Retro Bikes of Quality

[legrandefromage]

A bike that can only be used in the dry dusty conditions of the US limits itself to the dry dusty conditions of the US, no matter how much you throw in grease nipples, rollercams and any other so called innovations.

As I mentioned, Cunninghams were custom made and as such could have any component choices to suit your environment. Like having cantilever brakes positioned on the chain stays. As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words, so here's another thousand:

So why didnt you use this example in the first place?

Ttrying to educate and expose the virtues of a brand, the first example was pretty useless.

 

[mikee]

i need one pair of those brakes


most US parts fared badly over here
theres an RAF base that had US personel stationed there in the
early mid 90's not far from here
they had all sorts of high end bikes ,the particular ones that spring to mind
being amp's ,those forks and horst links lasted about 2 months in fifes
gritty coal spoil/loamy dirt
they improved tho

 

[Dr S]

As the owner of an early Stumpjumper may i confirm that they are indeed 'shite' of the highest order wether compared to a Cunningham or not.

Surely that is somewhat subjective and in context, though? Whether a Stumpjumper of that era qualifies for the subjectiveness of this debate / topic is one thing, but surely there's many bikes from that era where the ubiquitous Stumpie doesn't look quite as 'shite'? In short, it may not be the best representation from that era, but it's sure as hell not the worst.

Well after 26 years of riding mountain bikes and having owned hundreds of different models and makes at wildly different price points, i have yet to find one that rides as badly as an early stumpjumper. Even the old Schwinn Excelsior lash ups from 10 years prior ride better.
Fancy words are one thing but you can't beat personal experience sir.

 

[Neil]

As the owner of an early Stumpjumper may i confirm that they are indeed 'shite' of the highest order wether compared to a Cunningham or not.

Surely that is somewhat subjective and in context, though? Whether a Stumpjumper of that era qualifies for the subjectiveness of this debate / topic is one thing, but surely there's many bikes from that era where the ubiquitous Stumpie doesn't look quite as 'shite'? In short, it may not be the best representation from that era, but it's sure as hell not the worst.

Well after 26 years of riding mountain bikes and having owned hundreds of different models and makes at wildly different price points, i have yet to find one that rides as badly as an early stumpjumper. Even the old Schwinn Excelsior lash ups from 10 years prior ride better.

And you are a sample size of precisely 1.

As I said, I'm not suggesting that early Stumpies were any paragon - I just think, being equitable, there were bikes that put them in context, that's all.

Fancy words are one thing but you can't beat personal experience sir.

"Fancy words"? But fancy bikes are ok?

And you're absolutely right - you can't beat personal experience in evaluation of bikes. But it bears note that that's exactly what it is personal.

I rode mountain bikes in the late 80s, in the UK - and plenty of them. I may not have owned plenty, but I got plenty of opportunity of trying out bikes from friends and acquantancies. I rode some bikes I found really good, some average, and some poor. That didn't always reggae with the cost of the bike, though.

 

[legrandefromage]

So, what is a 'quality bike'?

The implementation of many bikes may be poor but tubing materials and component choice can make up for the inadequacies to represent a visually tick box 'quality bike'

You look at a bike and see the quality in its build but then it may ride like a badly assembled mecano kit.

So, what are you referring to as quality in this thread? I look at the C-26 in the box and see untidy welding and glue showing - I would be disappointed if I were to purchase whereas I would be elated at the chance of owning the Miyata.

In the spirit of the opening post -

I look at any Manitou frame and see cracks whether they are there or not - that cant be a sign of quality.

I look at the Pace and see poor choice of components, I would never recommend Xpress shifters!

I was considering putting up a pic of a '93 year Zaskar but, looking at my own I see the huge blobby welds and the controversial frame design, but then I see the dents and dings but no cracks despite the abuse - does that make a quality bike? One that doesnt fall apart at the first sign of abuse?

The first thing I look at on a bike is longevity - cracks dont impress me no matter how innovative the designs, its obviously flawed and of poor quality.

We are all brought up differently, myself from a low income background where stuff was made to last - throwing money at at an obviously flawed design does not make quality.

 

[legrandefromage]

As the owner of an early Stumpjumper may i confirm that they are indeed 'shite' of the highest order wether compared to a Cunningham or not.

Surely that is somewhat subjective and in context, though? Whether a Stumpjumper of that era qualifies for the subjectiveness of this debate / topic is one thing, but surely there's many bikes from that era where the ubiquitous Stumpie doesn't look quite as 'shite'? In short, it may not be the best representation from that era, but it's sure as hell not the worst.

Well after 26 years of riding mountain bikes and having owned hundreds of different models and makes at wildly different price points, i have yet to find one that rides as badly as an early stumpjumper. Even the old Schwinn Excelsior lash ups from 10 years prior ride better.
Fancy words are one thing but you can't beat personal experience sir.

What makes your early Stumpjumper so bad?

 

[pete_mcc]

So why didnt you use this example in the first place?

Ttrying to educate and expose the virtues of a brand, the first example was pretty useless.

Embarassed to say that I didnt like the look of this one as much as its too big for me, and I can't have any bike in my dream garage that is too big for me...

 

[Dr S]

Can i start by pointing out that everyone who has slung a leg over my own early stumpjumper completely agrees that it is awful- one person remarked that 'It's a real wonder how these things caught on'.
Also remember that they were built down to a price- they were almost a copy of the early Ritchey/Mountain Bikes that messrs Kelly and Fisher were selling at twice the price (and a long waiting list).
They are pretty crude and probably represent the level of technology available in Japan at that time- they were new at this afterall. The alignment is relativly poor (and i might add that mine is almost NOS so its not a tired example), it is very heavy and the geometry and fork rake is all over the place resulting in a bike that does not like slow speed turns and shimmies and frets in high speed turns. It doesn't like climbing nor descending and bounces all over the place on anything other than smooth trails. So, apart from cruising down to the shops, its a pretty poor bike by any standards.
I did read somewhere that when Mike Sinyard approached Fisher regarding the purchase of two Fisher/Kelly's, that he had an idea that mike was going to rip off the design, so they supplied an incorrectly specced frame and fork that threw out the handling somewhat. A few remaining frames from that batch have recently turned up NOS in a bike shop in Sausalito where they have rightly remained unsold for 30 odd years.
So, the stumpjumper was flawed before it was even born. It would go some way to explaining just how badly they ride.

 

[legrandefromage]

Can i start by pointing out that everyone who has slung a leg over my own early stumpjumper completely agrees that it is awful- one person remarked that 'It's a real wonder how these things caught on'.
Also remember that they were built down to a price- they were almost a copy of the early Ritchey/Mountain Bikes that messrs Kelly and Fisher were selling at twice the price (and a long waiting list).
They are pretty crude and probably represent the level of technology available in Japan at that time- they were new at this afterall. The alignment is relativly poor (and i might add that mine is almost NOS so its not a tired example), it is very heavy and the geometry and fork rake is all over the place resulting in a bike that does not like slow speed turns and shimmies and frets in high speed turns. It doesn't like climbing nor descending and bounces all over the place on anything other than smooth trails. So, apart from cruising down to the shops, its a pretty poor bike by any standards.
I did read somewhere that when Mike Sinyard approached Fisher regarding the purchase of two Fisher/Kelly's, that he had an idea that mike was going to rip off the design, so they supplied an incorrectly specced frame and fork that threw out the handling somewhat. A few remaining frames from that batch have recently turned up NOS in a bike shop in Sausalito where they have rightly remained unsold for 30 odd years.
So, the stumpjumper was flawed before it was even born. It would go some way to explaining just how badly they ride.

Cool, now if we all explained ourselves a bit more, we might not get the wrong end of the stick so much.

I posted my 'thing' as it rides pretty good for a long, slack angled collection of tubing.

I would also post the 'green thing' but that looks like its been finished by a naked welder at arms length, but, it is perfect for the UK singletrack and climbing. Short top tube, specific hub brake frame design and loads of mud clearance.

**** it! Let more mystery UK frame building show itself:

check out the angles!

 

[ridevintagemtb]

Those WTB cantilevers are no good