Specialized serial number

Hi all. Im hoping someone may be able to throw some light on a steel mtb frame i picked up cheap at car boot. Its light, just under 5 pounds, been poorly resprayed but original colour under rattle can finish is light green. Seller said it was a rockhopper. But looking at the serial no which is 94M2403, im thinking it may actually be a 94 Stumpjumper M2 FS. frame. Seat post size is about 30-31mm which i think was on stumpjumper of the time but not rockhopper. Colour given in 94 catalogue for M2 FS was silver-green which also points to that conclusion. Any info would be greatly appreciated.

If it's steel, it's not an M2. M2 is an aluminum alloy with a ceramic component, non-magnetic... Looks very aluminum-y Frames weighed about 4.4# IIRC.... mine's not been weighed frame-only. Check out the photos of my bike (link in sig), and compare to yours. Downtube gussets and the like... Mine's a '95, but substantially similar to the '94 M2.

Without seeing it, it is possible that it's a steel Stumpjumper. Weight is close. Steel is magnetic, check. I have a light metallic green steel stumpy frame (95) in my basement right now...

Check the catalogue for that year:

http://www.retrobike.co.uk/gallery2/d/1 ... 4_Mini.pdf

J

Re: Specialized model

Hi, thanks for that info. It's definitely steel, no extra gussets or anything. I want to make use of a set of carbon forks I already have, which are 445mm crown to centre, which I think equates to an 80mm suspended fork. Assuming it is either the Stumpjumper or Sj FS in the catalogue. Is it likely the actual frames are exactly the same, ie suspension corrected? Headtube is standard 1&1/8".

Spesh frames were suspension corrected, AFAIK, by 1994. Especially likely on those with 1.125" steerers.

I wouldn't worry a bit.

J

Re:

Great. Many thanks for your help.

Re: Specialized model

Dave-pils":10585e2n said:

Hi, thanks for that info. It's definitely steel, no extra gussets or anything. I want to make use of a set of carbon forks I already have, which are 445mm crown to centre, which I think equates to an 80mm suspended fork. Assuming it is either the Stumpjumper or Sj FS in the catalogue. Is it likely the actual frames are exactly the same, ie suspension corrected?

Click to expand...

The correct rigid fork for a Stumpjumper of that age measures about 412mm axle-to-crown, so the carbon fork you have is a fair bit longer than ideal. A classic Kona P2 is a good alternative at 410mm.

Oversized steel Stumpjumpers and Rockhoppers of the period (assuming a frame built in 1994 for the '95 model year) both used a 30.4mm seatpost in a 31.8mm seat tube.

Re:

Ah, that's a pity. I do actually have a pair of Specialized rigid forks from a later model stumpy, think a 95 rigid. They are 425mm, as well as another chromo set around 415mm so will have to play with them and see how it goes.
Many thanks for the advice.

Ultimately, I guess it depends on what you want from the bike... BITD, and still now, people regularly modify their bicycles with upgraded forks, often pushing the A-C measurement beyond what the original rigid forks had. IMHO, it doesn't affect a bicycle's handling nearly as much as some would have us believe.

As a more extreme example than what you're contemplating, over the last couple years as my wife's MTB skills progressed, I've upgraded her once rigid Hardrock AX ('97) from the OEM rigid chromo fork to a crap Judy J1 80mm, to a Magura Asgard 100. The Asgard's AC length is a whopping 476mm. That slackened the head angle a couple degrees. She came back from her first hard riding experience with the upgraded bike (on trails she's very familiar with) commenting only on the better suspension and surer handling (no doubt due to the stiffer Magura fork over the crap J1). Her head angle has been slackened by some 3 degrees, from something near 69 to more like 66 (neglecting sag, which adds a degree back in). Actually, it's put the bike's geometry largely in line with more relaxed modern offerings...

Adding 30mm to a fork on a bike with a wheelbase of about 44" changes the head angle less than 1.5 degrees. At worst, it'll remove some of the mid'90's nervousness from the bike's handling on fast downhills, IMHO.

J

Many thanks for all the advice, much appreciated.