What Proflex bike have I just bought?

[sparkybhp]

Hi, obviously it’s been resprayed at some point but does anyone know what model is this? 857?
I bought it to break for parts for another project but I’m not sure now, should it be saved?
Any Proflex experts on here to guide me?
Thanks peeps.

 

[FluffyChicken]

pop the serial number up , I have a feeling these may use one that can get the year.

 

[sparkybhp]

Good idea, I make it: H7E000056.

 

[sparkybhp]

This maybe? 857 Pro-Flex Expert? Rear shock looks the same with the little remote reservoir..
Better chuck some air in the tyres tomorrow morning and have a quick spin out on it, see how it performs. Might earn a place in the collection..

 

[joglo]

I have nothing to say with regards to the frame, the wheelset are nice Shimano WH-M575 system wheels, much younger, ~2005, more stable than one would expect, but also with ~2Kg not lightweight, if I'm not mistaken support disc and rim brakes.

 

[sparkybhp]

Thanks @joglo for the info, I checked the wheels this morning and they’re 535 - rim brake only, perhaps an earlier style of the type you mentioned. Not really my cup of tea but definitely suit this bike in a late 90’s sort of way.
I put air in the tyres and tuned the brakes to stop them rubbing and went for a spin on it. I wasn’t expecting much tbh but honestly, wow. It really rides well, I’ve had a few early full sus bikes (marins mostly) and this is much more ‘modern’ feeling..
I really like it, so the plan is not to strip it now but to join the queue for a refurb and I want to hang on to it for a bit and use it.

 

[2manyoranges]

I ran an 856 in the 90's - bought new from Magic Cycles in 1995 - and found it to be leagues ahead of the AMP B3 which I built up a couple of years later. I agree, it was a major step forward, especially if set up correctly. They faded from the scene since the first models were elastomer-based and almost always set up far too hard. People were afraid of setting them up soft, with sag. Dealers had no idea how to set them up. This led to a culture of criticising them in the cycling press - as 'rubber based bouncers' - which was all down to set up. By the time they went to coil and oil the image had tarnished. And even then people had no idea how to set them up. It seemed mad to use up 30% of such small travel by using sag, but set up that way the bikes were excellent - really very good indeed. I purchased mine with a load of additional soft elastomers - entirely against the advice of the dealer - and wound up with two soft elastomers on the front and two soft and one medium on the back. The medium bike I had came with a combination of hard and medium - way too hard for my 66kg weight. Having run MX bikes prior to mountain bikes, I knew that getting the bike to 'float' in the top 30% of the travel when static loaded with the rider was the way to go. You might want to check your spring ratings so that you get the same sag and float.

 

[mk one]

Maybe an 857, though they came with normal shocks, maybe an after-market or upgraded shock, what model is it? The 957 came with a shock with res, though it also came with carbon forks, are they metal legs? Unlikely someone downgraded the forks, though you never know.

Nice bikes, though not as plush or nice riding as the earlier rear mounted swingarm models, they still are a great light xc bike.

 

[FluffyChicken]

Just to confirm H7 is 1997 made.
frame number 56,
E could be the month, or it could be Proflex or it could be ...

 

[2manyoranges]

Mk1 that's interesting....indeed I had one of these...and that has the rear-attached swing arm. I assumed that the longer rear triangle would present a better axle path and plusher rise but you think not so? interesting.