Need help with the ID of a specialized + seat cluster pics

[JeRkY]

I have just had a look at the seat post OD, without verniers it looks to be around 25mm, looking on sheldon browns site the only thing listed that seems close is the 92 stumpjumper FS.

Which fits with the serial number, although it leaves me puzzled with the build the bike came with M900/cooks which is a lot fancier than the DX spec it is listed as in the 92 catalogue.

Any way, cheers for all the assistance and please feel free to add any comment agreeing/disagreeing/questioning the ID.

 

[Wold Ranger]

Stumpy

Rockhoppers had much larger down tubes than Stumpys and were not butted, so fairly heavy also. The components are immaterial as they could have been changed at any time. The other chap was after an M2 which was the first S works derivative and Metal Matrix Aluminium. This is Ritchey Nitanium CrMo steel, it should have a one inch head tube too. The seat tubes were pretty slim, but it will be a bit bigger than 25.00 could well be 25.4 as BMX standardised to this around this era and there was a move bitd to move to a common standard, even Klein had one inch head tubes, Gary Fisher did the OS thing and all hell has broken loose on standards since.
If you strip to bare frame and weigh it accurately that should give the game away as off memory the frames weighed 4 pounds and less for small sizes, the rockhoppers being single butted were way heavier than this. early Stumpies had a captive seat clamp tho, a shot of the seat cluster would help a lot.

 

[one-eyed_jim]

I have just had a look at the seat post OD, without verniers it looks to be around 25mm

In that case I was off base thinking it was oversized and therefore later. The frame's smaller than I thought, and the proportions fooled me.

Which fits with the serial number, although it leaves me puzzled with the build the bike came with M900/cooks which is a lot fancier than the DX spec it is listed as in the 92 catalogue.

Maybe a previous owner was a serial upgrader - it happens - or it could be the result of a parts transplant from a fancier bike with a broken frame. It's had 16 years for parts to get worn out and swapped around after all.

I reckon the picture Pete posted is the same frame, and the image file name suggests that's a '92, so I'd say you're right on the money. The puzzling thing is that it's so different from my '92 Stumpjumper, even down to the form of the serial number.

 

[one-eyed_jim]

Re: Stumpy

Rockhoppers had much larger down tubes than Stumpys

I thought they both used the same tube diameters most of the time. Here's what we decided was a '93 Rockhopper. The tube dimensions look like my '92 Stumpjumper:

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll? ... 0229360403

This is Ritchey Nitanium CrMo steel, it should have a one inch head tube too.

The Ritchey Nitanium ones were later, oversized (30.4mm seatpost, 1 1/8" steerer) and used Ritchey dropouts.

 

[cce]

mag 20's are air oil

pump it up and see if it holds!

 

[Wold Ranger]

Toobs

No Rockhoppers were always bigger diameter and single butted. Just weigh the frame that will reveal all. Stumpies were triple butted and much lighter.

 

[one-eyed_jim]

Re: Toobs

No Rockhoppers were always bigger diameter and single butted. Just weigh the frame that will reveal all. Stumpies were triple butted and much lighter.

I agree that the Stumpjumpers were always lighter. I don't think the external tube diameters were different. The 1991 Specialized technical guide in the archive here says that all Rockhoppers and Stumpjumpers used a 31.8mm top tube, and the seat tubes were certainly the same 28.6mm with an external butt at the top end. That leaves the down tubes. My '92 Stumpjumper has a 31.8mm downtube, same as the top tube. The '92 Rockhopper here:

http://macscheenracing.com/specialized% ... 20comp.htm

clearly has top- and downtubes the same diameter, and a 28.6mm externally butted seat tube.

 

[Wold Ranger]

Spesh

Problem is they were all made in different factories in different countries, hence the confusion over this frame. I had both a Rockhopper and Stumpy of the same year, the tubes on the Stumpy were slimmer and the head tube on the RH was also longer size for size, but the RH was nearly a pound heavier for the bare frame.

 

[JeRkY]

more piccies!

 

[one-eyed_jim]

I reckon that just about sews it up as a '92 Stumpjumper. Everything matches the picture that pic that Pete posted, the style of brazed-on seat collar is right for the date, the serial number matches, and the rack bosses are brazed in, rather than on.