jez-4-bikes-max":3uvro9au said:
Were those Y bikes good riding bikes then?
I must admit apart from the early ones I really dont know much about them?
They were and still are - being a simple URT system they didn't have weird tendancy's and the only thing I suppose is an issue is the suspension locks up a little upon rear braking.
Climbing wise, especially if you use a PUSH'd rear Fox, they climb without much bob, and they are as stiff as my Commencal Meta 5.5.
The key thing, and this is why I don't understand why people haven't picked up on them, is that the frame is stupidly light, and, as I mentioned, they go under 24lbs without issue.
I ran mine briefly with full XTR and World Cups and I reckon it was about 22/23lb in weight (i.e. all carbon bits and bobs and light wheels). You can't sniff at that these days, and I know Trek wish they could get the bikes back down to that weight again.
I do admit, however, I wouldn't want to be pointing it anywhere near frequent DH'ing (although I do remember racing Aberdare as a Junior in 97, and coming 13th in the Nationals on my Y11 from BITD) - I retired mine in very much the same way someone would treat a classic car:
I see the Y11 as an equivilent to the Jaguar E-type, svelte, sexy as hell, fairly good value, and went bloody well.
They both aged well, and whilst nowhere as accomplished as a modern bike, they still hold their heads high.
Like I said, I ride a Commencal Meta 5.5 as my hack (or did - I'm selling it now as I want to ride hardtail for the winter) - I always loved riding both and always found it hard to choose which one!
As it is, my riding partner Pete has the 97 version Y33 in naked carbon, and he's not a light rider and he hammers his - yet its still going!
