Homage to the people`s choice-the Zaskar

As mine was in '96:



And how it is now (PACE stem is most recent shot):



Remember having a picture of a Zaskar blue tacked to the monitor of my first proper PC (386SX 25Mhz) PC BITD and drooling over it for a year or two before I could afford a frame. Loved it then and still do now. Climbs nicely, accelerates like a bugger and as someone else just said always looks a tiny bit of a lout. Beautiful piece of kit.

velomaniac":2kjn49pf said:

Triple triangle is just a gimmick

Click to expand...

It's next to impossible for the triple triangle not to have an effect on overall frame mechanics - the relationship between stiffness of top tube and down tube and rear end stiffness, and these things all alter "planing":

http://janheine.wordpress.com/2012/08/0 ... ance-bike/

Performance: Our research has shown that the frame determines the performance of a bike. The frame must work with the rider, allowing them to generate more power with less fatigue. Such a frame will encourage the rider to go faster and ride more.

It appears that the stiffness of the frame, and especially the balance of the frame tubes, is crucial for creating a frame that feels “lively” and eager to go. Based on the preferences of our testers, Jeff Lyon used thinwall tubes in standard diameters for our L’Avecaise test bike. The result one of the fastest bikes we have ridden.

Interestingly, the best carbon frames use a similar balance of the frame tubes – relatively flexible top tube, somewhat stiffer down tube, very stiff chainstays. On the other hand, even small deviations from this formula, for example, an oversize top tube on an otherwise standard-diameter frame, do not seem to work well for many riders. Thinwall oversize tubing can offer great performance, as long as all tubes are increased in diameter, and the balance of the frame is preserved.

Click to expand...

So...

The triple triangle is going to change how that top tube behaves. The obvious thought is that it will stiffen it - because it acts as a brace it might actually allow thinner flexier tubing in the earlier part of the tube. It also effectively shortens the top tube for structural purposes without changing rider position - so it allows top tube length to be one thing for flex, and another for centre of balance.

So it's very hard to see how the design could NOT have an impact on handling - it would either have to make it better or worse; it can't be neutral. Given that the Zaskar is normally described as having exceptional climbing and acceleration, that GT was a very engineering focussed company before the founder's death (http://sidewaysandfallover.blogspot.co. ... ycles.html) and the obvious purpose of the design is to improve these, it seems reasonable to believe that the triple triangle does exactly that.

here's mine - bought back in 95 as a frameset and built up originally with parts from my old dyna-tech
and a set of vector II's

recently rebuilt with a slight 'modern' twist (xtr v-brakes and modern chainset). Still my favourite ride and
I will never get rid of her, done countless races and miles over the years



long live the Zaskar

So it's very hard to see how the design could NOT have an impact on handling - it would either have to make it better or worse; it can't be neutral. Given that the Zaskar is normally described as having exceptional climbing and acceleration, that GT was a very engineering focussed company before the founder's death (http://sidewaysandfallover.blogspot.co. ... ycles.html) and the obvious purpose of the design is to improve these, it seems reasonable to believe that the triple triangle does exactly that.

Click to expand...

Except that bikes by other bike manufacturers are equally as good/bad without the triple triangle. As for better or worse, whats the comparison, if the Zaskars the benchmark how can you measure it against its self ? There's no way to test it unless you have something to compare it with and it'll thus be better or worse than that example but there are numerous examples to compare with.

Face it, it looks good, end of

velomaniac":23k5l5jc said:

So it's very hard to see how the design could NOT have an impact on handling - it would either have to make it better or worse; it can't be neutral. Given that the Zaskar is normally described as having exceptional climbing and acceleration, that GT was a very engineering focussed company before the founder's death (http://sidewaysandfallover.blogspot.co. ... ycles.html) and the obvious purpose of the design is to improve these, it seems reasonable to believe that the triple triangle does exactly that.

Click to expand...

Except that bikes by other bike manufacturers are equally as good/bad without the triple triangle.

Click to expand...

Bad logic: there are usually multiple means of achieving the same goal. That doesn't mean the triple triangle is a gimmick. (Although it might certainly have become one - as it spread across the range as trademark it probably wasn't always the ideal solution.) Different designs offer different tradeoffs, and part of an engineer's signature is which ones he chooses. This not gimmickry; it's engineering.

Face it, it looks good, end of

Click to expand...

This sounds a lot like "Something I don't understand can't possibly matter."

If its so good to have a triple triangle and that this style of frame exists by other manufacturers, none of whom still use it and thus cant be patented by GT why does no one else other than GT use it. Numerous bike manufacturers use the 'Horst link' in their suspension designs because its known to work well but whats the merit of the triple triangle ?

Dont infer I'm stupid just because I dont get it, I work in science where we regard proof as the be all and end all of arguments. Attaching the seat stays to both the top tube and seat tube may indeed do something but is that something better than everyone elses aproach and if it is why does no one else use it because they can as its not unique GT property !

Hell, I just love the triple triangle look. My Zaskar is super stiff, super comfortable it is not. Very rare to see a broken one, in fact, I can't think of having seen a broken one which is quite surprising as it's a very light frame.

Here's my unfussy build..

I don't think the triple triangle was a GT trademark, it was done quite a lot earlier:

I started a thread on the triple triangle a while agao and there were some useful answers: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=239917&hilit=+hellenic

All to do with increasing the length of the seat stays and making the rear end more flexible I think. However the Zaskar has the longer stays welded at the seat tube, so effectively makes them shorter - which could explain the stiffness as well.