Just curious on what was the worst bike you've ever ridden in terms of ride,finish and components? For me,it was a 1990 Raleigh Technium Heat.It had cool looking bonded aluminum frame but wow,what a harsh ride!
yes actually there is quite a bit of "give" in those things, at least compared to fat tube welded aluminum frames like Klein, Cannondale, etc. The bonded treck's tubes are nowhere near as fat as many, and I feel the resulting ride is much more forgiving for it. I have one now, a first generation bonded treck, sitting in the garage. it's my "winter" geared mtb and I ride it a lot this time of the year. I think the ride is pretty good. It ain't my Merlin, but it's pretty good.DKFIX said:I have an early 90s Trek 7000 frame that's bonded aluminum. There's not much give in those things is there?
Well I've owned a few rigid bikes and this one is a killer. Doesn't mean I don't like it. As far as simple street riding it's great! Ok maybe it's not that bad!bulC said:yes actually there is quite a bit of "give" in those things, at least compared to fat tube welded aluminum frames like Klein, Cannondale, etc. The bonded treck's tubes are nowhere near as fat as many, and I feel the resulting ride is much more forgiving for it. I have one now, a first generation bonded treck, sitting in the garage. it's my "winter" geared mtb and I ride it a lot this time of the year. I think the ride is pretty good. It ain't my Merlin, but it's pretty good.
Not to mention the geometry was designed by WTB. WTB used them as their team bike in 87.bulC said:yes actually there is quite a bit of "give" in those things, at least compared to fat tube welded aluminum frames like Klein, Cannondale, etc. The bonded treck's tubes are nowhere near as fat as many, and I feel the resulting ride is much more forgiving for it. I have one now, a first generation bonded treck, sitting in the garage. it's my "winter" geared mtb and I ride it a lot this time of the year. I think the ride is pretty good. It ain't my Merlin, but it's pretty good.
I don't think it's the lugs, but the tube size that matters. Early Vitus AL road bikes were not popular because they were too flexy. AL got it's fame as a rigid material only after Klein and Cannondale made monster size tubes. Skinny AL is super flexy.Shayne said:Bonded AL frames are for the most part far less rigid and more forgiving.
There's no comparison between a Klein Attitude/Adroit and a bonded Trek frame.
That's exactly why I got one of them in 87. That and I wanted to try alu but couldn't convince myself that welded alu was a good idea, unless it was a cunningham. What a radical change in geometry. I had been riding 18" frames and figured that's what I should get again, never did feel to comfy with the long TT. Seemed like some long chainstays as well, either that or 87 was about the end of the long stay era. Didn't make me quit riding though, spent a few years on it.Fillet-brazed said:Not to mention the geometry was designed by WTB. WTB used them as their team bike in 87.
- C'MON Fb!!!Fillet-brazed said:Not to mention the geometry was designed by WTB. WTB used them as their team bike in 87.
They did actually change a bit from 87 to 90, not sure what exactly but I did notice there is a difference in the seat stays. I happen to have a 1990 8500 as well in my garage right now... The geometry could have been completely redone by then as well for all I know. I'll have to check it out. I wouldnt be surprised if they went to the very popular 71/73 that started about that time.olds_cool said:trek 7000 from maybe 90. bonded alum, dx parts. i don't care what the guys above said, it rode like a brick. ride, parts, geometry, were all awful. had a trek road bike back then that was equally as bad. absolutely the crappiest ride ever.
the other was a nevil devil. not because it rode really bad, but because it was so poorly welded up. everything was out of alignment. rode ok, as long as you didn't care to go fast, cause than it had a tendency to swap ends on you.
Ohh, thanks for the painful memories. That was a uh unique ride. I took it on one ride after that up the beach and she was back on the market! Not too fun. Now if I had to battle snow around here, that would be a different story!DMFT said:- C'MON Fb!!!
Of the Trillion bikes you've owned, there has to be some stinkers in there.
How about the Hanebrink ATV tired machine that you pedaled up the 'chitty one???
Lookin' for a Phoenix huh....? You should know that DL is not all that well connected to the vintage mtb community.DMFT said:Yeah - The funny/painful thing was everyone still trying to chase YOUR arse up the hill!
- You find me a nice Phoenix yet???
-Anomie- said:Worst bike design ever: Trek Y-bike/Fisher Joshua (same thing more or less). I never owned one, but I've worked on a lot of them and they all suck, period.
As for the worst I've ever actually owned, I'd have to say the Litespeed Tsali I got as a team bike in 2000. It was their top of the line soft tail, which was a great idea in theory, but it just didn't work for me. I always thought I had a flat . However, the REAL reason I couldn't stand that bike was the geometry. I swear it was impossible to climb on that thing without doing a wheelie all the way up the hill. I had the stem as low as it would go and flipped upside down, and I still couldn't get enough weight on the front end to track straight. Litespeed had the same problem on their larger sized road bikes too, I'm convinced that all of their designers were 5 feet tall (or just stupid).[/QUOTE
Litespeed hardtails at least in my M size had fairly slack 72.5 degree seat tube angles. Sounds like a small difference from the 73 degree de facto standard, or the 74 degrees I prefer, but the end result is, at least for me, I need a seatpost with zero setback to get the saddle far enough forward for good seated climbing. Otherwise, if you climb seated, it's tough to keep the front end down and in control on the real steep stuff. A post with no setback, with the saddle far forward, and a stem long enough to compensate for the reduced reach, make my Obed right.