gm's 30 days of gt

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

Oof that cyclone! The paint and the brazed joints are stunning.

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...

BoyBurning":1g2tpn20 said:

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...

Click to expand...

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

Rob Atkin":idz6nnbq said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

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":b9ds9aak said:

BoyBurning":b9ds9aak said:

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...

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

In any case the idea is good ...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.

gm1230126":3rc3jdoq said:

FMJ":3rc3jdoq said:

bushpig":3rc3jdoq said:

I meant the bikes of Marin (inc. Ritchey which is kind of a stretch). I am thinking Cunningham, Potts, Ritchey

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

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!

Click to expand...

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!

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.

merckx":2wlbg5jj said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.