Anthony":391240p4 said:
Surely $199 isn't very much for such a nice bike as that, if there really are plenty of retro-bikers out there?
I'll be honest and say I'd have no use for it myself, as it's probably heavy and not very manoeuvreable, but then I don't claim to be a retro-biker.
No not at all...one of these with completely original equipment, down to the grips and tires, went for $1000 two weeks ago.
An exact same orange one, but without the cool deerhead parts, went for a shade under $400 just a couple days ago.
Relatively speaking, compared to the other mass produced clunkers of that day, it was fairly light. But yes, it would be heavy by today's standards. It's not much of a climber, and the geometry does not lend itself to technical singletrack, but it handles quite well...again relatively speaking
The Ken":391240p4 said:
I'd have it just for the history - if only it was over here, great for ripping down fire roads.
I would take in a second at that price if it wasn't for the fact that I just completed my 1982 Stumpjumper build, and don't have room to spare for another bike...still is tempting though.
Iwasgoodonce":391240p4 said:
A small size too. Is it me or are most vintage mountain bikes at least a 21" and often 23"? People must have had longer legs back then.
Hahaha, I use to think the same thing, but I've come to the conclusion, (perhaps wrongly), that most people were use to riding road bikes back then, and they had their mountain bikes fit them like their road bikes...thus you would never see really lengthy extended seatposts, or tiny frames....they fit like road bikes, so unless you were really short, chances are you would have something with the top tube right up against your crotch.
This is my theory at least.
back on topic...I can't believe it is still available at that BIN...
I must not buy it, I must not buy it :?
