tube_ee (Feb 1, 2004)

uphiller said:


> What is the new M4 made of then? And is it just a regular old aluminum alloy? And isn't there now an M5? I heard of some problems with the M2, but thought they had just refined the mix and renamed it, rather than totally abandoning it as suggested above.
> Tim


M4s are good old 6000-series aluminum, AFAIK. To my knowledge, the M2 bikes were the only big-production MMC bikes ever made. Metal matrix composites have some neato properties, but often have difficult manufacturing properties. Many can't be welded, some are so hard that they eat up tooling very fast, strict heat requirements, the whole works. Basically, the industry verdict was that they were not enough better than the other materials in use to justify the added cost.

--Shannon


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

Univega Boralyn bikes... Boron-Carbide aluminium MMC. Lasted a couple model years but cost a ridiculous amount and wasn't a good enough seller to justify keeping the model in the lineup. Also the Dean Carbore as I recall used a MMC frame.


----------



## richard huntso (Jul 6, 2004)

*My views on Metal matrix*

My take on MM was that M2 included a mix of two extra compounds and M4 and M5 were therefore a further additional combination of 4 and 5 additives

Considering the amount of M2 frames still going strong it could not have been such a bad marriage after all

It seems that quite often it only takes one or two negative opinions to condemn a perfectly good bike to the tip, personally I think that the M2 was a great frame and even bought one recently as a spare.
Still, thank heavens we don`t all agree otherwise we would all ride the same machine


----------



## Brandon (Dec 30, 2003)

goodwinaustin said:


> Hey everyone....I have a 1995 stumpjumper FS M2 and was contemplating restoring the drivetrain and shock etc etc; give her a new lease on life.....Does anyone know much about this frame? Where was it built? Quality? What the heck does FS stand for (I was thinking futureshock but the bike came with a mag 21) **** Anyways does anyone think this frame is nice enough to warrant a fairly expensive rebuild? Thank everyone!


The early M2 frames were welded by Annodizing Inc in Portland Oregon due to the difficulty in welding them without ruining the MMC at the joints after the process was refined they pushed production overseas. I had a '96 M2 stumpy that I absolutely loved but it cracked on the chainstay and Specialized gave me a sweet deal on an '99 FSR as a replacement (which later failed on the seat tower and was replaced by an '02 M4 FSR pro).

I miss my M2.


----------



## Birdman (Dec 31, 2003)

*I miss my M2FS*



goodwinaustin said:


> Hey everyone....I have a 1995 stumpjumper FS M2 and was contemplating restoring the drivetrain and shock etc etc; give her a new lease on life.....Does anyone know much about this frame? Where was it built? Quality? What the heck does FS stand for (I was thinking futureshock but the bike came with a mag 21) **** Anyways does anyone think this frame is nice enough to warrant a fairly expensive rebuild? Thank everyone!


I had a 1994 M2FS. I bought a used '95 or '96 M2FS for my wife. Great riding bikes, beautiful welds. Mine came with a Futureshock. My brother-in-law has it now, upgraded with V-brakes, etc. I miss it. It was my first "real" MTB.

JMJ


----------



## Debaser (Jan 12, 2004)

iirc, M5 bikes are 6069 AL, same as the Schwinn Enlightened Tubing, made at Ano Inc.


----------



## Philo Beddoe (Mar 6, 2004)

*Took mine out last weekend*

new 110 mm stem and a rigid fork. I enjoyed the ride it was alot different having to pick lines carefully. Don't like the stem length though. I originally had a 140 on it and bumped it down but it didn't feel right on the climbs. I just ordered a 120 as a compromise with 0 degree rise. We'll see.


----------



## gpsser (Jan 5, 2004)

I love my '95 M2, been running it strictly as a singlespeed for the last 4 years. It climbs great, and I have no complaint about the harshness of the frame. I can barely get some 2.35 tires in the stays, and they are plenty big to take the edge off the stiff frame. I have run it both with a rigid fork, and with a 100mm fork.

older pic:


----------



## hotlaksa (Feb 11, 2004)

*The M2 that would not Die!*

Interesting....

I ride a '95 M2 FS S Works hardtail and have done for the last 7 years.
[ i know, i'm about due for an upgrade.... later this year to an '05 stumpy i think ]
I've replaced the drivetrain twice, but the bike just wont die!!!
The FSX judy tha shipped with the frame finally bit the dust [ literally ] about 2 years go and is now replaced by a Duke XC.

Sure the ride is a bit harsh, but the compensation is the stiffness for climbing.
The frame is still light even by todays standards.
My frame has a small gusset at the underside junction of the down tube and headtube - the stumpy's had this also i think. 
As well, the seat tube is externally butted - it visible about 100mm fron the top of the tube. Titanium stem, titanium seat collar......

I still love this bike, and ride it every day to work and back.

I worked for the distributor her in OZ for a few years.
My understanding was that all the M2 frames were made in the states, but i can't confirm whether they were manufactured by the Big S.
We never had to warrantee an M2 in the 2 years i was with the company, but then, we didnt sell too many ,OZ being a small market and all.

S Works, mmmmmmmmmmmmmm.


----------



## gpsser (Jan 5, 2004)

hotlaksa said:


> My frame has a small gusset at the underside junction of the down tube and headtube - the stumpy's had this also i think.
> As well, the seat tube is externally butted - it visible about 100mm fron the top of the tube.


Yup the stumpy has the gusseted downtube, and the externally butted seat tube.


----------



## mward (Apr 7, 2004)

*93 Stumpjumper m2 fs*

I've still got my first 'real' mountain bike. It is a great frame, I wouldn't put a longer shock on it but it handles 80mm fine. I've had a 100 on it and didn't think the geometry was terrible, although magazine readers will tell you that it'll handle like a tank -- whatever. FS stood for 'front suspension" and means it's corrected for a taller crowned fork. I've had it built up like it's shown here for a few months, I think the only original part is the front derailleur. I snagged a kona project 2 rigid fork from a friend though so I'm going to build it up as a rigid singlespeed for those days when I'm feeling 'not so fresh'. The m2 frames, regardless of what people say, were incredibly tough. The reason I've been told specialized quit using it is because when they started going to more obscene tube manipulations the m2 was too tough to machine or form into the shapes you see on most bikes these days. Too bad, cause it was good stuff. Mine has survived about every abuse you could heap on it and is still solid. Still under warranty too. Spec went to a 5 year warranty for a while but went back to lifetime, including frames made under the 5 year deal. This was made though when they were lifetime warrantied.


----------

