Originally Posted by
Ironfish653
The Zaskar was GT’s tip of the line XC bike in the 90s. It was a good bike then, no doubt. A lot of the guys I rode and raced with rode them. I rode a Cannondale F-1000, which I still ride today. (You want to talk about cult following, look into vintage ‘Dales). I’d venture to say the Cannondale was the better climber, especially in tight technical sections, and more nimble in an all-out sprint, but the GTs were better coming down, especially if airtime was involved.
Mountain bikes have had 25 years of development since they built your GT, especially in wheel size and suspension design. While old school hardtails are quite capable, you have to have a pretty good arsenal of skill to get the most out of them.
The last two I demoed were a Giant Stance and a Cannondale Scalpel-Si. The Stance is a mid-range 27.5 FS Trail bike and the modern suspension, bigger wheels, and dropper seat post made it significantly easier to carry momentum through terrain like rock gardens and root ladders. I could clear those sections on my old bike as well, but it definitely took a lot more muscle and English to do it, and I for sure took more bumps.
The Scalpel is a carbon framed 29” XC race bike; a $7000, 21 lb full-suspension off-road weapon. It’s not as plush as the Stance, but it’s one of those bikes that works better the faster you ride it, and I don’t always want to ride that hard all the time.
So you're saying that the Zaskar was meant to be an overall fair balance between up and down hill?