Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 31
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Linoleum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    856

    1990 GT Zaskar

    Any GT experts know which years U-Brakes we're standard on the Zaskar model?

    Rich
    Last edited by Linoleum; 05-11-2009 at 08:31 PM. Reason: change title

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Linoleum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    856
    Disregard, I did some searchin on the site. All good.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: gm1230126's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    2,937
    Then you found the correct answer??? Which is 1991 and 1992 model years all sizes and the 14.5" size in 1993 which had them mounted on the underside of the seat stays because the 1993 model Shimano canti's were wider profile and a riders heel would hit them on the 14.5" frame.
    Needed: 26.8mm XTR seatpost, blue GT/Grundig Jersey.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Linoleum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    856
    I think its a '92 based upon the stickers and u-brake. I'll post the serial number tomorrow for confirmation.

    EDIT: It has a Quadra 21 fork which might have been put on later?
    Last edited by Linoleum; 05-12-2009 at 11:43 AM.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Linoleum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    856
    Looks like 1990. I don't think I'm doing a period correct restoration, but should be a sweet ride when finished!

    You know... its not NEAR as light as I thought it might be.... my steel Karakoram feels lighter.

    R.

    EDIT: Looks like the first year of Zaskar production was 1991. So is this the 732 Zaskar ever produced?
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by Linoleum; 05-11-2009 at 07:46 PM.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: gm1230126's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    2,937
    Quote Originally Posted by Linoleum
    Looks like 1990. I don't think I'm doing a period correct restoration, but should be a sweet ride when finished!

    You know... its not NEAR as light as I thought it might be.... my steel Karakoram feels lighter.

    R.

    EDIT: Looks like the first year of Zaskar production was 1991. So is this the 732 Zaskar ever produced?

    Yes it's an eaqrly production 1991 model and the 732nd produced. With the exact same build as a 91 Karakoram frame it would easily be a couple pounds lighter. If you are comparing it to a 96-7 Karakoram with v-brakes it would be closer in weight but still lighter. Ltes face it the XT stuff from 90-91 wasn't exactly light in comparison to the stuff from 96-7 era.
    Needed: 26.8mm XTR seatpost, blue GT/Grundig Jersey.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Linoleum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    856
    Bikepedia was no help on specs. Anyone have datasheets on the '91 models?

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    1,069
    Hey nice/clean find! Is it 19 inch frame? My ‘93 19 inch weighs 4lb 10oz (2.2kg) as a frame. Not a feather weight, but people used to ride those like there was no tomorrow, they must be a tough frame. I won't be surprised those handlebar, wheels, tires, and seat post weigh tons. As GM says, old components were chunky. If you go like 95'ish group, you can build it up in around 24lb. In my opinion, the performance differences between 91 and 95 shimano components would justify being slightly off period correct. Go modern, and you can probably hit a hair over 22lb. That way you can even go disk (A2Z adaptor). I never had U brake myself, so I don’t know if it performs better than cantis or V’s, but I simply can’t ride without disks any more. I lost handling skills. Just guessing but going disk may save some weight over that big hunk of U brake.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Linoleum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by hatake
    Hey nice/clean find! Is it 19 inch frame? My Ď93 19 inch weighs 4lb 10oz (2.2kg) as a frame. Not a feather weight, but people used to ride those like there was no tomorrow, they must be a tough frame. I won't be surprised those handlebar, wheels, tires, and seat post weigh tons. As GM says, old components were chunky. If you go like 95'ish group, you can build it up in around 24lb. In my opinion, the performance differences between 91 and 95 shimano components would justify being slightly off period correct. Go modern, and you can probably hit a hair over 22lb. That way you can even go disk (A2Z adaptor). I never had U brake myself, so I donít know if it performs better than cantis or Vís, but I simply canít ride without disks any more. I lost handling skills. Just guessing but going disk may save some weight over that big hunk of U brake.
    Yep, 19 inch frame. I'm leaning toward going modern, and make it a fun rider. I'd like to get a set of matching components [not too expensive], syncros, kore, etc. Any ideas? I know its matter of personal preference, but I don't want to go TOO common like easton or raceface. I need to look up that adaptor you mention, never ridden disks if you can believe it. Thank you for the input!

    R.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    1,069
    I went semi-modern SS with mine for cheap. An 80mm fork (Manitou Black), A2Z adaptor ($30) with Shimano 545 hydro brakes (only new parts on this bike, and these arenít all that bad Ė cheap, not heavy, fairly compact, and reliable), beat up Mavic 317 disk rims with XT hubs, and really beat up RF Deus X-type cranksets. Weighs about 25 lb. And I ride it almost exclusively since itís such a fun bike. If I had money, then I would have gotten something like Fox F80 (but I want a lockout), XTR crankset with CK headset, ring, cog, and SS specific wheelset and made this thing a full blinger, of course

    Basically, the adaptor has 2 pieces: aluminum block that somewhat locks onto the dropout, and a stainless steel locking plate that sandwiches the dropout. It fits as if these guys designed it for Zaskar. Now, some purists would scold me that ďdropouts arenít designed to take the rotational force a disk brake would applyĒ or something but Iím not sure if the regular brake boss location (a middle of a puny staytube tube) is any better than having a brake force applied to the dropouts, where it is actually designed to take some abuse. A couple of thoughts on A2Z disk adaptor though:

    1) I used 3m paint protective film (3M clear bra for cars) on the dropouts to somewhat lessen the cosmetic damage caused by the A2Z adaptor installation, but Iím not sure if that really saves the drop out from being scratched. To me, having a disk is well worth it to avoid turkey squeaks on descent, not to mention I can actually stop the bike. If you want to preserve your dropout, then this adaptor is probably not a way to go.

    2) If you do go with A2Z, be advised that some hubs (like XT 756 6-bolt hub) require a bit of grinding (adaptor, not the dropouts!) as the hub rubber seals do interfere with the adaptor. I use my beat up Centerlock hubs with no issue.

    3) You need to be creative with the hydro hose routing since there is no hose guide on old frames. Hydro hose fits perfectly in the noodle guide on my 93 (yes I had to cut the hose and get the air bubbles out), so one less zip tie. With your U brake frame, Iím not sure if there is a cable guide.


  11. #11
    MONKEYMAN
    Reputation: finger51's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    792
    Quote Originally Posted by hatake
    A2Z adaptor ($30)
    Got a link for that adapter? TIA
    ďI don't like jail, they got the wrong kind of bars in thereĒ

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Linoleum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by finger51
    Got a link for that adapter? TIA
    I think Cambria sells them... one of the big warehouses....

    I saw your question about the headset options on my VRC thread....let me know if you get an answer. I'd like to put a new threadless headset on and have some better fork options. Is that possible?

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: gm1230126's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    2,937
    91 Catalog pics show frames only..no complete bikes until the 1992 model year. @ Hatake per the 1991 catalog only 16, 18 and 20 frame sizes were built in 1991 so Linoleum's is an 18". The top tubes on the 18" frame slopes slightly. The 19" frames have the same size head tube as an 18" but also has a level top tube. That's how you can tell them apart at a quick glance.
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Needed: 26.8mm XTR seatpost, blue GT/Grundig Jersey.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Linoleum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    856
    gm1230126 - great info thank you!

    The GT 'Double locknut' headset on my Zaskar looks like ass. I'm thinking about keeping the Quadra21 fork [since its so plush] and replacing the headset with something nicer.

    If I wanted to go threadless 1-1/8, is that just a matter of switching headsets?

    R.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: gm1230126's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    2,937
    Switching the head set and stem would allow you to go threadless.
    Needed: 26.8mm XTR seatpost, blue GT/Grundig Jersey.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Linoleum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    856
    Swapped the wheelset from my Karakoram to the the Zaskar tonight and BAM, there is the difference in weight. It needs a tune up in a big way, shifting is just terrible, but it already feels like a champ up and down my street. I need to reign in the excitement and take it out for a long ride before changing anything else.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    165
    Quote Originally Posted by gm1230126
    Switching the head set and stem would allow you to go threadless.

    You'l need to swap the fork too. The steerer tube will be too short for the stem to clamp to (and will have threads at the top).
    If you wanna keep the fork but hate the headset you might think about a better looking headset? Chris King still makes threaded headsets that look good as ever. Otherwise you might have to try and find another fork with a threadless steerer.
    I'm Ron Burgundy?

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    1,069
    Welcome to the upgrade hell, there is no way out! I got A2Z off ebay, search by a2z. Be warned, that the wheelset & disk set up will probably cost you more than that Zaskar. I put on Cane Creen S3 headset (threadless), which is just about $40 reatil. CK looks good but the performance and material differences between CK and CC are, in my opinion, minimal - I actually think CC's press-in bearing retainer is far superior than CK's you-will-get-a-play-sooner-or-later construction. CK sure looks pretty tho. If you are waitig for the TARP money to get a new fork, then I would consider getting a cheap, steel threadless rigid fork and ride around for a while. That way, you'll get to know what that frame geometry is made for.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Linoleum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    856
    Proper decals, NOS fork on the way, matched wheelset w/skinwalls in my garage. All I need to sort is the stem/bars and she's a rider! I do have an extra bullhorn bar that might work for now. Pics will follow in a week or so.....

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Linoleum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    856

    Last update

    All finished with my mostly cosmetic restoration. Its maiden voyage is going down tomorrow night for a charity ride. Very excited to see how it performs on some windy singletrack.
    Attached Images Attached Images

  21. #21
    Downhill fan
    Reputation: #Cyclelife's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    316
    Very nice looking!! I love the GT Triple Triangle frames. My 95 Rebound has that & is so strong it amazes me its still around considering what i've done to it. Great job!
    I'm thinking about shreddin' it up right now!
    Giant Glory DH (custom)
    K2 Evo 4.0 FS XC (custom)

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Linoleum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    856

    Final entry

    Man, this Zaskar is fun to ride. I have a 'modern' saddle for comfort, but have a flite in reserve for originalities sake. Compared to my Team Avalanche, she feels much more lively on the trail and thumb shifters are just...right.

    No other changes are really needed at this point, cept perhaps a matching Magic Smoke rear tire. (working on that!) Updated pics:
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails U-Brakes on a Zaskar-mmp5.jpg  

    U-Brakes on a Zaskar-mmp6.jpg  

    U-Brakes on a Zaskar-mmp7.jpg  


  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation: gm1230126's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    2,937
    Very Nice there R!

    Tough to beat an original
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails U-Brakes on a Zaskar-pict1090.jpg  

    U-Brakes on a Zaskar-pict1087.jpg  

    U-Brakes on a Zaskar-pict1085.jpg  

    Needed: 26.8mm XTR seatpost, blue GT/Grundig Jersey.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    1,069
    Stunning as always. Tan tires glow on BB aluminum frame nicely eh?

    Does the thumbie in non-index mode hold the cable in big ring position over those rocky trails? Care to describe how it handles turns at speed? Nervous steering at all?

    Agree, you can't beat the original.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Linoleum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by hatake
    Stunning as always. Tan tires glow on BB aluminum frame nicely eh?

    Does the thumbie in non-index mode hold the cable in big ring position over those rocky trails? Care to describe how it handles turns at speed? Nervous steering at all?

    Agree, you can't beat the original.
    I think I've always had it in the index mode, but haven't had any ill effects shifting thru the chain rings. Yes, its a bit nervous handling but in a good way. Totally connected feel to the trail, due to the rigid forks and stiff frame. In long swoopy single track it is very fast, when it got tight I had to pay attention not to turn into the corners too quickly or I'd be running thru desert shrub. I had so much fun riding Sunday, I can't think of any negative aspects in the handling dept.

    I am glad I took the second half of my ride on the Zaskar. I was getting tired and its so light and predictable, it was a pleasure to finish off the day.

    EDIT: A quick shout out to gm1230126 (fork) and Shayne (rear smoke/smoke lite) for helping me put this thing together. Much appreciated!

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •