rumpfy wrote:
Russell wrote:
I think that a few people here are forgetting that unlike todays bikes, BITD suspension was an option at purchase.
Not when I started riding it wasn't.
BITD, when suspension did become available, we put it on our bikes because it was innovation and suspension corrected geometry wasn't common place yet. It was an aftermarket upgrade, not a factory option.
I don't know when you started riding, Suspension wasn't available when I started riding either but thats largely irrelevant. This guys talking about 1991, which for the purpose of this thread is therefore 'BITD' and in 1991, manufacturers were offering suspension forks as an option on their bikes. Want an example? Check out this link to a '91 Orange catalogue
http://www.indiansummer.ch/orange_1991_brochure.pdf you could have your bike with rigid forks or Rockshox, same frame, no geometry correction. In 1992, Kona
http://www.konaretro.com/articles/catal ... 2Page4.jpg offered the 'Future Shock' fork as an option on higher end frames, same frames as rigid designs, no geometry correction.I can't be bothered to go looking for more examples but I'm sure that there are a few.
rumpfy wrote:
Even then, the suspension worked mediocre at best.
So we should all ditch our cantilever brakes or thumbshifters aswell, because modern designs are more efficient should we?
rumpfy wrote:
Even still, we're talking 53mm of travel forks that didn't really change the way the bike handled all that much.
Putting 80mm or more travel forks on old bikes, however, is asinine.
Nobody said he was going to slap a pair of dual crowns on his bike. Whats wrong with a '91 frame, with a set of '91/'92 forks up front?
Login 
Register
Search 
FAQ
.
