what is this?

[Anthony]

According to Bikepedia, the Diamondback WCF 6.1 was made only in 1997 and funnily enough, the picture on there shows a canti bridge. The position of the cable stops appears to be the same, and note that unlike the Trek, the front stops are on the metal, not on the carbon fibre. However both your picture and theirs look to have fatter tubes than the eBay bike.

However the WCF was also made in 1996, and the 1996 colours appear to have been as per the eBay bike. The WCF 4.0 colour was 'carbon orange', implying that the metal was painted and the carbon wasn't. Also the fork was an Answer Manitou Mach 5 Comp XC - does any Manitou expert know whether that is precisely the fork on the eBay bike? And unlike 1997, the frame is explicitly said to be TIG-welded steel/bonded carbon fiber, which is consistent with the slim tubes of the eBay bike.
http://www.bikepedia.com/QuickBike/Bike ... &Type=bike

 

[Xesh]

dyna tech i'd say

I didn't think that Dynatech did carbon tubed frames. :?

I'd agree with a DB WCF as Treks had cast lugs and not welded ones, iIrc.

 

[fingers]

looks a good size, anyroad...

 

[mikee]

dyna tech i'd say

I didn't think that Dynatech did carbon tubed frames. :?

I'd agree with a DB WCF as Treks had cast lugs and not welded ones,
iIrc.

think your right there fella ,but i do recall a bonded lugged carbon raleigh
there was one in my local raleigh dealers ,early nineties

aaahhh the mists of time

 

[cce]

Anthony

the one i have pictured is a 1996 WCF 4.0 in orange carbon

the carbon sections have visible weave, but do have a kinda "coloured lacquer" overlay that's brownish. you can see what i mean with some of the scratches

my thought is that it has been stripped, masked, and the steel painted and the carbon left nude.

as far as i can tell the 1996 and 1997 frames were identical across the model numbers. i believe jango says the 1995 was different

 

[cce]

incidentally i messaged the seller telling them what it was, and they have updated the listing. have they been arsed thanking me though?

 

[Anthony]

Thanks Keir. I still don't understand why the paint was stripped off. I would have thought you could easily damage a carbon surface, and the end result is somehow a lot more old-fashioned looking than this 1995 picture I found on mtbr.

All it needs is an RC35 and it would be quite a decent-looking bike.

 

[jango]

RC35 on a DBR........Nooooooo!!

just to clarify things, WCFs came in two basic frame types:

WCF1 - thinner tubes, tapered at the top of the seat-tube and with a canti bridge.

WCF2 - thicker tubes, no taper on the seat-tube but fitted with a shim for the seatpost, no cant bridge.

'95 - WCF1, silver fade paint, Manitou Comp forks, the only model available as pictured here http://www.retrobike.co.uk/forum/viewto ... hlight=dbr

'96 - WCF1, models available iirc 2.0 with red fade, 4.0 with orange fade, 6.0 with black fade and a 'Pro' model (never seen one of these in the UK).

'97 - WCF2, available as 2.1, 4.1 and 6.1 with white/red paint and ManitouSX fork.

'98..........no more WCFs, mostly aluminium now :cry:

They also did some WCF road frames around '97.......but we don't need to worry about that here!


So, our mystery frame is a '95 or '96 WCF1 that has had a repaint of sorts (the components suggest '95) or it's an earlier prototype of some sort (unlikely).

 

[Mr Chicken]

Aye, it looks like a WCF to me, though earlier than either of ours as it has a rear canti hanger. I can be sure, but I seem to remember seeing a trek that was identical to my DBR in the past, I don't know if they dabbled in the crazy world of welded carbon frames too?

thats nice looking, i like that colour scheme especially with those forks.

 

[LTS Biker]

No, no, no, all wrong.
It's just a crappy resprayed C-26