Retrobike Forum Index

It is currently Tue Dec 06, 2016 11:36 am

* Login   * Register * Search  * FAQ



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 97 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 10  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2013 1:20 pm 
Gold Trader / PoTM Winner
Gold Trader / PoTM Winner
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 2:35 pm
Posts: 2784
Well said Mr K, and good on GM for the passion, dedication and contribution


It's all the negativity, sniping, whinging and bitching about this bike, that brand or whichever threads that has put me off the site to be honest



G


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2013 1:35 pm 
Old School Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 10:12 pm
Posts: 4438
Location: Barry
Oof that cyclone! The paint and the brazed joints are stunning.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2013 2:02 pm 
Ain't no party like an S Club party
Ain't no party like an S Club party
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 4:54 pm
Posts: 7131
Location: UK
The '91 Cyclone...

Seems strange to mention how it was built up with top mounts as M900 didn't pop along until '92, and then fit the thing with a NoThreadSet on a '91 frame...

And the stem is not a FlipFlop II as indicated on the build list. They had ovalised extensions, and didn't have a side mounted bolt for an expanding wedge...

If you're going to be finicky and specific about components and dates, you gotta go the whole hog...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2013 4:25 pm 
Windmilling for a Scotch Egg
Windmilling for a Scotch Egg
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 10:27 am
Posts: 4840
Location: Huddersfield, West Yorkshire
BoyBurning wrote:
And the stem is not a FlipFlop II as indicated on the build list. They had ovalised extensions, and didn't have a side mounted bolt for an expanding wedge...


Yes it is a Flip flop II. The first flip flop was the one with the oval extension and the double expander bolt quill, the flip flop II was the aheadset version as seen in the tech shop catalogue here: http://www.retrobike.co.uk/gallery2/d/1 ... a26f959bc1


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2013 5:54 pm 
Feature Bike
Feature Bike
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 8:13 pm
Posts: 1143
Location: York-ish UK
Rob Atkin wrote:

Yes it is a Flip flop II. The first flip flop was the one with the oval extension and the double expander bolt quill, the flip flop II was the aheadset version as seen in the tech shop catalogue here: http://www.retrobike.co.uk/gallery2/d/1 ... a26f959bc1


I always thought that, new for 1993, GT's Flip Flop III butted 7005 aluminium stem was designed for use with the "Aheadset" system. Featuring a very clean and innovative internal steer tube binder bolt system, the GT alloy stem was light stiff and could be adjusted for two riding positions.

Could be wrong though.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2013 6:35 pm 
Ain't no party like an S Club party
Ain't no party like an S Club party
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 4:54 pm
Posts: 7131
Location: UK
Er, no, it's not a Flip Flop II actually...

It's a FLIP FLOP III as dr B has noted.

The FFII is as I described it.

The original FF you describe was different again to the two being discussed here.

Cheers,
BB



Rob Atkin wrote:
BoyBurning wrote:
And the stem is not a FlipFlop II as indicated on the build list. They had ovalised extensions, and didn't have a side mounted bolt for an expanding wedge...


Yes it is a Flip flop II. The first flip flop was the one with the oval extension and the double expander bolt quill, the flip flop II was the aheadset version as seen in the tech shop catalogue here: http://www.retrobike.co.uk/gallery2/d/1 ... a26f959bc1


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2013 8:18 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 2:18 pm
Posts: 1285
Location: in the harbor
In any case the idea is good :D ...but way there is no GT gallery here? :? the whole thing could be introduced in such a gallery, right?

I like his GTs extremely well so far and I think it's good that we can't discuss there.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2013 10:14 pm 
BoTM | rBoTY Winner
BoTM | rBoTY Winner
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2006 2:50 am
Posts: 791
Location: Singapore
gm1230126 wrote:
FMJ wrote:
bushpig wrote:
I meant the bikes of Marin (inc. Ritchey which is kind of a stretch). I am thinking Cunningham, Potts, Ritchey


Don't worry. You'll get your chance. I''ll champion your cause to John. February 29, 2016 you can have a One Day of Cunningham forum.

Where's the yawn emoticon?


Peace guys please... can we all just get along. Let us not forget it's about the bikes regardless of the brand. The passion we share on this site is in bikes. You know I could give a rats about many of the brands and models posted here too, but you know we all have freedom to choose and I just choose not to go in those threads and spend or waste time because hey they just don't interest me like these do. We all have a particular past with a certain make or model and of coarse our passion is higher for those but let's be fair to the others passions or desire for a brand that may be different than our own. Many of us have pedigree with this brand or that and there's some time to be spent here yet on good old Retrobike since the world didn't end when the experts said it would. In defense of GT, they were different, they started with BMX and then added mtn and road and became a complete bike brand. They were the ones that recognized 46 million in the youth market between 5 and 12 and that if kids started on a GT they may choose to ride one for life and many have. They had the happening or one of the happening teams for years and those guys rode on the weekends the same bikes you could usually buy in the shop on Monday morning or the beginning of the next season, not some one off welded by another rebadged custom that had nothing to do with the brand name on it. I asked John about this thread back in November and between he and I being busy on the 1st of December it just didn't work so I asked him to start on 1/1. I hope if you like or care for GT that you'll enjoy the rest as much as I do. My PM box has been filled with questions and comments daily. I'm sure John can probably see those and knows they have all been very polite and positive. It's been fun to share with those that care. Hoping you all had a great New Year and an even better 2013. Ride On!


I didn't read all that, but look again, I have been positive. For whatever reason, FMJ was being a dick. Heck, I even posted the GT's I wanted to see!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2013 12:24 am 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 1:14 am
Posts: 1871
Location: Kuranda DH circa 1991
The nice thing about GT mountan bikes were they were constructed well, and specced well. They also had a cool image tied to their BMX roots. They were affordable and obtainable, and not elitist.

Unfortunately, imho, they had terrible geometry, and the triple triangle idea is purely form over ruling function. it actually makes the rear of the bike overly stiff and introduces more negative handling characteristics than positive.

The top tubes are all way to short, and the head tubes on the 18's and 19's are way too short. Evidnced by how many people had to run lots of spacers, very steep stems and riser bars simply to get comfortable. The head tube angle is way too raked out, especially combined with the short top tube and requisite need for a long stem. steering is atrocious.

I am enjoying seeing the 30 days thread unfold, some superb examples there so far GM.

in my early days where i lived (cairns, FNQ australia) GT was THE brand to ride. due to a heavy influence of BMX being strong there, and the perceived hard core image GT portrayed. In hindsight...perhaps we all had rose (yellow) tinted glasses on.

That said, the form of a high end GT, especially and tech shop bike, and particularly the 1991 1992 era, still gets me excited. As GM speaks of his Cyclone, being able to just stare at it for ages, I can fully understand that. I am a bit that way myself with the Zaskar.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2013 1:28 am 
Old School Grand Master

Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 2:33 am
Posts: 5487
Location: WI, USA
merckx wrote:
The nice thing about GT mountain bikes were they were constructed well, and specced well. They also had a cool image tied to their BMX roots. They were affordable and obtainable, and not elitist.

Unfortunately, imho, they had terrible geometry, and the triple triangle idea is purely form over ruling function. it actually makes the rear of the bike overly stiff and introduces more negative handling characteristics than positive.

The top tubes are all way to short, and the head tubes on the 18's and 19's are way too short. Evidenced by how many people had to run lots of spacers, very steep stems and riser bars simply to get comfortable. The head tube angle is way too raked out, especially combined with the short top tube and requisite need for a long stem. steering is atrocious.

I am enjoying seeing the 30 days thread unfold, some superb examples there so far GM.

in my early days where i lived (cairns, FNQ australia) GT was THE brand to ride. due to a heavy influence of BMX being strong there, and the perceived hard core image GT portrayed. In hindsight...perhaps we all had rose (yellow) tinted glasses on.

That said, the form of a high end GT, especially and tech shop bike, and particularly the 1991 1992 era, still gets me excited. As GM speaks of his Cyclone, being able to just stare at it for ages, I can fully understand that. I am a bit that way myself with the Zaskar.


Interesting post. I think if you check geometry amongst the leading brands in the early-mid 90's you'll find that 95% of the industry was running a similar 71-71.5/73-73.5 frame geometry in the middle sizes. Some brands switched to a different geometry to accommodate more travel earlier than others. The triple triangle rear stays had no effect on the top tube lengths. At some point because of geometry the top tube and down tube will meet a head tube and there just isn't that much difference between top tube lengths and head tube lengths when the geometries are within a half degree. Remember also that many suspension forks were designed to be run at a particular front end geometry to function properly and not put added stress on head tubes. There is what, maybe 5-9mm top tube length difference in a half degree geometry difference? The size you rode, stem length and correct saddle fore and aft... all of those may have been an issue. Proper professional fit for the rider is key on any bike. I think if I had ridden a 19" instead of an 18 It'd maybe have seemed more comfortable on the straights but the 18 was just a safer bike to ride and it seemed like it was quicker and better handling and running a 130 stem on those early bikes was not overly long for someone long in the body and shorter in the legs like myself. I also think the overly stiff you speak of refers to an aluminum frame and not the triple triangle hellenic design. Having ridden and still riding a lot on older GT steel and Ti frames I cannot say that they are overly stiff. I think they are solid and do hook up well when climbing but a good part of that is fit and riding skills too. Riding a hardtail aluminum now that's another story. I had a shop employee, RIP Gerard, that rode Zaskar's from the beginning and he was always complaining about the beating he was taking and he eventually switched to a Xizang and I never heard those words from him again.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 97 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 10  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: boswell, groovyblueshed, IHateRain, Thias, tomato2, WRC27DH and 40 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

About Us

Follow Retrobike

Other cool stuff

All content © 2005-2015 Retrobike unless otherwise stated.
Cookies Policy.
bikedeals - the best bike deals in one place
FatCOGS - Fat Chance Owner's Group

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group