Rocky Mountain Altitude - Round 3!

Re:

Yes, and yes

I can get away with frames too small, but that is far too small!
 
Re: Re:

troje":jky33dqd said:
Well done, great catch! I think overall, one of the most desirable Rockys, apart from the real exotic stuff. Would be nice to compare geometry to the '91 version, I wonder if it was adjusted to Mag20 suspension.
by eye they look to be identical. haven't gotten around to actually measuring or comparing directly. but i should try to do that before i fully build this up just to cure my curiosity. ;)

btw, what's happening with your Experience build??? :?
 
They mentioned it was adjusted for the suspension... or was that my interpretation of making the headtube/seatube half a degree more BiTD and they where none suspended angle... hum..
Frame should be lighter too as the milled and did stuff to it.
 
just had a quick catalogue check and the CIRRUS had dedicated RockShox geometry, so no reason why they didn't do it to the Altitude with it's Rockshox.
 
Re: Re:

RockiMtn":258ytox5 said:
troje":258ytox5 said:
Well done, great catch! I think overall, one of the most desirable Rockys, apart from the real exotic stuff. Would be nice to compare geometry to the '91 version, I wonder if it was adjusted to Mag20 suspension.
by eye they look to be identical. haven't gotten around to actually measuring or comparing directly. but i should try to do that before i fully build this up just to cure my curiosity. ;)

btw, what's happening with your Experience build??? :?

Yeah, that'be great! Good to see if they made some adjustments to the slightly longer Mag20 fork. I'd love to see that. Knowing you, you have the '91 and the '92 in exactly the same size, so if you can find the time to measure it up..

I think the '91 is a beautiful beast, with the Ritchey Logic tubing and the cable stops at the headtube. Isn't Ritchey Logic tubing a bit lighter because of the use of shorter butted tubing? Or did Tange upgrade their '92 Prestige Ultimate Ultralight tubing?

The Experience is still there, waiting for a build to start. I've had some private issues and all the travel for my work kept me passive in my retrobike activity. But parts are there, just a few items missing. I have a nice XC Pro gruppo ready, together with the right Syncros bar, post and stem. And of course your nice set of decals. What's holding me back now is the fork. I have a Syncros Powerlites crown in which I have a long steerer pressed in, should fit really well, but I miss a proper set of fork legs.
 
FluffyChicken":1ud1eoyb said:
just had a quick catalogue check and the CIRRUS had dedicated RockShox geometry, so no reason why they didn't do it to the Altitude with it's Rockshox.

Didn't they do that to differentiate from the Experience? The Experience for Trials, with a high bottom bracket, and short wheelbase for nimble handling and turning? And the Cirrus as a steady downhill machine designed to focus on high speed stability?
 
Re:

No idea, but it had suspension forks. The Altitude is a race designed bike, so no reason they would have tweaked thing from 1991 for the forks.
Still, MAG30 as it used are low length forks and designed that way, it was part of its​ design to not alter additional frame modification, half a degree would probably solve it.

My 91 frame came with MAG's fitted when I got hold of it way back in 1992ish from our UK team/promoters.

Be nice to see though.
 
Re:

thx to some Syncros trading/swap with Antstark, i now have the bar i need. ;)
 

Attachments

  • DSC04763.JPG
    DSC04763.JPG
    141.2 KB · Views: 807
Re:

found some time to start putting this together for the trio group shot. i've had a stored XTR group available for some time now, so putting it to use. only issue is i'm short on XTR outer cable. believe shift, brake should be sufficient i think. :( other than that, all that's left is installing brakes, chain, cables and grips.
 

Attachments

  • DSC05226.jpg
    DSC05226.jpg
    121.3 KB · Views: 712
  • DSC05225.jpg
    DSC05225.jpg
    226.1 KB · Views: 709
  • DSC05223.jpg
    DSC05223.jpg
    166.2 KB · Views: 708
  • DSC05222.jpg
    DSC05222.jpg
    113.7 KB · Views: 706
  • DSC05221.jpg
    DSC05221.jpg
    96.4 KB · Views: 706
  • DSC05220.jpg
    DSC05220.jpg
    129.1 KB · Views: 709
  • DSC05219.jpg
    DSC05219.jpg
    150.7 KB · Views: 710
Back
Top