You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Isn't it funny how sometimes you can be ignorant of something until it is contrasted with something else.
Like the other day when I went straight from riding on my TT bike to my GT MTB and it was suddenly apparent to me that the GT is so comfortable [b]it rides LIKE A SOFA[/b]. OK my MTB is made from titanium which is known for it's forgiving nature, but the TT bike is carbon fibre which is also good for absorbing shocks.
This reminded me of the genius of the triple triangle frame design, super stiff where it needs to be but also with great vertical compliance because seat stays have a shallow angle. Of course vertical compliance is really important when going over the bumpy stuff, [b]has anybody else come up with a design that rivals the triple triangle?[/b]
[u]GT's 3rd triangle, Yum[/u]
[img] 
?1[/img]
Thinking back to the 90's GT were really forward looking back then. They were one of the first to aggressively drop those backwards, cumbersome, steel frames from their product line and forge ahead with Aluminium.
It is a pity that they seemed to lose momentum around the turn of the millenium. I mean what about other innovations that nobody has tried like making frames out of hi-tech plastics, or rear suspension that actually pivots around the Bottom bracket, how cool would that be! If they continued at the pace they were I bet they would have come up with game changing stuff like this and really taken a grip on the market, instead they seemed to sit back and fade away a bit.
[u]Let's have another look at that triple triangle[/u]
[img] 
[/img]
[u]A triple triangle imbued bike battling with a gnarly tree[/u]
[img] 
?1[/img]
I see that bike , I see chain suck.
Whilst carbon can be designed to be more comfortable, I suspect your TT bike was built for maximum stiffness, so it's not really a fair comparison.
What the hell is going on on your bars?
I think a lot of modern frames with traditional triangles will match that, if only because the stays don't need to be beefy enough to cope with V-brakes trying to spread them apart each time they're applied.
TT bikes aren't renowned from being designed to have any compliance in them in any direction...
Maybe go from a modern FS (and most decent hardtails, Ti or otherwise) bike to the GT and see how it feels?
[edit] oh, and you need to sort the drainage out at the bottom of your garden.
They were bought out in 2001 which is when and why they went all Halfords 🙁 I've got a soft spot for 90s GTs though, I had a barge of a 1993 Outpost followed by a lovely chrome GT Vertigo with coaster Skyways... jumpers for goalposts...
My 90s GTs-
[IMG] 
[/IMG]
[IMG] 
[/IMG]
[IMG] 
[/IMG]
and I've got this waiting to be built-
[IMG] 
[/IMG]
but TT bike do jump well
[img] 
[/img]
Don't get the triple triangle love. It makes for an ugly bike.
Load of bollocks. How much vertical compliance do you actually get from that frame?
I think you will find it has more to do with your back tyre and seatpost/saddle, not frame.
Mtb more comfy than TT bike?
You're a genius you are...
I had a xizang back in the day ,it was the worst bike I owned I can say categorically, weighed nothing and because of this went no where near where you pointed it.
old zasker's were great BITD, could be built in a number of ways, light for XC, jump bikes, 4X with a set of bombers etc.
However, I would never have put them in the compliant category. Not sure if it's the ti of yours or you have a blind spot but plenty of others around that time (and since) far more compliant IMHO. Always felt GT's were solid but harsh hardtails
It must be the material.
My Zaskar was extremely stiff. Fat stays, stiff material and short stay length. The main benefit I can see is lateral.
Mmm... dual slalom small Zaskar...
[img] 
[/img]
I had a xizang back in the day ,it was the worst bike I owned I can say categorically, weighed nothing and because of this went no where near where you pointed it.
What year was it? Mine is a '97 which has beefed up downtube etc compared to the earlier years.
Mine is certainly solid - I did a Red Bull urban dual slalom on it once which included a bunch of stairs and a 2m drop and it did it all no problem, it was certainly going where I pointed it.
OP's post is a joke right?
OP's post is a joke right?
No, it looks like some kind of dropper.
Mine was 98 is had sids on it which got blamed for shite steering swapped to a Judy fsx...still shite steering it used to bounce of anything, try crossing ruts or roots even mild ones you ended up being knocked off course holding on till you could stop and that's if the stays weren't flexing enough to make the brakes a negotiation, had a Titanium diamond back before that, was a brilliant bike
That 3rd photo down - do you have 2x stems and bars on that bike?
OP's post is a joke right?
No, it looks like some kind of dropper.
A gravity dropper to be precise, one of the more recent additions to the bike.
Another of the more recent additions is the tubeless wheels which I built up and put on the bike, nice big 2.2" tyres @ 30psi almost makes up for the minimal suspension.
Laterally stiff, vertically compliant.
That 3rd photo down - do you have 2x stems and bars on that bike?
The thing on my handlebars is my mobile phone (holder was only £6 from Lidl!)
On the stem is a Garmin mount to which a 'Hammerhead One' is attached - a navigation device that uses little LED's to point when turns are coming up.
Basically I was out exploring new places the day I took those shots and I pulled out my water bottles but forgot to take the other gubbins off.
Man likes his bike and all you lot want to do is piss on his chips.
Shame on you all.
Not sure if good quality trolling or monumental failure to comprehend a whole raft of engineering concepts 🙂
What's the Hammerhead One thing like?
Mine was 98 is had sids on it which got blamed for shite steering swapped to a Judy fsx...still shite steering it used to bounce of anything, try crossing ruts or roots even mild ones you ended up being knocked off course holding on till you could stop and that's if the stays weren't flexing enough to make the brakes a negotiation, had a Titanium diamond back before that, was a brilliant bike
Ah yes it has quite a racey headtube angle so will go flying if hitting a rock or something like a root coming across the trail at an angle without unweighting the front wheel. I have thought that if I stick some 120mm travel forks on it would be a lot more forgiving than lower 70mm forks but then it wouldn't be anyway near as retro.
The rear stays are quite flexy with V-brakes, at one point I was using a brake booster but then realised that there is still enough power to lock up the rear in most circumstances without the rear flexing much.
What's the Hammerhead One thing like?
The hardware is ok, but their software still has loads of bugs (crashes etc). The system is generally usable so I am happy it was not a waste of money backing them but I am not sure they are going to improve.
I suspect it would be better to pay a bit more for a Garmin that can navigate, then don't have to lug a mobile phone around plus it will tell you your speed and integrate with cadence or whatever other meters you want on your bike.
[i]Mine is certainly solid .... it was certainly going where I pointed it. [/i]
and
[i]will go flying if hitting a rock or something like a root coming across the trail at an angle[/i]
So it goes where you point it as long as it's a smooth surface?
I'm not trying to knock you or your bike - you clearly love it and it does what you want for you but modern bikes (as a whole) are so much better at being, well, mountain bikes than anything from even 10 years ago. Your bike may do what you want but for most people they want the security and handling characteristics of modern geometry and components.
oldnpastit - Member
What's the Hammerhead One thing like?
Indeed,
sounds like a good idea for following long off road routes for the first time but the website suggests (through the medium of pictures, I didn't read anything) it probably only works well on road and has to be paired with their (basic Google maps road looking) app.
That tree's gonna win.
OP's post is a joke right?
No, it looks like some kind of dropper.
A gravity dropper to be precise, one of the more recent additions to the bike.
Another of the more recent additions is the tubeless wheels which I built up and put on the bike, nice big 2.2" tyres @ 30psi almost makes up for the minimal suspension.
Priceless
Mine is certainly solid .... it was certainly going where I pointed it.and
will go flying if hitting a rock or something like a root coming across the trail at an angle
So it goes where you point it as long as it's a smooth surface?
I'm not trying to knock you or your bike - you clearly love it and it does what you want for you but modern bikes (as a whole) are so much better at being, well, mountain bikes than anything from even 10 years ago. Your bike may do what you want but for most people they want the security and handling characteristics of modern geometry and components.
I'm under no illusions about the dated handling of the bike[1]
The first bit you've quoted was me responding to the claim that "weighed nothing and because of this went no where near where you pointed it." This to me sounded like a claim that the Xizang handles like a limp noodle, which it doesn't so I disagreed.
Later there were some further details "shite steering it used to bounce of anything, try crossing ruts or roots even mild ones you ended up being knocked off course holding on till you could stop" and the light bulb lit, yes it does have a steep head angle (like most other race bikes of that era). You can steer it over rocky stuff but you need to allow the front to flow underneath you and shift your weight around - otherwise you end up looking like the guy on the cover of ST issue 106.
I'd like to pretend that I overcome the retro handling with my badass bike handling skills. However the truth is that just yesterday I didn't pay full attention for a moment, hit a rock with too much weight on the front and went over the bars. It was at least quite a technical race course I witnessed a few people on modern full sus bikes crashing too 😀
[1]Well I am under some actually as I've hardly ridden modern bikes.
buckster- indeed.
Bikes innit. Meh. Ride 'em, & have fun. Go shopping on them or do jumps on them over a plank of wood and two bricks in the back street.
Pity GT were too busy forging ahead with aluminum to takes steps to prevent them cracking!
Meanwhile my backwards and cumbersome steel Kona is still in weekly use on the same trails as I use my Stumpjumper on, 20 years after I bought it... 😉
Pity GT were too busy forging ahead with aluminum to takes steps to prevent them cracking!
Meanwhile my backwards and cumbersome steel Kona is still in weekly use on the same trails as I use my Stumpjumper on, 20 years after I bought it...
Aha, well wrote, tis true, at the time an awful lot of manufacturers were trying to match the Kona such as Lava Dome, Cindercone, Explosifs et al for handling and speed/fun per £. GT didnt make it IMHO/memory, the Zaskar was good but not great and did break. Spesh did too with the stumpjumper (first S-Works?). GT were still pioneering fancy farmyard gates when the buzz was sloping TT. And that Kona style is still very much evident on most if not all HTs today
I think you will find it has more to do with your back tyre and seatpost/saddle, not frame.
Exactly.
Sorry I thought most people would pick up that the OP was satire because of the title, the silly comparison to a TT bike and vertical compliance, calling steel bike backwards, and the references to the GT STS/i-drive, and the collapse of GT in Europe.
Laterally stiff, vertically compliant.
Ah yes that's the one 😀 I should've weaved that one in there.
Pity GT were too busy forging ahead with aluminum to takes steps to prevent them cracking!
Meanwhile my backwards and cumbersome steel Kona is still in weekly use on the same trails as I use my Stumpjumper on, 20 years after I bought it...
Back in '96 I thought long and hard whether to buy a Gary Fisher Big Sur or a Kona Cinder Cone. All the hype about aluminium swayed my young mind and I went for the Big Sur and this is actually the same bike as in the first post, as you can see a few things have broken and been replaced! If I bought the Kona it might still be the original frame.
I remember another friend had a Rockhopper and he traded it up for a GT Pantera, back then we thought this was a great upgrade but now of course I'd choose the Rockhopper frame hands down, hahaha.
they are brilliant, and beautiful
[IMG] 
[/IMG]
I love all the GT's being posted here. Keep them coming. I've got some project 2 forks that sometimes go on the Xizang as well. Anybody got a Vintage Zaskar to show? Or are they all cracked, lol.
Anybody got a Vintage Zaskar to show?
I've a pair of Zaskars that both get used for cross country riding... Not quite 'vintage', but 2001 (& 2012)... Here's them on a jolly along the Bath to Reading Canal...
[URL= http://i1259.photobucket.com/albums/ii560/iLittleNose/E45B9A9B-102F-4B8F-ABEB-1FD937D0AE22_zpsguzvkcdn.jp g" target="_blank">
http://i1259.photobucket.com/albums/ii560/iLittleNose/E45B9A9B-102F-4B8F-ABEB-1FD937D0AE22_zpsguzvkcdn.jp g"/> [/IMG][/URL]
So weird though how GT shot themselves in the foot and went really crap after a polished zaskar and the LTS/ RTS frames were so desirable . They went really downhill and in my eyes haven't really recovered , although I have seen some tasty looking DH bikes around now .
So weird though how GT shot themselves in the foot and went really crap after a polished zaskar and the LTS/ RTS frames were so desirable . They went really downhill and in my eyes haven't really recovered , although I have seen some tasty looking DH bikes around now .
GT was driven by the partnership of Gary Turner and Richard Long who founded the company. Unfortunately Richard died in an accident in '96 and things started to faulter after that.
This is a good read.
http://sidewaysandfallover.blogspot.sg/2008/07/history-of-gt-bicycles.html
Ta will read!
any excuse to post up a picture of my beloved Zaskar and i'm on it...
20 years old this year and still love riding it, just such a great frame.
[URL= http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a147/Topbanana_/DSCF1239.jp g" target="_blank">
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a147/Topbanana_/DSCF1239.jp g"/> [/IMG][/URL]
I put this together a few weeks ago. During my first ride the frame cracked (again).
[IMG] 
[/IMG]
I have an Avalanche 0.0 which came with xt/xtr mix and Formula hydraulic brakes. It was my first ever new bike. My daughter rides it now.
they are brilliant, and beautiful
Who's currently got the eye of the beholder?
Aren't most 90's MTB frames "triple triangle"? One in the middle, two either side of the wheel at the back.
That GT 'mis-weld-passed-off-as-a-feature' actually seems to almost more of a pyramid.
TT bikes aren't renowned from being designed to have any compliance in them in any direction...
Going from a bike with (probably) 21mm tyres at high psi on stiff carbon wheels to an mtb on fat rubber at much lower pressures, this would make much more difference than any compliance in the frame!
Do like the old GT's though.
well there isnt a single bike in this thread that deserves .....
they are brilliant, and beautiful
6079smithw: ah white Michelin tyres, had them on my Endorphin, stylin! Does the fat front tyre provide suspension or bounce?
they are brilliant, and beautiful
Yours isn't
A comfy GT?
[img] 
[/img]
Out of interest, how do Xizang owners pronounce 'xizang'?
Out of interest, how do Xizang owners pronounce 'xizang'?
I don't know myself, Xizang owners don't talk to each other when we meet, we just exchange a brief sage glance and nod of appreciation before racing off on our separate paths.
I don't bother trying to say Tibet in Chinese as my chinese pronounciation is pathetic. I just say Zee-Zang
[url= http://en.bab.la/dictionary/english-chinese/xizang ]proper pronunciation[/url]
I used to say zi zang or you total piece of shit will you stop chain sucking. Even with a complete drive chain swap off my other bike it would still suck.
I came to the conclusion that the bike was haunted.
Out of interest, how do Xizang owners pronounce 'xizang'?
jtszsheee jtszianger
duh, pfft
It's a white Geax!buckster - Member
6079smithw: ah white Michelin tyres, had them on my Endorphin, stylin! Does the fat front tyre provide suspension or bounce?
Yeah, the fat front gives a nice bit of comfort below 10psi. Below 8psi the drag on tarmac is a bit too much. But the grip is awesome, would have to be going some to wipe out front first.
Ok I was being modest. It's stunning.tomhoward - Member
Yours isn't
Did anyone buy the Xizang 29er of a couple years back? Wonder what it was like
*Cough*
TT bike has skinny tyres at high pressure, MTB has big tyres at low pressures, there may be factors other than hallowed vertical compliance with lateral stiffness at work here.
*Cough*
love classic gt bikes.
i always wanted a ball burnished zaskar le (or xixang 😉
edit i did have a quick ride on a gt karakoram (the orange flick paint version about 1991-2 era which i did like the ride of,couldn't afford it though 🙁
it make my 1988 dawes ascent mtb feel like a lump of scrap.
it make my 1988 dawes ascent mtb feel like a lump of scrap.
My first MTB, genuinely the worst MTB Ive ever owned, mainly because no-one truly new what an MTB was then.
I used to say zi zang or you total piece of shit will you stop chain sucking. Even with a complete drive chain swap off my other bike it would still suck.
I came to the conclusion that the bike was haunted.
Fair enough, honestly hardly ever had chainsuck on the Xizang. Had loads of issues with chainsuck on bikes with less wheel clearance when the mud really builds up.
Had some minor issues with phantom shifting when all out sprinting on the Xizang, but I had the same problem on all downtube cable bikes I used. This problem is now universally fixed by my lack of power and fitness anyway.
TT bike has skinny tyres at high pressure, MTB has big tyres at low pressures, there may be factors other than hallowed vertical compliance with lateral stiffness at work here.
For the 2nd time it was satire 😛 I thought the references to the STS and i-drive would give this away. I was just trying to do something more interesting than here are some pics of my bike on it's 19th birthday.
it make my 1988 dawes ascent mtb feel like a lump of scrap.
As it happens my dad had this bike, the wheels were floppy but otherwise I quite liked it. I was annoyed when he insisted on throwing it away - I managed to sneak a couple of components off it and still have the handlebars (decent width and sweep + indestructable) and thumbies on my commuter - I wish I'd managed to keep the frame, it'd have made an interesting singlespeed.
Oh and about using the Hammerhead navigation off road. I'm not too sure about this because I only use it to Navigate the roads to the the trail rather than visa-versa. The app does allow GPX import but it tries to think about it too much, if you pass a point then it starts trying to create a route on roads again.
Basically I think I have learnt that usefulness tends to be rather software driven, going for something that has used an API model rather than full in-house development, or a vendor like Garmin that has more resource to develop in house is probably better.
Twisty are you an MP?
nice big 2.2" tyres @ 30psi almost makes up for the minimal suspension.
You get 2.2s on a TT bike?
Twisty are you an MP?
Close but no, I'm unemployed. I am confused as to why you asked this.
Ride a GT grade and love it
Not enough rear speeding here for my liking.
Not enough rear speeding here for my liking.
I would never dream of putting a pile of mismatched crap on my beloved Xizang! 😆
But seriously, the general principle is that this is my serious bike which takes the shiny new sprockets which when worn/part worn filter down to the rearspeeder which I use to eat up urban miles and on less serious off-road stuff.
Love old GT's. Nice bike OP.
During my first ride the frame cracked (again).
😯
I agree with the 'GT used to be great at one point, but seem 'meh' still. Over complex suspension and 'doing it differently, just because' seems to be the way they went. 'Unique' over function IMO.
My brother and I both had 90's Zaraker LE frames and neither of them showed any kind of damage after a good deal of (ab)use.
I don't know about the supposed ride properties of the Triple Triangle design, but I can say that I thought my Zaskar was pretty comfy - but I did come to it after riding a couple of Klein Rascals!
I've not been interested in GT for many years after they lost their way, up until the Grade came along and I HAD to have one. I bought the alloy 105 version and the ride is superb, if the finishing is rather workmanlike. I do love this bike and have spent more hours in the saddle since buying it than I have for years.
[img] 
[/img]
My brother and I both had 90's Zaraker LE frames and neither of them showed any kind of damage after a good deal of (ab)use.
I wondering if the american made frames had better QC than the Taiwan made frames of the time. Aluminium frames are very finicky on things like welding temps and heat treatments.
BTW are the left had side of the bars on your Grade bent or is that a trick of photography, nice bike.
I agree with the 'GT used to be great at one point, but seem 'meh' still. Over complex suspension and 'doing it differently, just because' seems to be the way they went. 'Unique' over function IMO.
Somebody finally understood me
I used to like the early GT's but not enough to buy an affordable one bitd. I wouldn't buy a new one though so I'd look elsewhere when you sell this one. 😉
I wondering if the american made frames had better QC than the Taiwan made frames of the time.
from memory yes