Great ride, Slim. I know from experience how well they ride. Very well!
Maybe a bit of a topic hijack, but I know Neil's bike very well. I can tell it is another NOS level DynaTech (actually nicer as bearings got loose balls, frame got a rust prevention treathment and more attention was put into details that factory bikes don't get). Were they all bought and parked away by quasi interested roadies who lost interest immediately :? ...or for simply staring at
I were really amazed by how well the DynaTech rode. It absorbed quite a lot from the roadsurface, while giving an absolutely satisfactory stable feel. Great frame for long in the saddle.
Neil, according to the '91 Catalogue present in Gallery 2 your frame is made with 3 tubes 653 in the main triangle and 531 for the tail. We already concluded that little headtube part is probably Ti. The 91 Pro is -according to the catalogue- made with 753. That Slim's has no monostay designates that it is another year, as the 1991 Pro does have one.
Maybe a bit of a topic hijack, but I know Neil's bike very well. I can tell it is another NOS level DynaTech (actually nicer as bearings got loose balls, frame got a rust prevention treathment and more attention was put into details that factory bikes don't get). Were they all bought and parked away by quasi interested roadies who lost interest immediately :? ...or for simply staring at

Neil, according to the '91 Catalogue present in Gallery 2 your frame is made with 3 tubes 653 in the main triangle and 531 for the tail. We already concluded that little headtube part is probably Ti. The 91 Pro is -according to the catalogue- made with 753. That Slim's has no monostay designates that it is another year, as the 1991 Pro does have one.