Mongoose e-stay?

[incorrigible]

I don't think I've ever heard of a Mongoose e-stay before. That said, all I know about e-stays (other than the 1989 Nishiki Aliens) I've learned in about the past 15 years, and it seems I'm learning something new every day.

https://www.tokopedia.com/emptycrow...2025071300075894F6D7E04A4D45194S7A&src=search




That head-tube looks to be 1-inch diameter, so I believe this is a steel frame. The square-tubing and the immaculate welds (likely smoothed with an emory cloth, like a Klein or a Funk) are what caught my eye; real craftmanship. Of course, that child safety seat isn't doing it any favors. I pity the child that has to be immediately down-wind of some racer's sweaty backside.

Can anyone shed light on this?

 

[joglo]

Not sure why this bike picture seem to be on many different Asian webpages, and I had even concerns if this isn't generated by AI. Color-wise it looks a bit suspicious.

But on FB https://www.facebook.com/groups/1619889151613366/posts/4065404957061761/ there are some more detail pics, which look like a real bike



Still, this thing is very strange
Parts like the Alivio components, or the crappy Altus C10 cranks are roughly 1993-95.
Everything, so also the RST suspension fork is cheap low-entry level stuff.
Combining this with such an unique and interesting looking frame sounds strange.

BTW: the condition of the frame is really weak e.g. the derailleur hanger. It seems there was also earlier another front mech mounted, with down-swing where the clamp was producing quite some marks on a higher position as the current up-swing one.

Moreover this style and kind of frame doesn't fit to the Mongoose portfolio mid 90ties, but also not in later years.

To me, this looks like an real bike, not just an AI fake, but maybe low entry level bike parts from mid-nineties mounted on an exotic and design-wise interesting frame of unknown source and some added Mongoose stickers on top?

 

[incorrigible]

Not sure why this bike picture seem to be on many different Asian webpages, and I had even concerns if this isn't generated by AI. Color-wise it looks a bit suspicious.

But on FB https://www.facebook.com/groups/1619889151613366/posts/4065404957061761/ there are some more detail pics, which look like a real bike
View attachment 980829
View attachment 980830

Still, this thing is very strange
Parts like the Alivio components, or the crappy Altus C10 cranks are roughly 1993-95.
Everything, so also the RST suspension fork is cheap low-entry level stuff.
Combining this with such an unique and interesting looking frame sounds strange.

BTW: the condition of the frame is really weak e.g. the derailleur hanger. It seems there was also earlier another front mech mounted, with down-swing where the clamp was producing quite some marks on a higher position as the current up-swing one.

Moreover this style and kind of frame doesn't fit to the Mongoose portfolio mid 90ties, but also not in later years.

To me, this looks like an real bike, not just an AI fake, but maybe low entry level bike parts from mid-nineties mounted on an exotic and design-wise interesting frame of unknown source and some added Mongoose stickers on top?

Thanks for pointing all that out, @joglo

I was suspicioius myself for the same reasons, but I withheld judgement because I've been wrong before, and thus stirred up a bit of ire and resentment as a result while attempting to establish facts and propose possibilities that might explain gaps missing from authoritative factual information.

The head-tube in particular is what I noticed. It appears to be quite skinny, perhaps a 1-incher. IIRC, 1-inch headsets were the best you could get in 1989, but were superseded by 1.125 and 1.25 headsets in 1990, yet the frame looks as if it were built later than 1989. Who would design such an exotic-looking bike using previous year's components? In other words, why not go with the current top-of-the-line parts when creating such a unique design? A lot of the "Wow!" factor in a new bike design is using top components, not last year's stuff that has been effectively kicked to the curb by buyers seeking the latest and best technology.

Plenty of times as a buyer I've seen old and/or low-entry componentry bolted to a premium racer simply because the bike owner valued low price over performance when replacing worn parts, or was trying to sell a complete bike and therefore used whateve worked and that was handy at the time. I can think of a particular Mantis that I bought in a reflexive, knee-jerk moment (you have to do that sometimes on eBay or you'll miss out) only to discover that EVERY part bolted to the bike was obviously the lowest value part that would enable the bike to be rideable and thus justified selling it as a "complete bike" (cha-ching! $$$$$) vs. merely a frame-only (meh $). The head-tube, however, is an integral, unswappable part of the bike. Mysterious!

I had the same concerns over the rear dropout and the FD placement, but the main thing that I can't let go of is the child safety seat; it appears to be out of alignment with the rest of the bike, and the mounting points near the rear dropouts are obscured in the main photos, whereas (and please correct me if I'm wrong) they are absolutely non-existent in the detail photos! I was thinking "Photoshop" but Photoshop is so "5 minutes ago" along the technology timeline. AI is a likely culprit IMHO, at least for the child safety seat. On the other hand, those detail photos could have been taken before the safety seat was installed.

Of course, the decals are what seal the deal. No doubt placed there by God himself (he ran out of Rolls Royce decals).
Here's God's first attempt: