Top 10 All Time Great Bike Designs

[Can of Coke]

GT Zaskar, probably the only bike to be used for World class XC, Downhill and Trials. Definitely a design classic and the Triple Triangle gave it added stiffness and strength, something that's required for not only the type of riding but also the material itself in the early days.

Early 90s Konas also speak for themselves.

 

[FluffyChicken]

GT Zaskar, probably the only bike to be used for World class XC, Downhill and Trials. Definitely a design classic and the Triple Triangle gave it added stiffness and strength, something that's required for not only the type of riding but also the material itself in the early days.
...

The triple triangle was there for marketing, to make it look different to other bikes an it worked, he even says do himself. It had been used by others before.

As for needed by the material, what about all the other Alu bikes that where happily made without it.

--------


Since everything evolves around two wheels, a seat, cranks and a grip place there is not much you can do to the frame. Hence the diamond frame and iterations of it, they may look different but they are all fundamentally the same connecting these points.

Suspension adjusts these as you are adding another factor in as these points start to move around, good and bad designs for this setup depend on what is wanted from it. It's not so much the design of the overall bike that altering, other than the forced rising of the front end. The frame evolves around how the suspension is required to work. These suspension designs for its intended use are then the factor. The overall shape is still a 'diamond' underneath.

But that it really, there are things that shouldn't be done. The rest are all good depending on what you are doing with it and who and what shape the rider is.

As is shown by this site, most look pretty similar when you get down to it, but some prefer different setups of these similar frames.


There are many designs better than the Race bike design, like laying down head or feet first, it quicker/more efficient apparently and not as far to fall to the ground, easy to cocoon in a light casing. Great design and quite different from the original position of the contact points. Catch on though ? Perfect commuter bike ?

That's my rushed typing take on it.

 

[Can of Coke]

Fairly simple to answer as to why other designs didn't use it

You're looking at it back to front. The triple triangle enabled the frame to built with inherent strength and stiffness that allowed the frame to be used for downhill and trials, as well as xc.

Hence the reason why you did not see other makes of frame being used cross discipline. The frame got results cross discipline in world class competition, the same can't be said for the Ritchey's, Yo eddy, pace, Klein frames of this world. And I'm sure that a patent would also have applied at the time. That fact alone puts it up there as a design that actually achieved tangible success on the podium. Whilst most of this thread is subjective, world cup podiums speak for themselves.

Whilst I'm sure it did the marketing no harm, a smaller rear triangle is both stiffer and stronger than a larger one, fairly simple logic takes care of that, as well as the rear triangle being welded in an additional location to enhance the strength.

 

[Dr S]

I beg to differ sir. I remember JMC turning up to the Simonside Grand Prix with a Rockhopper and doing the XC race, DH race, Hillclimb race and Trials comp all on the same bike. In fact all the other 40+ riders used the same bike for all disiplines. I also remember Peaty racing NEMBA XC races and DH Races on the same Kona, again everyone used the same bike in all competitions. You didn't need a Zaskar back then to do different disiplines, you used what you had.

The Zaskar was no more an inovation than the next bike no matter how much you try and dress it up.

Si

 

[Can of Coke]

Your opinion is subjective and also happens to be wrong. How you can argue against the only design to have won both xc and dh world championships is beyond belief.

What other bike can say the same?

History and the facts speak for themselves, your opinion is just that, an opinion.

The frame design is proven in battle and has gold medals to prove it, your opinion is based in your mind.

 

[Neil]

Your opinion is subjective and also happens to be wrong. How you can argue against the only design to have won both xc and dh world championships is beyond belief.

What other bike can say the same?

History and the facts speak for themselves, your opinion is just that, an opinion.

The frame design is proven in battle and has gold medals to prove it, your opinion is based in your mind.

And once again, somebody falls in the trap of conflating causation with correlation.

If you can cite something actually causative about the frame design, which is anything more than inference or supposition, that proves that it's design is what made it win both these championships, all by itself... then by all means.

Otherwise, it is nothing more than a mildly interesting footnote.

 

[Woz]

For reference: http://www.retrobike.co.uk/?p=1501

4) RB: The Triple Triangle (Hellenic frame design) was it your idea? Was it to give GT a different identity or who originated it from GT’s side?

BD: Yes, this was my idea. I saw and old style lugged triple triangle Cyclocross frame in a magazine, took that idea, designed larger tube sizes, added Tig welding, gussets, and designed the GT triple triangle frame set. Yes, the idea was to design a frame set that would stand out in the market place.

---

...and again. Nothing new - at all. Dusted off ideas and re-marketed to a new cycling generation.

---

Getting to podium is a good reference which helps sell bikes and make some sort of statement of quality, but I would be inclined to say it's about lots of money, possibly drugs and hard work on behalf of the rider rather than what is between their legs. Long gone are the days when pros would queue up in their favorite bike shop of choice along with regular punters.

 

[Woz]

May be of interest too in the discussion:
http://www.bikeradar.com/fitness/articl ... ay--13984/

 

[dirttorpedo]

ritchey/fisher original frames( led ythe way)
specialised stumpjumper(first mass produced atb(
konas joe murray designed frames(never age and bang on geometry)
pace rc100/200(what needs saying here......really)
gt rts or/and lts(cutting edge)
mountain cycle san andreas(future technology)
gt zaskar (still going strong)
amp/mongoose (simple and elegant but worked,still emulated but tweaked)
turners 4 link frames (as above, love you mr horst)
trek 9000..........learn from your mistakes boy (were good, and still cut it but learned alot about shock placement and design)

thats my quick list,in no major order but the rts defined quality rear suspension.san an hand technology used now and the pace was just mind boglingly ahead of its time.

This is a pretty good list - can't comment on the Pace because we didn't get them over here. Don't know about the Trek 9000 - I might replace that with something like a SantaCruz heckler/bullet.

 

[FluffyChicken]

Fairly simple to answer as to why other designs didn't use it

You're looking at it back to front. The triple triangle enabled the frame to built with inherent strength and stiffness that allowed the frame to be used for downhill and trials, as well as xc.

Hence the reason why you did not see other makes of frame being used cross discipline. The frame got results cross discipline in world class competition, the same can't be said for the Ritchey's, Yo eddy, pace, Klein frames of this world. And I'm sure that a patent would also have applied at the time. That fact alone puts it up there as a design that actually achieved tangible success on the podium. Whilst most of this thread is subjective, world cup podiums speak for themselves.

Whilst I'm sure it did the marketing no harm, a smaller rear triangle is both stiffer and stronger than a larger one, fairly simple logic takes care of that, as well as the rear triangle being welded in an additional location to enhance the strength.

So the rider had nothing to do with it then ? The fact he was paid to ride that bike and damn good at it?
You have fallen right in to Hair Shampoo marketing 101.